On Conspiracy Theories

Or "alternative models"

“Conspiracy theory” is a funny word. To conspire means to plan to do something with another person. Most plans, therefore, involve some sort of conspiracy. A theory is a working model, so on the surface, the actual meaning of the words doesn’t suggest anything nefarious.

With lots of language, its meaning can get obfuscated through use, and especially the repetition technique, the most proven propaganda method. Things labeled “Conspiracy theories” or people labeled as “Conspiracy theorists” are now automatically assumed to be something off-kilter, or even insane. The “Flat Earth” is a conspiracy theory and is insane, therefore all other conspiracy theories are insane. A certain injection causing major side effects is a “conspiracy theory” – so there is no real reason to take it seriously, just like the flat earth. Categorical grouping (even when not valid) is a potent rhetorical technique, by the way. That’s why the left calls everyone they don’t like nazis. It gets their side to quickly identify intended enemies. There is no need for categorical rigor and in fact that would be against the point.

But what I find interesting about conspiracy theories is the theory part: the working models that explain certain events or phenomena in an alternative way with varying degrees of effectiveness. I have a straightforward way of classifying most theories:

Likely: the theory explains the subject as good as or better than the standard model. Arguments for the model are firmly in the dialectic area, and the model at least attempts to utilize data. There is a reason for the “conspiracy” or cover-up that explains why the alternative model is suppressed or unofficial.

Plausible: the theory works but not as well as the standard model. It may have additional complexity that is unnecessary or absent compared to a more efficient standard model. Arguments for it may include psuedo-dialectic or rhetorical techniques. Justification may lean heavily on inductive reasoning or the fallacious connection between the possible and the likely. Reasons for the suppression of the alternative theory may be uncertain or far-fetched.

Unlikely: the theory requires such additional complexity compared to a standard model that it is incomprehensible, or has so many dependent assumptions that it can never be proven. The model doesn’t provide any predictive qualities, or only explains part of the perceived phenomenon. The reason for the cover-up may be extremely esoteric or nonsensical.

As an example, I can use the cover-up of the JFK assassination. I would rate it somewhere between plausible and likely. You have a model which explains the events better than the standard narrative (example: the “magic bullet” which ricochets in very complex ways to cause the observed injuries on John F. Kennedy), and you have a good reason for the cover-up in the form of the CIA’s hostilities to JFK. I should note that both the standard and alternative models are dealing with explanations of large amounts of uncertainty; we are clearly in the inductive, not deductive, realm.

Before I attempt to list my favorite alternate theories (based on how entertaining or interesting they are), I would like to point out a few techniques that tend to get used by “theorists" to convince audiences of their alternate models.

There is a tendency to (deliberately or not) obfuscate the areas of deduction, induction, and possibility. A standard model is declared false because its conclusions are reached inductively rather than deductively. The alternate model is often presented as a series of possibilities, which are then, as the video or essay goes on, are treated as inductive likelihood, which are then used to reach the desired conclusion or to present the alternate model as just as valid as the standard model.

You’ll also see theorists posing all of their supporting positions or evidence as questions, rather than statements of fact or likelihood. During pushback, the theorist falls back to the motte and proclaims that he is “just asking questions,” even though the questions are clearly meant to be taken as statements (usually in the inductive realm).

Example: Is this crater on the moon really a reflection of Earth? Is the South Pole really a wall of ice separating us from other parts of a vast earth?

The speaker means for you to think that it is or consider it a possibility. The existence of the possibility is then used as one piece of evidence to support the induction that the earth is in fact, flat, and the moon is a reflective surface showing a much larger earth. There is also in this the trick of “many possibilities” adding up to likelihood – but this is illogical. The fact that you could have possibly eaten many different vegetable dishes today does not mean you are likely a vegan.

These rhetorical techniques work because the people searching for alternate theories are looking to resolve a dissonance of some kind. They are looking for explanations for things where the standard narrative seems insufficient or leads to undesirable conclusions. Thus, presenting mentally desirable possibilities starts the process of merging the possible into the likely and finally arriving at the true.

As a science fiction author, I find all these techniques, as well as the theories themselves, to be fascinating because they are in the speculative realm. They let us ponder the “what if” and consider the consequences, with the most ponderous question of them all being, “Could I have been fooled?”

There is also often a “plot” afoot with various characters in a conspiracy theory. They tell stories, and how those stories can be interesting, compelling or even convincing is of special interest to me.

Returning to JFK, there is not only an alternative model, but characters (like LBJ) with presumed motivations conspiring to commit murder. Those characters exist in a time and place where there are certain possibilities and not others – a setting that includes two secretive agencies with potential involvement: the CIA and the KGB. If you pay attention to Moon Hoaxers, the idea that Stanley Kubrick, of all people, created the landing footage – a powerful who.

Politics features heavily in alternative models because the who is usually somebody rich and powerful and, more importantly, evil. This is not a new thing, either. There remain various theories about the death of Augustus of all people, and whether his fourth wife Livia had him poisoned so that her son Tiberius could take the princeps after she had arranged for the death and exile of his other descendants like the popular Germanicus. Then there are theories that Tiberius was, in turn, murdered by the mad emperor Caligula. Power is fertile soil for conspiracies!

One thing I have considered working with is the meta of the conspiracy theory as a cultural item in a story where the flat earth conspiracy is a government conspiracy designed to identify and isolate people who entertain alternate theories, implying that some of them are true.

So, what are some of your favorite alternate models (aka “conspiracy theories”)? The list I made off the top of my head was very long indeed.

I am an independent artist and musician. You can get my books by joining my Patreon or Ko-Fi, and you can listen to my current music on YouTube or buy my albums at BandCamp.