Conspiracy theory fallacy.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
The conspiracy theory fallacy logical form:
A is true.
B is why the truth cant be known.
Therefore, A is true.
I am having some trouble conversing with a conspiracy theorist about this logical form. The conspiracy theorist claims the conspiracy theory is true, and that they have evidence that A is true, and therefore dispute premise 2 in the logical form. For example, the 911 terrorist attacks conspiracy theory that says the official story is a not true. They give a bunch of evidence of why the official story cant be true, and why the buildings had to have come down by demolition, not from fire and just the planes hitting the towers, especially building 7.
It seems most all conspiracy theories have their own evidence that the theorists provide. So, how can we convince them of the logical form?
Comments on Question
Answers
2Then they are not guilty of the conspiracy theory fallacy.
Remember that some conspiracy theories are true. They way they are demonstrated true is when sufficient evidence is presented. I just heard a perfect example of this fallacy yesterday on David Smalley's podcast with a Qanon follower. He claimed that vaccinated people are "shedding" the vaccine and causing women to have reproductive issues. He then claimed that no studies would ever show this because of some grand conspiracy, therefore it is true.
A is true.
B is why the truth cant be known.
Therefore, A is true.
This looks like contradictio in adjecto. If 'the truth cannot be known', how did we infer that A is true?
However, assuming that the second premise means that 'there is no evidence because it is being hidden', this is no longer a contradiction, but also still not a valid argument - we are arguing that we cannot present evidence because someone has destroyed/covered it up, effectively a conspiracy theory (note that this fallacy refers to falsifiable claims being defended on the grounds that evidence is being hidden, which then makes the claim unfalsifiable, not any claim of a conspiracy between groups to achieve a certain goal).
Following on from that last part and what Dr Bo wrote, conspiracies do happen, thus some (but certainly not most!) conspiracy theories do turn out to be true. What is important is the logical process involved. As Dr Bo mentioned, a) there are often much more reasonable explanations for an event, which are ignored by conspiracy theories, because of b) a host of cognitive biases pushing us towards conspiracy theorist-style thinking, even if this is irrational.
It seems most all conspiracy theories have their own evidence that the theorists provide. So, how can we convince them of the logical form?
Remember when we said 'A is true' in that syllogism? Well...how can we be sure? We've got to double-check that assumption. This is where evaluating sources and evidence comes to mind, to see whether the conspiracy theorists do in fact have a point, or whether they're just talking crap. At this point however, while we are still dealing with a conspiracy theory that could come with its own fallacies, it is no longer the namesake fallacy.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
This statement doesn't line up with the argument you described. The argument you described was someone asserting that the truth can't be known. But it's seems that the person is actually arguing that the truth is known and has even provided facts to prove their point. In what way did the arguer imply the truth can't be known?