Conspiracy Theory Reconsidered

Abstract

This article criticizes recent proposals for covert government operations against conspiracy-theory groups and networks. The article argues that fear of secret plots by political insiders is intrinsic to America's civic culture, legal traditions, and political institutions. The appropriate government response to conspiracy theories is not to try to silence mass suspicions but instead to establish procedures for ensuring that suspicious events are thoroughly and credibly investigated. As it stands, investigations of assassinations, defense failures, election breakdowns, and other political events with grave implications for America and the world fail to meet basic standards for transparency, independence, and objectivity.

Some Dare Call It Conspiracy: Labeling Something a Conspiracy Theory Does Not Reduce Belief in It

“…The effect failed to show itself even among those who paid close attention to the stimulus materials, and there was no evidence that an overall negative view of conspiracy theories rendered the label any more effective in discouraging belief. Taken together, contrary to deHaven‐Smith () and Husting and Orr (), Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that the conspiracy‐theory label possesses far less rhetorical power than previously assumed.…”

“…Since the mid‐1990s, a growing psychological research tradition has generated a great deal of knowledge about the antecedents and consequences of beliefs in conspiracy theories. The term “conspiracy theory” itself, however, has received little explicit attention in the psychological literature, despite considerable interest from philosophers and political scientists in its precise meaning and implications (Bratich, ; Coady, ; deHaven‐Smith, ; Husting & Orr, ). Calling something a conspiracy theory (or someone a conspiracy theorist) is seen as an act of rhetorical violence, a way of dismissing reasonable suspicion as irrational paranoia.…”

“…Calling something a conspiracy theory (or someone a conspiracy theorist) is seen as an act of rhetorical violence, a way of dismissing reasonable suspicion as irrational paranoia. For deHaven‐Smith (), the conspiracy‐theory label comes with such negative baggage that applying it has “the effect of dismissing conspiratorial suspicions out of hand with no discussion whatsoever” (p. 84). Husting and Orr () likewise argued that applying the label “discredits specific explanations for social and historical events, regardless of the quality or quantity of evidence” (p. 131).…”

“…This bias seems to be a plausible mechanism for the purported negative effects of the conspiracy‐theory label. By most accounts, for the majority of people, the center of the conspiracy‐theory category—the prototypical conspiracy theory—is seen as unfounded, paranoid, and silly (Bratich, ; deHaven‐Smith, ; Husting & Orr, ). As such, perceptions of things categorized as conspiracy theories ought to drift toward that category prototype.…”

Peer Review in Controversial Topics—A Case Study of 9/11

“…Instead of scientists analyzing 9/11 using the available observations and physical evidence, the university sponsors a Leverhulme-funded project, Conspiracy and Democracy, that examines 9/11 as one of many "conspiracy theories" [41]. "Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term coined and promoted by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) since the 1960s to denigrate the views of anyone who questions the official accounts of Deep State events such as the John F. Kennedy assassination [42].…”