The Appeal To Conspiracy Fallacy
Normies need to stop doing this
When discussing topics of corruption and collusion, members of the public - often unwilling to review the evidence or ask - will often handwave, shrug their shoulders, and make an appeal to conspiracy fallacy:
‘Sounds conspiratorial’, ‘sounds like a conspiracy theory’, ‘looks like a conspiracy’
This isn’t a valid rebuttal, though. That’s a descriptor, not a retort. What you personally think it sounds, looks, or seems like, is an excuse based on your own subjective views, a rationale in an attempt to dismiss the evidence with flimsy, shallow emotional appeal.
It’s a view detached from reality, as well. Conspiracies are historical. They’re not rare, or outdated either, they’re so common there are laws against conspiracy. There are price fixing conspiracies, price kickback conspiracies involving government officials, all sorts. If you search online you’ll see reams of conspiracies. They’re all fake, right?
If you think calling something a ‘conspiracy’ means you can dismiss it as false, you are, quite frankly, an idiot. One who thinks calling a specific piece of evidence a word makes it magically vanish into thin air. It is the same trick cults use to prevent their brainwashed followers from leaving the herd when people try to warn them.
‘That’s just a conspiracy, ignore that’. ‘Of course they would say this is an evil cult conspiracy, they’re crazy’
And, let us be honest here, you’re not really trying to say it’s a conspiracy, are you?
What you really mean - and you should be honest - is that you think ‘that’s the writing of an unhinged, paranoid little man’. A terrible reputation! Who could be associated (judgmentally) with someone like that?
My tinfoil hat, etheric crystal matrix, water car and corkboard with the cliche red string and newspaper clippings (even though newspaper is a dead medium) would be far too uncool for original thinking, unique, distinct, trendy, cool people who agree with the mainstream. The ultimate rebuttal, pierced by such scathing words! Too uncool and paranoid to be accepted into your group therapy session!
But you’re too afraid to be honest, so you hide behind the cover of calling it a ‘conspiracy’. What you really mean to say is you’re too embarrassed to accept the truth because the rest of the crowd haven’t adopted it yet, so it looks like ‘outsider’ rhetoric. Smells like Asch conformity. Milgram wouldn’t be much impressed either.
Even that comment of ‘unhinged’ or ‘paranoid’, however, isn’t a rebuttal either - even if we were to humour your delusions and assume it was true. And we know it’s not, because you’re not a qualified psychiatrist, and no professional psychiatrist would ever try to diagnose someone via text online alone. So, back into your judgemental cage you go.
It is what’s known as an “ad hominem” (to [the] man; literally, attack on the author). So what of the author? What matters: does it have any evidence?
Notice you didn’t discuss whether or not the evidence existed, you only tried to categorise it as a ‘conspiracy’. A weird label. No attempt at understanding or trying to solve the problem. No scientific peer-review process would use the term during evaluation.
Scientists, when presented with claims that they’re of the view they have insufficient evidence in peer-review, don’t go ‘oh that’s conspiracy’ and end the peer-review process (although some crooked outlets might, emphasis on the word crooked), they send a request to the author asking for more data or evidence to substantiate the claims being made, or to withdraw the claims in question.
Calling something ‘conspiracy’ is a lazy way out of doing that. It’s a lazy excuse to not think or ask questions. It’s a way of handwaving away uncomfortable, awkward content showing evidence of corruption and conclusion.
There’s no objective measure for what constitutes a conspiracy. Is it more than one person? Then I guess we must handwave away all crimes involving two or more people, it is a conspiracy after all, problem solved, right? Watergate didn’t happen, NSA mass surveillence was only run by one person.
‘But but but those conspiracies are real’ - Yeah? Why though? Due to evidence? Popularity in adoption? Reporting in mainstream media outlets? Wasn’t it anything ‘conspiratorial’ is bad? Now the goalposts have moved and exceptions for specific conspiracies are now allowed? What an odd, twisted mindset to have.
If you mean evidence, then say evidence. If you mean popularity in adoption, then say popularity in adoption. If you mean reporting in mainstream media outlets (and I guarentee you the points I’ve raised on the Substack so far have been), then say reporting in mainstream media outlets.
Alas, the application of conspiracy is it’s simply your own subjective application. Better to bury your head in the sand labeling everything you don’t like or don’t feel comfortable with as conspiracy rather than confronting it to see if it is true or not.
The real conspiracy is why you keep using that word as a retort in debates.
Who told you to do that?
If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Unless of course you think it’s all a conspiracy theory, then don’t click the conspiracy theory subscribe button which doesn’t exist.