What is the difference between a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy thinking? Generally speaking, a conspiracy is when two or more agents act together in secret for some malevolent or evil goal. In contrast, when I say “conspiracy theory” I am referring to the explanation of some event as the result of a conspiracy, but the conspiracy is either unevidenced, contradicted by available evidence, or goes beyond the bounds the available evidence. Conspiracy thinking then is the act of using or relying on conspiracies and conspiracy theories as the primary way of framing events. We all probably know of a “weird uncle” or “that guy” who routinely explains events as conspiracies, that person is using conspiracy thinking.
So are all conspiracy theories inherently wrong then? No. While many conspiracy theories are contradicted by evidence, some rely on as yet unfound evidence. Since lack of evidence is not evidence of a thing not existing, we must remain open to new evidence that may support the conspiracy explanation.
That is not to say that we must entertain conspiracy theories though. Technically possible is not the same as probable or practically possible. In fact, a hallmark of conspiracy theories is that anything contradicting the conspiracy theory is evidence of the conspiracy being covered up. Likewise, we need not concern ourselves with all the possible, speculative causes of events. For example, we cannot consider aliens as a potential explanation of an event until we have evidence of aliens existing.
This all leaves us with a handful of avenues for moving forward then. To help people be less wrong when it comes to conspiracy thinking and conspiracy theories, we can engage the theory, the thinking, or something else.
To engage someone’s conspiracy theory, we can first look at what they actually believe. Who do they think is running the event(s) in secret? What is the supposed goal of the conspirators? What evidence do they have that reveals the conspiracy? We can then challenge and encourage the believer to consider alternative explanations and if the conspiracy explanation fits all the available evidence or not. This is the typical mode I have seen people engage with conspiracy beliefs online. While it may work for some people, this tactic fails to address the psychology of people with conspiracy beliefs. It presumes that simple ignorance or unawareness of facts is all that we must overcome to move people away from conspiracy theories and towards being less wrong.
By engaging with the conspiracy thinking, the psychology of the person with the conspiracy beliefs, we can help them address the beliefs themselves. Instead of providing them with the factual and logical “fish” for a day, we are teaching them how to “fish” for evidence and logical thinking. This empowers people to learn more about the world and themselves. It offers the advantage of also changing our role from “debunker” to “educator”. Instead of focusing on the flaws of individual conspiracy theories, we can address the underlying, common elements of many beliefs and belief systems.
And of course, there are other ways and methods to addressing conspiracy theory beliefs. We have only considered two of them here, but there are probably just as many ways to address conspiracy beliefs as there are people holding the beliefs. By focusing on the person first, and addressing their needs and desires, we can help them develop more logical, sound ways of viewing reality without making them reliant on others for their thinking and beliefs. In short, we can be liberating and help people learn how to make themselves less wrong all on their own.
References:
Harris, K. (2018). What’s epistemically wrong with conspiracy thinking? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 84, 235-257. doi:10.1017/S1358246118000619
Zonis, M., & Joseph, C. (1994). Conspiracy thinking in the Middle East. Political Psychology 15(3), 443-459. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791566