The trouble with defining conspiracy theories 🧵:

Lets start with the classic definition of conspiracy theories (CTs). That is, the unsubstantiated accusatory belief that a group of powerful individuals are working in secret - for their own benefit - against the common good. 1/6

I have some objections to the classical definition: 1) Must the claims of CTs be unsubstantiated? CTs may often seem like the most plausible explanation given the evidence. Some conspiracy theories even turn out to be true (i.e., Watergate) 2/6

2) Must conspiracies work against the common good? Consider the real conspiracy that many parents around the world are deceiving their children into thinking Santa exists. Whatever your thoughts on lying to your children, it seems possible that this conspiracy is 3/6

for the common good.

3) must conspirators have power? I’m honestly not sure about this one. It seems to neglect all the conspiracies targeting cultural minorities. These are referred to as “downward CTs” which suggest that those at the bottom are conspiring against 4/6

the elites in *pursuit of power*. This argument suggests that conspirators need not be powerful. But if they were truly impotent, then a conspiracy between them would be, by definition, innocuous. Therefore, it seems that conspirators must have *some power* to qualify for 5/6

being the target of a CT, but they need not be the most powerful individuals within a society (although most CTs target politicians or elites in some way). Anyway, I could go on but I have not found a definition of CTs that encompasses CTs in all their forms. 6/6