Do the terms “conspiracy theory/theorist” embody two fallacies: loaded question and strawman?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Loaded question:
The use of the term "theory" tends to imply that the event in question does not have overwhelming evidence showing the crime of conspiracy has been committed.
The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" implies that the person criticising a narrative believes a conspiracy has occurred when they may only be pointing out anomalies without thoughts beyond those anomalies.
Strawman fallacy
Particularly in the case of relevant experts who criticise a narrative from authorities, their first claim will never be that a conspiracy has occurred but that there is something wrong with what is being told. In some cases the critic may not think a conspiracy has necessarily occurred, in others they might but might make no allusion to it while yet in others they may call conspiracy loud and clear. Regardless, it is never their first claim, they are, in the first instance, simply putting forward a criticism that will often be prompted by their professional expertise. Rather than being a conspiracy theorist they are simply a critic of the narrative. In my own case where I see the reality of an event not matching what we are told that is my only real concern. I'm not really interested in the fact of conspiracy or who the conspirators are, my main concern is showing how we have been led to believe something that the evidence doesn't support and how that is done.
Comments on Question
Answers
2The use of the term "theory" tends to imply that the event in question does not have overwhelming evidence showing the crime of conspiracy has been committed.
The use of the term "conspiracy theorist" implies that the person criticising a narrative believes a conspiracy has occurred when they may only be pointing out anomalies without thoughts beyond those anomalies.
This would be a problem with a particular use of the term, but not the term itself (which your title might suggest).
Particularly in the case of relevant experts who criticise a narrative from authorities, their first claim will never be that a conspiracy has occurred but that there is something wrong with what is being told. In some cases the critic may not think a conspiracy has necessarily occurred, in others they might but might make no allusion to it while yet in others they may call conspiracy loud and clear.
This would again be a problem with a particular use of the phrase 'conspiracy theor(y/ist)'. If A states an observation they've made, and B argues, without evidence, that A is a 'conspiracy theorist', then this is a strawman fallacy.
With specific examples, I could update the certainty of my answer - but these are my tentative thoughts.
The Fallacy of the Argument from Intimidation appeals to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the victim’s fear, guilt, or ignorance. It is used as an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, personally attacking by threatening the victim of being considered morally unworthy. An ad hominem attack. In my experience, the pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”
It is also the Fallacy of Diversion, because it is a means of forestalling debate and bypassing logic by diverting the focus of the discussion and utilizing psychological pressure by threatening to impeach an opponent’s character through his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see X’s argument is false.” The intimidator arbitrarily asserts the falsehood. I think the best way to deal with it was illustrated by Patrick Henry, “If this be treason, make the most of it.”
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I've been working on what I believe may qualify as the first conspiracy reference for some time now -- https://conspiracysciencebook.com More precisely, it may be the first book that explores the nature of conspiracy/conspiracy theory and how they work.
It includes several chapters focusing on the origins and definitions of the terms conspiracy and conspiracy theory.
So what does conspiracy theory mean? That's all over the map.
I would start by defining it as a theory attributing a particular event, policy, etc. to a conspiracy. However, it is commonly applied to just about any quip regarding conspiracy, even if it doesn't really qualify as a hypotheses or theory.
In the meantime, an army of propagandists have fabricated a slew of derogatory and frequently bizarre definitions. One such definition describes a conspiracy theory as a theory that differs from the mainstream narrative (which is supposedly correct, of course). So what happens when two mainstream narratives disagree with each other (the U.S. governments's coronavirus narrative vs the Chinese government's coronavirus narrative, for example.
To cut to the chase, you wrote, "The use of the term 'theory' tends to imply that the event in question does not have overwhelming evidence showing the crime of conspiracy has been committed."
This is a good definition. It's interesting because it's often used by propagandists, but it can be used by "truthers," too.
An intriguing case is the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Armed with overwhelming logic and evidence supporting their case (ironically, the mountain of evidence hidden or destroyed by the government still counts as evidence), people who believe 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. a "false flag attack") are frequently derided as "conspiracy theorists." The irony is that the government's version of events is a conspiracy theory, too. The big difference is the identity of the conspirators; the government blames a mob of terrorists hiding in a cave in Afghanistan, while the truthers generally point a finger at powerful people in the U.S. and/or Israel.
You also wrote, "The use of the term 'conspiracy theorist' implies that the person criticising a narrative believes a conspiracy has occurred when they may only be pointing out anomalies without thoughts beyond those anomalies."
This is another good observation, that can be made by people on both sides of the fence.
The problem is that conspiracy/conspiracy theory have spawned so many definitions, it's hard to know where to draw the line. Your analysis is accurate in certain situations but not in others.
Under Strawman Fallacy you wrote, "Particularly in the case of relevant experts who criticise a narrative from authorities, their first claim will never be that a conspiracy has occurred but that there is something wrong with what is being told," adding "It is never their first claim."
What is a "relevant expert"? In any case, I think "never" is too strong a word. I suspect conspiracies swirling all around us because there are conspiracies swirling all around us. As I put it, "conspiracy is the handmaiden of corruption."
Every time a hospital or school is blown up in the Middle East, I suspect a conspiracy made in Israel or the USA. I see conspiracy in just about every article in every issue of every major newspaper published in the U.S. because I know how insanely conspiratorial the media are. In the rare case of an honest journalist who actually pens the truth, we'll never know about it, because the article will be fixed by a corrupt editor or nixed by a more powerful official. Alternatively, it might get published, though it is later scrubbed from the internet.
If there is "something wrong with what is being told," that is likely a conspiracy itself, especially if the source has proved itself untrustworthy a million times (e.g. the government, media, etc.).
Incidentally, I coined a new word as a rough synonym of "conspiracy theory" - conspiratalk.
It includes everything from gossip and innuendo to full-fledged hypotheses or theories.