The Encyclopedia Britannica defines conspiracy theory as ‘an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.’

One of the definitions of ‘conspiracy’ in Dictionary.com is;

A combination of persons for a secret, evil or unlawful purpose.

***

There was a discussion on the radio this morning about conspiracy theories and whether social media had influenced their proliferation. One commenter described a conspiracy theory as ‘fallacious’ – that is having no proof.

That however is a criticism pertinent to all theories, including Einsteins’ Theory of Relativity. The lack of proof is not seen as problematic in science, since one needs a theory at the start of the experimentation, before there is proof. It may be that the theory is ahead of the ability of technicians to create laboratory experiments, or that there is no sensor yet invented to detect an effect being postulated. This has never stopped scientists imagining possibilities using mathematical models rather than instruments. Einsteins’ mathematical proof that light, bends has only recently been proved using astronomical instruments.

Lack of evidence then, should not stop scientists, philosophers, theologians, artists, poets, politicians from postulating.

Consider the postulation, ‘God exists’. To date, this theory has not been scientifically proven and yet billions of people believe it; even model their whole lives on it. Does that mean believers are part of a conspiracy? Certainly, level headed insurers reject claims caused by ‘acts of God’

The conspiracy being alleged is always open to doubt. The persons believing the conspiracy do not generally offer, indisputable proof. We all know that photographs and videos (once considered to be true) can now be easily manipulated.

Even a reporter or journalist is normally required to provide corroborated information of a story, usually from at least three independent sources, before the story is published. Even then, others will object that the story is just a ‘theory’ or, as is now rather glibly alleged, ‘fake’.

Conspiracy theorists who use the word ‘theory’, will retain the respect of others for so doing. The next evolutionary step however, is that the postulator believes the theory – even without incontrovertible proof. We see this process in popular detective stories, where the famous detective has a ‘hunch’ that he can’t prove. The intervention of the intuitive area of the mind, presents itself as a kind of ‘magical’ power of the detective. Even though the scent stops at the river, he or she picks it up on the other side.

Scientists do this, probably more often than they know. ‘Mistakes’ happen in laboratories and the logical line of reason is skipped over, savings years of work. The line of reasoning then works backwards to prove the original premise.

In a conspiracy theory, the official version of events is challenged. One might call this somewhat facetiously, ‘my version of the facts’ – but that is what is happening. Facts are challenged or ignored and often ‘new information’ presented. The official story is regarded as no more than what psychologists term a ‘rationalisation’ – in other words a reasonable explanation. Conspiracy theorists offer new ‘evidence’ from respected and unrespected sources, because their ‘gut feeling’ is telling them the official reason is unreasonable, uncorroborated, unproven or based on false information.

Take the assassination of John F Kennedy. The person accused of the act had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the act. What is ignored is that so could have many others, standing along the road that day. This ‘smoke screen’ to the actual events is often used as a plot device by writers of detective stories. The ‘red herrings’ divert the reader from the true events, all of which have been honestly presented.

‘My version of the facts’ becomes a truism double edged and lethal to human beliefs. We all know that history is written by the victor and / or a powerful minority.

With facts being so available now using the power of the internet, we can all access them and feel a certain glow of ‘expertise’ – even though we have no in depth or practical knowledge of the subject. Parents refuse treatment for their sick children because they don’t believe the doctors.

In such a world, few of us have the mental capacity to fit together the pieces of the jigsaw, because it has a million pieces and no picture. Only the next generation of quantum computers will be able to make decisions based on the huge amount of data available.

Conspiracy Theories of the future will be postulated by computers. The question is, will the computers themselves, start to believe them?