3 ms·

If you can present evidence you can prove or falsify it, right? So it's falsifiable. Otherwise you couldn't ever present any evidence. Whether someone is will

If you can present evidence you can prove or falsify it, right? So it's falsifiable. Otherwise you couldn't ever present any evidence. Whether someone is willing to believe in some evidence shown doesn't change anything about the fallibility property.

the_af 5y ago
But a conspiracy theory is a social construct not subject to rational thought. The notion of falsifiability only makes sense in the context of a conversation between actors willing to accept this. The context of conspiracy theories is different. It's emotional. Goalposts get shifted, evidence is made up, no rational discourse possible. So they cannot be falsified.
- still_grokking 5y ago
  You're repeating what you've said already. Seemingly without even noticing what I've said. Where are you heading? I try one more time: Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". You're repeating the made up framing. Please look up the definition in Wikipedia. Any language version besides the English one supports what I've written a few comments above, and disagrees with what you're saying.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". Ah, a prescriptivist, I see. Regardless of what you think is the "correct" meaning of conspiracy theory, it's in widespread use with a different meaning, what you call a "cliche". Whether you accept this or not doesn't make this usage less real; it just might make your conversations with other people harder. PS: I speak Spanish and regardless of what Wikipedia says, the common usage of "teoría conspirativa" is the same as what you describe as a cliché.
    - still_grokking 5y ago
      How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? (I've checked eight language versions besides the English one. Please note also the historic background of this term which is in sync with the common definition). What you describe as "common" is a framing. Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché.
      - the_af 5y ago
        > How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. > That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché. I understand that's the gist of your argument. I'm just saying it's also a convenient defense deployed by people who engage in conspiracy theories, a sister defense of the old "you're narrow minded!". If something is a conspiracy theory, it's not a TTC to call it one.
        still_grokking 5y ago
        > It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. That's a fair point. Actually that's a good question! I've suggested an explanation already. >> Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. It's also notable that the German version of the Wikipedia proposes two distinct terms to resolve the ambiguity in the usage of the more and more blurred term "conspiracy theory": "conspiracy hypotheses" and "conspiracy myths". But I wouldn't call those terms common in any sense… (Indeed, as a native speaker I've never heard of those).
ryandrake 5y ago
Often conspiracy theorists will take evidence against their conspiracy and twist them into evidence for it. “Of course, that’s what the Apollo astronauts would want you to believe!” The evidence against is actually evidence of an even bigger conspiracy!

the_af 5y ago

But a conspiracy theory is a social construct not subject to rational thought. The notion of falsifiability only makes sense in the context of a conversation between actors willing to accept this. The context of conspiracy theories is different. It's emotional. Goalposts get shifted, evidence is made up, no rational discourse possible. So they cannot be falsified.

still_grokking 5y ago
You're repeating what you've said already. Seemingly without even noticing what I've said. Where are you heading? I try one more time: Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". You're repeating the made up framing. Please look up the definition in Wikipedia. Any language version besides the English one supports what I've written a few comments above, and disagrees with what you're saying.
- the_af 5y ago
  > Your definition of conspiracy theory is simply wrong. You're not talking about conspiracy theories, you're talking about the cliché of a "conspiracy theory". Ah, a prescriptivist, I see. Regardless of what you think is the "correct" meaning of conspiracy theory, it's in widespread use with a different meaning, what you call a "cliche". Whether you accept this or not doesn't make this usage less real; it just might make your conversations with other people harder. PS: I speak Spanish and regardless of what Wikipedia says, the common usage of "teoría conspirativa" is the same as what you describe as a cliché.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? (I've checked eight language versions besides the English one. Please note also the historic background of this term which is in sync with the common definition). What you describe as "common" is a framing. Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché.
    - the_af 5y ago
      > How can this interpretation be the common one when a common knowledge collection like Wikipedia says otherwise? It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. > That's exactly the topic we're talking about here: "Conspiracy theory" is made into a thought-terminating cliché. I understand that's the gist of your argument. I'm just saying it's also a convenient defense deployed by people who engage in conspiracy theories, a sister defense of the old "you're narrow minded!". If something is a conspiracy theory, it's not a TTC to call it one.
      - still_grokking 5y ago
        > It's not my burden to explain how. I'm not even sure why or how: it just is a widespread usage. I'm telling you it's also the widespread usage in my native language, and your answer seems to be "but Wikipedia!" -- go figure. That's a fair point. Actually that's a good question! I've suggested an explanation already. >> Someone tries to blur the distinction between "some random BS" (like alien abductions, flat earth, whatever) and proper theories that suspect some conspiracy. The goal is likely to push any conspiracy theories into the space of random BS so that they can be dismissed easily without further discussion. It's also notable that the German version of the Wikipedia proposes two distinct terms to resolve the ambiguity in the usage of the more and more blurred term "conspiracy theory": "conspiracy hypotheses" and "conspiracy myths". But I wouldn't call those terms common in any sense… (Indeed, as a native speaker I've never heard of those).

ryandrake 5y ago

Often conspiracy theorists will take evidence against their conspiracy and twist them into evidence for it. “Of course, that’s what the Apollo astronauts would want you to believe!” The evidence against is actually evidence of an even bigger conspiracy!