It may also be worthwhile noting that while initially politics played a minor role in our lives, society seems to have become more and more politicized and more recently, psychologized.

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

One hopes, things like evidence, coherence, inference to the best explanation, cui bono considerations, etc.

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

By following rational principles I guess. *shrug*

The trouble is alternative facts. When we can't agree on a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions, it's hard to see how people can be reconciled. It's really back to basics.

I do think it's important to consider conspiracy theories on a case by case basis, and avoid dismissing them on the basis of the political views of the person advocating for them (genetic fallacy). Sometimes involves a bit or work, other times it's easy. I'm not particularly good at it, my general knowledge is poor, so I lack good context from which to make a judgement.

EDIT: Apologies for the banality of this post.

Good thread. I'll have to think about your questions but let me respond to this first:

I don’t know if denial has anything to do with it but during and after WWII we were promised a better, more civilized world. Unfortunately, this proves to have been another false prophecy: from trying to be “non-judgmental” in the 1950s, society seems to have progressed to being hyper-judgmental and increasingly intolerant of views that are at variance with one’s own. — Apollodorus

People always make promises they can't keep. I know I do!
'Back to the Future 2' is a 1989 movie about a fictional 2015. In that future everything is electrical and flying. Well, look around you: it's minimal.
Only if you're lucky enough to live in an area without light pollution you can see robot birds flying through the constellations. Muskian Starlinks. And that's just the beginning

How is it possible that some tribes in Africa still don't have a clean water source? It's because of Dale Carnegie's philosophy that the richer people are, the more they can invest in the world. People such as Bill & Melinda Gates (now unfortunately divorced) have embraced this concept wholeheartedly.

In reality this philosophy ultimately leads to increasing levels of inequality. For the simple reason that money is power and power corrupts. Vatican (do I need to say more?)

So we watch inequality growing livestream and it creates an incredible sense of emptiness. We don't realize that they used to call this envy or jealousy. And if there's one thing that leads to judgement....

You have to understand that judgement isn't what makes WW2 so bad. It's genocide. From that point of view we are doing better. Last genocide here in Europe was 25 years ago in Bosnia if I'm correct.

Mainstream (social) media are hyper-judgemental and that's why one should avoid them. Unless you prefer watching Barack Obama call Edward Snowden 'unpatriotic'.

I do think it's important to consider conspiracy theories on a case by case basis, and avoid dismissing them on the basis of the political views of the person advocating for them (genetic fallacy). — bert1

Correct. I think the rational approach would be to consider a conspiracy theory on its own merits and always under due consideration of what is generally accepted as facts. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the rantings of psychopaths or political propaganda here)

But the difficulty that often arises is that there is a tendency to dismiss a theory out of hand and sometimes even the facts on which the theory is based. Denial is in some cases an expression of anxiety or fear. For example, it may be motivated by an unconscious fear of having one's own assumptions challenged or something along those lines. This may be why denial can manifest itself in the form of a reflex reaction even before the person in question has considered the facts.

In reality this philosophy ultimately leads to increasing levels of inequality. For the simple reason that money is power and power corrupts. — TaySan

Agree. Despite all the progress, inequality seems to be an intractable problem and new forms of inequality constantly emerge. Money hasn't solved the problem. On the contrary, whoever has the money has the power to decide what is right or wrong and ensure that their views are given priority over the views of others. This tends to exacerbate the problem instead of solving it. This is why the wealthy (rightly or wrongly) often become the subject of criticism and conspiracy theories.

what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

Implicitly a conspiracy is a kind of a something, in the nature of a fact. A conspiracy theory is not. At best, a conspiracy theory is a conjectured template placed over a set of facts. Except that in conspiracy theories, often the facts are made-up and not in themselves facts. Which is to say we should take at least some care in keeping track of what is being spoken of and how.

Most generally, Louis Nizer (you can look him up), a lawyer with a reputation for being able to ferret out truth, was asked how he did it. He answered that he "knew" because the (his) "rule of probability had told him so." In brief, if something was unlikely or unreasonable, then it probably wasn't so. But at the same time he made clear that his rule and his applications of it were based on extraordinary preparation, investigation, and long-experienced insight.

I do not think acceptance or rejection is exhaustive of alternatives. It seem to me there is a continuum of responses to conspiracies theories. A common one is "could be." And with could-be some care is required. Could-be is explicitly not "is," and with respect to "is", could-be isn't. Could-be, then, is not enough for is, but there has to be some other ingredient.

And the revelations of QM inform us that the entire Russian Navy could quantum tunnel its way to your back yard. But it won't and isn't going to. "Could," here, being a very misleading term. "Could" also blurs and sometimes is used to attack the division between the possible and the impossible, which itself irrupts into arguments wherein definitions should reign, but are often shouted down.

How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

An analogous question: how can people enter the water without drowning? Answer, they learn how to swim. Discussion is a kind of swimming, a set of skills informed and governed by rules. Unfortunately people who do not have the skills for discussion, and who refuse to learn, also do not have the courtesy and grace to drown. Discussion then becomes Babble. The concepts don't lose their meaning, only that it becomes evident that some ignorant participants destroy them on the ground.

Ultimately it seems to come down to what is true, and "could-be" not being "is" is also not true. And it runs deeper. The "could-be" usually comprises a bunch of little could-bes, often presumed to be true. Thus the Could-be-er tries to smuggle in a truth. But the truth is that could-be is never true, and never truth. Sometimes it's plain impossible, other times prohibitively unlikely, but never itself true.

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

One's perception of one's own power or self-efficacy. People who feel powerless seem to be more prone toward conspiracy theories.
This is just a casual observation.

Perhaps this is true:

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

There has been a lot of debate around this in recent years, for obvious reasons. Some people advocate to not use the term conspiracy theory at all, and instead use conspiracy narrative to distinguish it from actual theories about conspiracies, which of course do exist. Others have rejected this, pointing out that one aspect of conspiracy theories is that they really do want to be theories, applying scientific method, albeit in imperfect ways.

My own view is that what makes a theory a conspiracy theory is a combination of two things:

First, a conspiracy theory will adopt the aesthetics of a scientific or forensic analysis but will cherry pick it's results, using bad epistemology to justify this (see the zetetic method for an emblematic example).

Secondly a conspiracy theory always has a devil - a shadowy, evil force, which is half hidden, but always visible enough, which is arbitrarily powerful, but can be defeated by the virtuous.

And it's this second aspect that causes people to accept conspiracy theories. There is a growing body of evidence that conspiracy theories are about "taking back control" of a confusing and complex reality. Defeating the evil force and gaining the hidden knowledge gives you control over reality - where now you are one of the few chosen ones who will guide the fate of the sheep

For example, Rob Brotherton in Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories, says that the fascinating and often surprising psychology of conspiracy theories tells us a lot--not just why we are drawn to theories about sinister schemes, but about how our minds are wired and, indeed, why we believe anything at all [this is an important point]. Conspiracy theories are not some psychological aberration--they're a predictable product of how brains work. — Apollodorus

It's cool that you're quoting the Amazon description verbatim for those that don't click the link, but do please use quotation marks.

But what about conspiracy deniers? While believers in conspiracy or conspiracy theories may be said to operate under the influence of “suspicion” or “paranoia”, disbelievers may similarly operate under the influence of “denial”. — Apollodorus

I don't see much evidence for there being some sort of "denial" that is comparable, in the way it operates, to a conspiracy theory. There is plenty of wilful ignorance of complexities to avoid having to challenge one's existing beliefs, but that's not really the same thing. Things like confirmation bias apply to normal theories as much as they do to conspiracy theories.

I don’t know if denial has anything to do with it but during and after WWII we were promised a better, more civilized world. — Apollodorus

And the word has become a whole lot better for the majority of people. One can debate "civilized" but that's because the term is so vague.

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

Most advice seems to agree that one needs to take the emotional position of the interlocutor into account. Take the emotional investment of participants seriously and try to build some emotional rapport (optimally, you already have some kind of connection before the discussion begins). Its probably best not to focus on what someone believes, but why they believe it

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

Do you know people like that in your life? In both camps? I do.

People who feel powerless seem to be more prone toward conspiracy theories. — baker

There may be some truth in that. However, the question arises as to whether feeling powerless is (1) a fundamental or innate feature of their psychology or (2) the result of some factual observation that motivated that feeling (a) in general and/or (b) in relation to the particular theory.

However, the question arises as to whether feeling powerless is (1) a fundamental or innate feature of their psychology or (2) the result of some factual observation that motivated that feeling (a) in general and/or (b) in relation to the particular theory. — Apollodorus

It's possibly due to some early and powerful experience of powerlessness that the person internalized and generalized. Consider how they tame elephants: When the elephant is young, they tie it with a strong rope or chain to a pole. The elephant tries to free itself, but at the time, the young elephant is still not strong enough to break the rope or chain or to pull out the pole. It gives in and stops trying. Once such an elephant becomes an adult, it can be controlled by a thin rope which it is by now more than strong enough to break -- but it doesn't even try.

Once a person has internalized and generalized that sense of powerlessness, narratives aligned with that powerlessness will appeal to them.

First, a conspiracy theory will adopt the aesthetics of a scientific or forensic analysis but will cherry pick it's results, using bad epistemology to justify this (see the zetetic method for an emblematic example). — Echarmion

I see what you mean. However, this was not what I meant by conspiracy theory. By "conspiracy theory" in this context I meant something more like "fact-based working theory on the basis of which we attempt to logically explain events or situations".

Obviously, I'm not an expert on conspiracy theories and I wasn't aware of any technical term for it. I only thought of it after noticing a tendency here to label certain statements "conspiracy theory" even when no conspiracy or theory was advanced or suggested.

This is why I used the provisional phrase "credible conspiracy theories" and "legitimate working theories". In those cases where "cherry picking" and "bad epistemology" is applied then obviously the theory turns into something else.

In short, I was thinking more along the lines of a working theory that, for example, a team of police detectives might devise as part of their effort to solve a criminal case.

In other words, there would be a systematic process of examining the evidence, advancing arguments, making suggestions, proposing a working hypothesis, etc., and formulating a thought-out and tested evidence-based theory.

By the way, I've added quotation marks to the Amazon description of Brotherton's book as per your request.

Do you know people like that in your life? In both camps? I do. — Caldwell

Yes, I suppose we all do know people like that in our lives. And we ourselves may belong to one camp or the other on occasion.

Once a person has internalized and generalized that sense of powerlessness, narratives aligned with that powerlessness will appeal to them. — baker

Yes. That makes sense. But it still needs to be established how big a factor powerlessness is in particular cases. I'm sure even powerful people might come to suspect that a conspiracy against them is being hatched by rivals or opponents if they think there is evidence to justify their suspicion.

I see what you mean. However, this was not what I meant by conspiracy theory. By "conspiracy theory" in this context I meant something more like "fact-based working theory on the basis of which we attempt to logically explain events or situations". — Apollodorus

Isn't that just a theory? Why use the specific name of a currently much discussed phenomenon if that's not actually what you want to talk about?

Obviously, I'm not an expert on conspiracy theories and I wasn't aware of any technical term for it. — Apollodorus

Have you been living under a rock the part 5 years?

But it still needs to be established how big a factor powerlessness is in particular cases. — Apollodorus

Well, we can only speculate on such things.

I'm sure even powerful people might come to suspect that a conspiracy against them is being hatched by rivals or opponents if they think there is evidence to justify their suspicion.

Holding a position of power and feeling powerless are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In fact, it can be speculated that some people seek positions of power precisely to compensate for their deeply felt powerlessness.

I'm sorry to say I can't seem to find an overarching principle/theory/concept but as @Echarmion pointed out, it's related to epistemology. Two things to consider here:

1. Probability of truth: Given a set of facts (events, statements, etc.) multiple explanations can be formulated but they're all not equiprobable; some, given our background knowledge, are more likely than others.

2. Possibility of truth: No matter how improbable a given explanation is, so long as the odds aren't zero, that explanation could be the truth.

I suspect conspiracy theorists give more weightage to 2. Possibility of truth and those not so inclined prefer 1. Probability of truth.

It wouldn't be completely wrong to say conspiracy theorists endorse some version of Modal Realism, a position that seems to blur the lines between possibility and actuality and those who aren't conspiracy theorists seem more familiar, intuitively or by exposure, with Probability Theory

Isn't that just a theory? Why use the specific name of a currently much discussed phenomenon if that's not actually what you want to talk about? — Echarmion

Yes, it is a theory. But I'm referring to those conspiracy theories that are (1) evidence-based, (2) well-thought-out, and (3) likely to be true, as opposed, for example, to deliberately fabricated narratives serving as political propaganda.

I'm referring to a subclass of "conspiracy theory" for which I do not as yet have a name. If you wish to suggest one, please feel free to do so.

And no, I haven't been "living under a rock for the past 5 years". I am aware that people speak of conspiracies and/or conspiracy theories, but this isn't something that is normally discussed in my social circle.

In fact, it can be speculated that some people seek positions of power precisely to compensate for their deeply felt powerlessness. — baker

That's very true. But, equally, some people may seek power due to overconfidence, feelings of superiority, etc., and resulting sense of entitlement.

Besides, once you've acquired a taste for power you may want more, simply because it feels good to be powerful.

Yes, it is a theory. But I'm referring to those conspiracy theories that are (1) evidence-based, (2) well-thought-out, and (3) likely to be true, as opposed, for example, to deliberately fabricated narratives serving as political propaganda.

I'm referring to a subclass of "conspiracy theory" for which I do not as yet have a name. If you wish to suggest one, please feel free to do so. — Apollodorus

Analytical theory is just such that. An analysis is called that because there is an attempt to piece together not just a belief (as beliefs are in conspiracy theory) but a weighing of evidence and an invitation to submit criticisms against it. You organize your thoughts in such a way that you have already formulated a conclusion, but it's open to unpacking of parts by outside observers.

I mean, like, seriously, why do a subclass of conspiracy theory when you can have a class of its own that functions as an antithesis to conspiracy theory.

why do a subclass of conspiracy theory when you can have a class of its own that functions as an antithesis to conspiracy theory. — Caldwell

Because I'm referring to a subclass of "conspiracy theory" or theory about conspiracy, not the "antithesis" of it. Maybe it could be called "analytical conspiracy theory" or there may be better terms for it.

I don't think it is that important though as the discussion is not as much about the theory itself as about people's reaction to it.

It wouldn't be completely wrong to say conspiracy theorists endorse some version of Modal Realism, a position that seems to blur the lines between possibility and actuality and those who aren't conspiracy theorists seem more familiar, intuitively or by exposure, with Probability Theory — TheMadFool

That's a good point. In which category would you put police detectives acting on a working hypothesis to solve a crime?

Mistrust in governments has grown, and when one realizes almost all of one's information has come from the very government one distrusts, one falls into an information vacuum that then gets filled up with information of varying validity.

There's not much of a mystery here. Intransparant and manipulative governance has only itself to thank for it. The mistrust, at least, is entirely merited.

In which category would you put police detectives acting on a working hypothesis to solve a crime? — Apollodorus

Well, I don't know how real detectives handle actual cases - I suspect it's some combination of evidence gathering, talking to suspects and witnesses, consulation with colleagues, narrowing the list of possible culprits down to one, and then making the arrest - but the basic idea is to figure out how probable is it that a person x is the culprit given the evidence. Sounds very Bayesian too me.

Fictional detectives like Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot are a different story altogether - the guilty person is usually the one who's the last person you'd suspect. I recommend, when reading detective fiction, a mindset that considers anything's possible.

Intransparant and manipulative governance has only itself to thank for it. The mistrust, at least, is entirely merited. — Tzeentch

I think that's a good observation.

The corporate community represented by powerful think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission seems to believe in ideological and economic cycles punctuated by periodic changes of governing political parties that lend themselves to the advancement of corporate interests in “leaps forward”. Little consideration is given to the interests of the people.

PARIS 2008 GENERAL SUMMARY – TRILATERAL COMMISSION

So, we can see how conspiracy theories can have a basis in fact. Which illustrates why dismissing them out of hand amounts to denial.

the basic idea is to figure out how probable is it that a person x is the culprit given the evidence. Sounds very Bayesian too me. — TheMadFool

I think that comes close to what I had in mind. How about using "Bayesian" in the description? Maybe "Bayesian conspiracy analysis"? It might sound a bit odd in the beginning but people have demonstrated an ability to get used to weirder names.

Conspiracy? It's all a question of perspective isn't it? Yes, we are lied to. Yes, governments and corporations are shonky. Yes, the rich manipulate legislation to increase and maintain fortunes and other advantages. But the question is how far do you go and how many dots do you join together in your quest for an overarching explanation? People like to see dots everywhere...

We seem naturally attracted to overarching explanations and nothing seems to me more natural than a conspiracy. Humans like to think this way. Even in small groups, in businesses and workplaces, you hear staff building small conspiracies about why they didn't get a promotion, or why X did get one, or how a particular deal was 'really' made. Generally it's bullshit. It's probably the shadow side of our drive to make meaning.

Seems to me we need a new word for the kinds of conspiracies that invoke aliens or impossible, racially driven conspiracies.

The appeal of conspiracies is easy to understand. We love gossip; we love to be in procession of 'the truth'; we love to have awareness of things the rest of the world doesn't understand; we love to have someone to blame; we love to stand in opposition to the bad guys. Religion anyone...?

Conspiracy theories are a different matter. They are often offered as explanation for events or situations for which there may or may not exist non-conspiratorial explanations. — Apollodorus

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss and marginalize any dissent from official opinion.

The CIA didn't invent the phrase, but they promoted it in order to smear critics of the Warren report.

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

But don't just take the word of some "conspiracy theory" website. Here is the exact same CIA memo, written up in the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/cable-sought-to-discredit-critics-of-warren-report.html

And in a bit of double-reverse counterspin, someone even wrote an article trying to debunk or deflect from the implications of this very CIA memo.

https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117

Many people mindlessly use the phrase conspiracy theory to dismiss ideas that make them uncomfortable, so that they don't have to think too deeply or actually marshal facts and arguments in support of their own beliefs. As you noted, conspiracies are a major part of human history. The Department of Justice employs thousands of attorneys to investigate and prosecute conspiracies. They could properly be called conspiracy theorists.

Or as I like to put it: Julius Caesar was not stabbed by a lone knifeman; and 9/11 was not perpetrated by a lone planeman. They were two of the greatest conspiracies in world history. And if you don't know that powerful people are conspiring against your interests at this very moment, then you'll fall for the next Reichstag fire or Gulf of Tonkin or WMDs or War on Drugs or War on Terror that they try to foist on you.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss and marginalize any dissent from official opinion.

The CIA didn't invent the phrase, but they promoted it in order to smear critics of the Warren report. — fishfry

Thanks for the links. I really appreciate that.

The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has been the focus of a number of conspiracy theories together with associated organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, and the Rockefeller Group.

The fundamental fact is that the Rockefeller family had an extensive banking and oil empire which they ran with the help of lawyers, foundations, think tanks, business lobby groups, and political collaborators.

Espionage, economic policy and international relations have always formed the core of Rockefeller efforts to acquire power and exert influence both domestically and internationally.

For a general understanding of how the Rockefellers ran their banking and oil empire I would recommend Rulers of America: A Study of Financial Capital by Anna Rochester. It makes highly instructive reading.

It is clear from the available, generally accepted evidence that the CIA was conceived by Rockefeller people, headed by Rockefeller people, and funded by the Rockefellers.

William “Wild Bill” Donovan, the “founding father of the CIA” was a long-time employee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

In 1941 Donovan organized US intelligence operations into COI (Coordination of Information) and asked Rockefeller lawyer Allen Dulles to head it. The COI HQ was at room 3603 at the Rockefeller Center.

In 1947 the CIA was officially created from COI and other intelligence elements.

In 1952 Dulles was officially appointed as head of the CIA.

William J. Donovan – Wikipedia

The CIA was a Rockefeller operation from start to finish. That’s why it has always represented the interests of the oil, pharmaceutical, and chemical industry.

In addition to creating and heading the CIA, Rockefeller people also were sitting in the US Administration as advisers and policy makers in matters concerning the CIA and other areas of interest to the Rockefellers.

As admitted by Allen Dulles’ law firm Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C), which still represents Rockefeller interests:

"During World War II and its political aftermath, S&C lawyers such as noted partners John Foster Dulles and Arthur Dean played important individual roles in helping shape domestic policy and international affairs"

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

S&C represented banking and industrial interests from the start, such as J P Morgan, Ford, and Rockefeller. As the Rockefeller Group gradually replaced and largely took over Morgan and Ford interests, S&C became a Rockefeller firm for all practical purposes and it continues to represent Rockefeller interests to the present.

Rockefeller people created the CIA, headed the CIA and were sitting in the US Administration as advisers and policy makers in matters concerning the CIA.

It is indisputable that the Rockefellers used top lawyers to run their banking and oil empire as well as to influence domestic policy and international affairs.

Lawyers representing Rockefeller interests also included:

Henry L Stimson (of Standard Oil representatives Root & Clark), Secretary of War.

John J McCloy (of the Rockefeller law firm Milbank, Tweed & Hope) Stimson’s Assistant Secretary, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, president of the World Bank, and US High Commissioner for Germany.

Business associates also played key roles in areas of interest to the Rockefeller Group:

William H Draper Jr. (of the Rockefeller-associated investment bank Dillon, Read), head of the Economics Division of the US Military Government in Germany.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of incontrovertible evidence.

So, we can see why people would be inclined to accept a “conspiracy theory” based on incontrovertible facts. What is less clear is what motivates others to deny not only the theory but the established facts themselves. In many cases, even mentioning the fact that the CIA was founded by a powerful business group can trigger a negative reaction of vehement (and totally unfounded) denial.

People deny real conspiracies because of fear. Fear of confronting the status quote,and fear of hidden criminal machinations. Fear of the truth. Fear of ridicule from gatekeepers and the crowd. Fear of being very different.
Government itself is a conspiracy of elites working to consolidate power and wealth inequality at the expense of the populace. But most are to scared to even investigate this at all. Just look at the last year and a half and the behaviour of governments and media. The biggest clue in peooples lifetimes,yet they still believe in the government,the medical industry and academia!