deptstoremook posted:

I've always felt like conspiracy theorists are almost there. I like to study critical theory and social theory, which often rest on similar bases, i.e., that there are systems in our society that enforce control and hierarchy and rest outside of the realm of one-on-one personal relationships: think of Foucault's theory of discourse, where ideologies and authoritarian functions are happening on an individual and state level at the same time.

You can't really "prove" a social theory through empirical evidence, but it's not that kind of argument. For instance, you can never "prove" the patriarchy exists, and people too often fall into that trap and say "do you think there's a CONSPIRACY of men planning how to oppress women?" Of course not. Instead, you take something like feminism, discourse theory, or Marxism and apply it to a set of events to see how far it takes you.

In short, social theories are like scientific theories in that they both aim to interpret problematic evidence in order to describe some underlying law or principle in a culture or nature.

A conspiracy "theory" works in much the same way, at first. You assemble evidence that causes problems with an understanding of an event (how far away Lee Harvey Oswald was, the tensile strength of the beams in the WTC), and then you start theorizing what new explanation might solve these problems. The issue with conspiracy theories is they introduce arbitrary explanations that are either factually invalid ("explosives were planted in the WTC") or entirely unprovable ("lizard people").

Other theorists, when presented with problems in their theory, aim to re-work the theory or assimilate the evidence into the theory (scientists reading this thread, let me know if I'm off track). Someone might say that the working poor enjoy increased standard of living under capitalism, but a Marxist might say that's just an exercise in hegemony, the rich giving the poor just enough so they don't agitate--Marxism can explain this problem. Something like relativity, I assume, has addressed many evidential challenges over the years.

Conspiracy theorists don't do this. When presented with opposing evidence they simply ignore it, or accuse the other person of being blind or bought. There's no effort to integrate conflicting viewpoints or evidence into the conspiracy theory. That's why the JFK discussion is probably not totally a "conspiracy theory;" over the years, there has been a lot of forthright discussion about the events of that day, and differing interpretations.

A conspiracy theory rests on the emotional appeal of its argument, while social and scientific theories rest on their strength in understanding a wide variety of physical or social events.