How Many Zeros Must be Added up to Make Zero?
One big problem with conspiracy theories is what I'd call the plausibility trap. Which is mistaking a plausible explanation with evidence. Hollywood had the special effects capability of faking a moon landing. The conspiracy-minded jump to, "Makes you wonder." Capable and culpable are not the same thing. I am capable of climbing onto the roof and howling at the moon while you slept. It's plausible, yet no reason to suspect I did.
For the conspiracy-minded, plausible seems to be enough. "Can you prove it didn't happen?" they might ask. What do they propose is proof of a non-event? What evidence, what artifact, what paper trail, what eye-witness is there from something which did not happen? How do you interview participants in a non-event that had no participants? If there was no conspiracy there can only be absence of evidence. How do you produce the absence of evidence? How much absence of evidence does there need to be? How many zeros must be added up to make zero?
Say you find a dead man at the bottom of a cliff. For this there are many plausible explanations: he fell accidentally; he was pushed; he jumped; he was dead already and dumped; he walked up to that spot, had a heart attack and died.
All are plausible, but without evidence none are established. Even the explanation most likely is not evidence. Say 50% of dead men found at the base of a cliff were by accidental falls. That statistical probability is not evidence this was the case in a particular instance. It certainly isn't evidence in the 50% of non-accidental fall cases.
The plausibility trap isn't just for conspiracy theorists, it extends everywhere. Such as when people start in on hidden agendas and secret motives. This is speculation about what other people are thinking, which is unknowable and unprovable. From this they construct a plausible explanation for what is really going on behind the curtain. Plausible, yes. Evidence, not a bit.
Besides, motives don't prove anything. Maybe our dead man had a dozen enemies all with motives to push him off the cliff. Doesn't mean they did, or that he was even pushed off the cliff at all. So even though aspects on which the plausible scenario depends are true, that isn't necessarily evidence the scenario is true. A plausibile explanation isn't established or supported by its plausibility. That's circular logic.
For those unfamiliar with circular logic, it's like, "It's better because it's bigger." Why is it better? "Because bigger is better." Why is it better? "Because it's bigger." Why is it better? "Because bigger is better." Why is it... never mind.
The funny thing about the usual conspiracy theories is there often is a conspiracy involved. Not the conspiracy the conspiracy theory purports to reveal, but in the creation and spreading of the theory itself. Conspiracy theories are conspiracies to get us to believe the conspiracy theory.
copyright Terry Colon, 2008