Theory is often viewed as a systematic framework made up of concepts that analytically account for observed phenomena. Philosophers for centuries have debated whether what happens is external to human thoughts and cognition and therefore real and material; or if they are constructions of the mind, logically assembled and maintained by the exercise of reason without an independent reality.
The theory is applied in both the social and natural sciences. In the social sciences, disputes arise once again between those who defend that there is a real material world beyond the reach of the observer and those who propose that the social sciences can only be understood internally by their inhabitants; resulting in normative theories that encompass Political Theory as well as historical, social and anthropological paradigms under the broader domain of hermeneutics. In the natural sciences the matter is somewhat different. Although philosophers of science such as Van Frassen advocate a scientific image along with anti-realism, most would agree that the methodological practice of the natural sciences is to generate hypotheses that form or follow from a general theory. This runs parallel to the procession of validating the phenomena in question with the ultimate goal of producing a correlation between the explanandum and the explanan.
Classifying both the social and natural sciences as science, with the use of theory, means that the procedures of verification, evidence, and explanation take the same abstract steps, even though the physicist is completely divorced from the world he studies as the sociologist. , due to the nature of human existence and the definition of the discipline, is an unavoidable part of the phenomenon it studies, society. however, the problems that arise for both sciences focus on preference; when there is more than one theory competing for the explanation of the phenomena in question, or theoretical redundancy; when there is a theory that explains certain aspects of a phenomenon but not at all times or in all contexts. This, coupled with the use of evidence-based empirical data to ensure the application and validation of a theory, means that both the social sciences and the natural sciences are constantly refining their hypotheses and making predictions about future outcomes.
These are the formal interpretations and uses of theory across the spectrum of the sciences, and this is what distinguishes both theory from pseudotheory and science from pseudoscience. It is for this very reason that the Conspiracy Theory is a pseudo theory. Let’s first take one of the Holy Grails of the scientific method: prediction. These abound in the natural sciences, from how, why, and when your PC will turn on to airplanes that fly and equations of time and space. The social sciences, as already mentioned, tread on much more precarious, unreliable and unstable ground. However, through data collection based on conceptualized variables and statistical models of causality, predictions can be harnessed. Anyone with an investment portfolio can see the benefits of employing time series and regression analysis in economics, although recent financial crises illustrate that predictions are far from completely accurate.
Conspiracy Theory as a serious ontological and epistemological alternative to social phenomena must provide predictions, demonstrate their applicability, and guarantee evidence that at least makes its explanations plausible or highly probable. While in the social sciences these are not mapped exactly due to the nature of measuring artificially constructed social variables, conspiracy theory falls spectacularly short on the relationship between observed phenomena, explanation, and use of data. reliable and relevant and, therefore, prediction.
Here we must separate the conspiracy theories, classifying them into single point conspiracy theories and Meta conspiracy theories. The latter come with a set of predictions for the future. These range from totalitarian governments of one world, to alien control and access to spiritual enlightenment in other dimensions and planes of existence. However, there are no time limits to these occurrences, just weak inductive inferences. Consequently, as an easily defensible claim, conspiracy theorists have the grace of an always-winding clock on their side with unlimited time as a luxury because if it doesn’t happen today, it will happen tomorrow. These are often the arguments used by classical Marxists, that there is no specified time frame for the revolution of the proletariat, but it will happen one day. However, it is for these very reasons that, in this context, both Marxism and conspiracy theories are pseudoscientific theories, since neither is falsifiable, that is, they cannot be shown to be false. consequently, they remain in the realm of speculation.
With this result we have the position of scientific theory vs. unfalsifiable theory. I have argued elsewhere that conspiracy theory is a form of political theory and philosophy. However, the conspiracy theory is not even competitively viable as a political and social theory. To further deal with these issues, one has to look at the philosophical frameworks and implications of the theory’s use in the social sciences, the area in which the Conspiracy Theory is trying to work. Whether one is a structuralist, functionalist, critical theorist, or postmodernist, one can look at social phenomena and at least easily apply identifiable frameworks to these facts based, one way or another, on the use of data and evidence. Thus, a discourse analyst would look at how the problems of insanity at work are constructed and at the reports of the clinical psychologists themselves who bring these conceptual frameworks into existence. A classical critical theorist can demonstrate how mass consumerism and the capitalist consumer enterprise neglect the critical thinking capacities of citizens of the modern state. From the position of the social sciences, they share the same point of view in that there is a phenomenon to be explained and a theory is applied that can be supported by some type of evidence, even when the constitution of the evidence in the social sciences is an activity elusive
The conspiracy theory works in reverse with paradoxical tendencies in terms of both observed phenomena and epistemology. This is because, by its very nature, the conspiracy theory is contrary to what is observed in terms of widely accepted explanations. That is to say, he is a controversialist contrary to other explanations that are presented. Therefore, he advocates a “behind the scenes” explanation of what is really going on. The financial crisis, civil unrest, and government problems are not caused by fads espoused by the social sciences, but are a deliberately conspired plot executed in the background that most are unaware of. Both conspiracy theory and political theory use observable data, but conspiracy theorists add the stipulation of a deliberately falsified social reality: that what is really going on does not match accepted explanations, and therefore at their expense. turn, the accepted explanation is not what is really happening.
This then leads to the paradox in Conspiracy Theory regarding observed social phenomena and epistemology. This is that the observed phenomenon is assigned to the realm of the conspiratorial explanation. The explanation summarizes the activity of cabalistic agents who operate grand diversion tricks, but simultaneously these grand tricks are not only detected by conspiracy theorists, but also completely cracked. In effect, the Conspirators are fully competent and nearly omnipotent, as they can control all facets of social activity, but they are completely inept at maintaining secrecy, leaving a cumulative trail of clues for the Conspirators to find.
The final part of the conspiracy theory as a pseudo-theory is its malleability in the face of empirical data. When the evidence and data do not match a scientific theory, the theory is reformulated or discarded. This is the same in Conspiracy Theory, where the theories themselves evolve and adapt to take into account new emerging evidence. We have seen this with the 911 truth movement constantly evolving its theory in the face of mounting evidence from structural engineers of how the twin towers collapsed in fire. However, when the theory is adapted to the science, the fit between the theory and the evidence is refined and adjusted so that the theory now matches the data in a more succinct and plausible way. In part, this is why the falsifiability of a theory is imperative. Conspiracy theorists attempt the same execution, in which the conspiracy theory will then match the observable data in a correlated manner. However, once again, the theory goes in the opposite direction, moving further away from the evidence presented to further elaborate and embellish the conspiracy theory. For example, take the skull-and-bones theory that the US government and financial system are secretly run by a Yale University white boys’ club; or something related to a secret Masonic organization. So what happens when a black president of Harvard takes office? The data do not fully fit the theory. Abandon theory? Don’t rephrase it in the opposite direction that Obama must be a black Freemason.
What conspiracy theory does is more than just maintain an equation between data and theory in an inverse and backward way, but the conspiracy theory scheme means that in terms of psychological inference, all data is interpreted as conspiracy phenomena. This rarely happens in the sciences because when the data no longer fit a theory, they are soon discarded. We have seen this throughout history from Copernicus to Edwin Hubble and now a shift is beginning to emerge in terms of free market economics.
Conspiracy theory is inherently more dogmatic than theory in the natural and social sciences and produces disjointed theoretical explanations between theory and data. This constant malleability of the conspiracy theory, working with different sets of data that no longer correlate with the conspiracy theory used in the explanation and thus neglecting the data and observed phenomena, is just one aspect which makes the conspiracy theory a pseudo-theory.
