2. Definitions
• A conspiracy is a plan by a group of people
intended to be implemented in secret.
(sometimes ‘for a nefarious or unwelcome
purpose’ is included in the definition.)
• A conspiracy theory is an explanation of some
event that (1) appeals to a conspiracy, and (2)
is counter to an ‘official’ explanation.
3. A Note on the Definitions
I think most major conspiracy theories posit a
nefarious purpose, but some do not. If you think
that the moon landing was faked then you probably
think it was done just to gain advantage in winning
the cold war. Also, if you think that the U.S.
government is hiding evidence of intelligent aliens
then you probably think that it is to protect the
public from panic. Neither of those aims is very
sinister, but both views would count as conspiracy
theories; so, I’ll leave the sinister purpose out of the
definition.
4. Example
Since he’s explaining an event by appeal to a group of
people intending to act in secret (with nefarious purpose)
Castro’s explanation of the explosion fits the definition of
a conspiracy theory. Though the CIA documents relevant
to the Le Coubre explosion are not public, other
documents do confirm Castro’s early suspicions that the
U.S. government plotted to overthrow him.
After taking power in Cuba by armed revolution in 1959, Fidel
Castro soon became convinced that the United States
intended to weaken his government and remove him from
power. La Coubre, a ship carrying arms his regime had
purchased from Belgium, mysteriously exploded while
unloading in Havana Harbor. Castro publicly accused the
United States of causing the blast.
(http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1960/19600501.h
tml The link takes you to the text of the 1960 speech. Search
the speech for ‘United States’)
The cause of the blast remains uncertain. The ‘official’
account U.S. is that the explosion was caused by accidental
mishandling of explosives on board the boat.
5. The CIA, the Mafia and Castro
According to a 1971 Washington Post story and recently declassified
CIA documents (search for “Family Jewels” on CIA.gov), the CIA
arranged with known mobster Johnny Rosselli for the assassination
of Castro. The mafia, miffed with Castro for expelling their casinos
from Havana, were happy to help. They tried unsuccessfully for
several years to get CIA-provided poison pills into Castro’s food.
6. Correct ≠
Justified
Just because Castro’s suspicion (or any
prediction) turns out to be correct doesn’t
mean that it was justified to believe.
Examples:
(1) Consistently wrong: Supposedly, psychic
Tana Hoy predicted a terrorist bombing of
a federal building ninety minutes before
Tim mcVeigh bombed the federal building
in Oklahoma city. A simple search of Tana
Hoy’s past predictions shows that the ones
that aren’t too vague or obvious are
almost all wrong. The correct calls are
memorable, but obviously they don’t
recommend seeking out TH’s services.
(2) Consistently right: Even when a person has
made consistently correct claims there is
no greater chance that the next claim will
be correct. Read (only) the introduction to
this paper:
http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articl
es/2009/10/Palmiter-Taha-Star-Creation-
62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1485-2009.pdf
7. Two requirements for a Justified
Conspiracy Theory
(1) It should have low reliance on eyewitness
testimonial evidence.
(2) It should pass common tests for good explanations.
8. Eyewitness Testimony
• Mistakes are easy. Eyewitness misidentifications are a
leading cause of wrongful conviction.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitn
ess-Misidentification.php (8 min.)
• Contamination is easy. Read the Wikipedia page for
Loftus’s “Lost in the mall technique” or watch this (4
min.) video to get the idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTF7FUAoGWw
• Confidence is misleading. In many studies of lineup
cases, confidence in a pick is not strongly correlated
with accuracy of pick. For just one example, read the
abstract (intro paragraph) of this paper:
http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/file
s/Smith_Kassin_Ellsworth_1989.pdf
9. Explanations
• Overview: An explanation (or hypothesis) is usually offered to explain an
event (or observation). The first two characteristics below are necessary
for good explanations. The third seems like it should be, but isn’t.
• Simplicity: An explanation with fewer assumptions is more likely to be
correct than one with more (all other things being equal). For example,
we can explain our observations of the planets and sun with the
hypothesis that the earth is the center of our planetary system; however,
the sun-centered view of the solar system is much simpler. For one thing,
it requires only elliptical orbits and the earth-centered hypothesis requires
more complicated orbits with epicycles.
• Falsifiability: In order for a hypothesis to explain something or make
predictions it must be inconsistent with some conceivable observation. If
it is consistent with any observation then it isn’t testable (it is
unfalsifiable). For example, Freud’s view of dreams (you dream for what
you wish for) has been criticized as unfalsifiable, since to account for
nightmares he appeals to sub-conscious wishes—wishes that are not
observable by anyone (including the wisher)!
• Only game in town: Just because there are no known alternatives to an
explanation, it isn’t for that reason likely to be correct. For example, if you
can’t tell how a magician made a rabbit appear (and you can offer no
alternative explanation to REAL MAGIC), that doesn’t make REAL MAGIC a
likely explanation.
10. How to find an Explanation
Start with an observation, develop an explanation
(or hypothesis), and then test by looking for other
observations you’d expect to find if the explanation
were correct.
1. If explanation E is correct ⊃ We’d observe O.
2. We observe O
3. So, explanation E is correct.
Is this argument valid? No! (check with a truth
table) Is it reliable? It depends on the test (the
other observations you look for). Which tests are
better?
11. Testing an Explanation
• If observation O is likely even if E is incorrect then looking
for O is not a good test for E.
• The closer to ~E ⊃ ~O the better.
• Check (with a truth table) the validity of ~E ⊃ ~O , O, ∴E
e.g., To explain the observaton that you are a student in this
class I might offer the explanation that you are on athletic
scholarship because you have the strength of an olympian. To
test my hypothesis I might have you lift your textbook above
your head, because if you are on scholarship because you
have the strength of an olympian you would be able to hoist
your textbook. Of course, that’s a bad test because you would
be able to do that even with below average strength. A better
test would be something you couldn’t do unless you were
olympic strong.
Notice that this kind of ideal test is impossible to generate for
an unfalsifiable explanation.
12. Are these good explanations?
(1) Massive media conspiracy: the entire mainstream
media is the product of a conspiracy to deceive and
defraud the general public. When evaluating, think
about simplicity (how many people would have to be
in on the secret?), falsifiability (what research could
prove it wrong?), and how to test the hypothesis.
(2) Birthers: Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.
When evaluating think about how to test the
hypothesis. What would you expect to observe only if
the theory were correct?)
(3) Inside Job: The WTC collapse of 9/11/01 was the
result of a controlled demolition. When evaluating
the video below think about testimony and the
features of a good explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw8_YPQLH5I
