Primer Home /
Conspiracy / Conspiring a theory
Conspiring a theory
Topic: Conspiracy
by Seb, Olivia, Glenn, Millie, 2022 Cohort
Conspiracy theories are unproven explanations of social, historical, cultural, and political events (Dentith 2016) often formed under uncertainty or ignorance. Conspiracy theories are often, but not always false or harmful. Alex Jones labelling the Sandy Hook school shooting as a ‘false flag’ event was false, and greatly harmful. Conversely, the myth of Santa Claus is true but not harmful. Taking an agnostic approach to the definition allows us to empathise with conspiracy theorists and the circumstances under which they form (Basham 2001).
In understanding our world, we need to come to terms with decision-making under risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. For decisions made under risk, there is a discrete set of possible outcomes that can be assigned a probability and a utility consequence (Vermeule 2014). In contrast, under uncertainty, probabilities cannot be accurately assigned to each outcome and under ignorance not even the range of possible outcomes is known (Vermeule 2014).
Myth narratives and old wives’ tales have been part of localised folklore for generations, with theories used to explain unknown occurrences, such as harvest cycles, that now have concrete scientific explanations. In today’s context, conspiracy theories, much like myths, are present in all cultures and form when individuals begin to question the “validity of knowledge” (Klein et al. 2018). Growing doubt and confusion introduces suggestions that news media of catastrophic events (9/11) or political influence (JFK) are lies to cover up a greater scandal.
But who believes conspiracy theories? Humans have a tendency to question the truth. However, in the age of social media, when disbelief turns to ignorance individuals can reach out to anonymous online forums to voice their fears. Fallacies become validated by a majority, often feeling like a support network in times of uncertainty such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this setting, “intuitive rather than analytical thinking” leads to theories being developed to provide a more satisfying answer than the one presented by governments (Prooijen and Douglas 2018). In effect, when we are making decisions under uncertainty and ignorance we do so with reference to our ideologies, prejudices, and biases (Elster 2011). These implicit biases help us connect the dots to construct our own narrative in response to these events.
In contrast, non-conspiracy theorists may seek to skip this exercise by pointing to the simplest solution; a technique known as Occam’s Razor. Although the adage ‘the simplest solution is often the best solution’ is widely held, it rests on an imperfect inductive rationale. The simplest solution has been correct before, so why shouldn’t it be now?
This approach to complexity disregards uncertainty and ignorance. In doing so, it allows us to assert our explanation, correct or not, with an improperly high degree of confidence. As Ball (2016) notes, “[t]here’s no easy equation between simplicity and truth.” Falsely placed confidence amongst a critical mass of the populace acts to self-validate the theory. This fallacy provides a comforting solution in the face of uncertainty.
To properly assess conspiracy theories, we must not be dismissive, but critical.
Further reading from our guest lecturer Colin Klein:#
Alfano, Mark ; Fard, Amir Ebrahimi ; Carter, J. Adam ; Clutton, Peter & Klein, Colin (2021). Technologically scaffolded atypical cognition: the case of YouTube’s recommender system. Synthese 199 (1):835-858. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/ALFTSA-3
Klein, C, Clutton, P & Dunn, A 2019, ‘Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum’, PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science), vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1-23. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225098
Explore this topic further#
Return to
Conspiracy in the Primer
Disclaimer#
This content has been contributed by a student as part of a learning activity.
If there are inaccuracies, or opportunities for significant improvement on this topic, feedback is welcome on how to improve the resource.
You can improve articles on this topic as a student in "Unravelling Complexity", or by including the amendments in an email to: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au
Conspiracy theories are unproven explanations of social, historical, cultural, and political events (Dentith 2016) often formed under uncertainty or ignorance. Conspiracy theories are often, but not always false or harmful. Alex Jones labelling the Sandy Hook school shooting as a ‘false flag’ event was false, and greatly harmful. Conversely, the myth of Santa Claus is true but not harmful. Taking an agnostic approach to the definition allows us to empathise with conspiracy theorists and the circumstances under which they form (Basham 2001).
In understanding our world, we need to come to terms with decision-making under risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. For decisions made under risk, there is a discrete set of possible outcomes that can be assigned a probability and a utility consequence (Vermeule 2014). In contrast, under uncertainty, probabilities cannot be accurately assigned to each outcome and under ignorance not even the range of possible outcomes is known (Vermeule 2014).
Myth narratives and old wives’ tales have been part of localised folklore for generations, with theories used to explain unknown occurrences, such as harvest cycles, that now have concrete scientific explanations. In today’s context, conspiracy theories, much like myths, are present in all cultures and form when individuals begin to question the “validity of knowledge” (Klein et al. 2018). Growing doubt and confusion introduces suggestions that news media of catastrophic events (9/11) or political influence (JFK) are lies to cover up a greater scandal.
But who believes conspiracy theories? Humans have a tendency to question the truth. However, in the age of social media, when disbelief turns to ignorance individuals can reach out to anonymous online forums to voice their fears. Fallacies become validated by a majority, often feeling like a support network in times of uncertainty such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this setting, “intuitive rather than analytical thinking” leads to theories being developed to provide a more satisfying answer than the one presented by governments (Prooijen and Douglas 2018). In effect, when we are making decisions under uncertainty and ignorance we do so with reference to our ideologies, prejudices, and biases (Elster 2011). These implicit biases help us connect the dots to construct our own narrative in response to these events.
In contrast, non-conspiracy theorists may seek to skip this exercise by pointing to the simplest solution; a technique known as Occam’s Razor. Although the adage ‘the simplest solution is often the best solution’ is widely held, it rests on an imperfect inductive rationale. The simplest solution has been correct before, so why shouldn’t it be now?
This approach to complexity disregards uncertainty and ignorance. In doing so, it allows us to assert our explanation, correct or not, with an improperly high degree of confidence. As Ball (2016) notes, “[t]here’s no easy equation between simplicity and truth.” Falsely placed confidence amongst a critical mass of the populace acts to self-validate the theory. This fallacy provides a comforting solution in the face of uncertainty.
To properly assess conspiracy theories, we must not be dismissive, but critical.
Further reading from our guest lecturer Colin Klein:#
Alfano, Mark ; Fard, Amir Ebrahimi ; Carter, J. Adam ; Clutton, Peter & Klein, Colin (2021). Technologically scaffolded atypical cognition: the case of YouTube’s recommender system. Synthese 199 (1):835-858. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/ALFTSA-3
Klein, C, Clutton, P & Dunn, A 2019, ‘Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum’, PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science), vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1-23. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225098