> maybe the category "conspiracy theory" isn't so useful? Maybe not. The defining aspect of silly theories isn't just that they involve conspiracies. However

> maybe the category "conspiracy theory" isn't so useful? Maybe not. The defining aspect of silly theories isn't just that they involve conspiracies. However many silly theories do wind up involving conspiracies, because assuming the existence of a conspiracy is the easiest way to explain away any differences between your theory and observable reality. Think that President Obama comes from Mars? Well why is there a birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii? Easy: someone faked it. Why didn't the records office notice it was faked? They were in on it. Why hasn't one of the President's medical examinations shown up his Martian physiology? The doctor is also in on the conspiracy. Why didn't anyone notice his spaceship landing? They did, the government covered it up. And so forth. There's practically no fact you can't explain away by asserting a giant conspiracy between all the people who tell us this fact. Ridiculous conspiracy theories can usually be distinguished from vaguely sensible ones by looking at whether the asserted conspiracy would actually be a sensible way for the purported actors to achieve their goals. Ridiculous people claim that George W Bush plotted 9/11 as a way to achieve... something, but always some goal that could have been achieved in a much easier and less risky way. On the other hand, the idea that the CIA would build a giant ship to raise a Russian submarine while pretending it's for some other purpose? That's actually a sensible way for them to achieve an actual goal.