The theory is often viewed as a systematic framework made up of concepts that analytically explain observed phenomena. Philosophers for centuries have debated whether what happens is external to human thoughts and cognition and is 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 applies to both the social and natural sciences. In the social sciences, disputes arise once again between those who argue that there is a real material world outside the realm of the observer and those who propose that the social sciences can only be understood internally by its inhabitants; resulting in normative theories that encompass both political theory and historical, social and anthropological paradigms under the broader domain of hermeneutics. In the natural sciences the matter is somewhat different. Although philosophers of science like Van Frassen advocate a scientific image alongside anti-realism, most would accept that the methodological practice of the natural sciences is to generate hypotheses that form or are derived from a general theory. This runs parallel to the procession of validation of the phenomena in question with the ultimate goal of producing a correlation between the explanandum and the explanatory.
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 where the sociologist, by the nature of human existence and the definition of the discipline, is inescapably part of the phenomena that it studies, society. However, the problems that arise for both sciences focus on prevention; when there is more than one theory competing for the explanation of the phenomenon in question, or for theoretical redundancy; when there is a theory that explains certain aspects of a phenomenon but not in all times or in all contexts. This, coupled with the use of empirical evidence-based data to ensure the application and validation of a theory, means that both the social sciences and the natural sciences constantly refine their hypotheses and make predictions about future outcomes.
These are the formal understandings and uses of theory across the spectrum of the sciences and this is what distinguishes both theory from pseudo theory and science from pseudoscience. It is for this very reason that the conspiracy theory is a pseudo theory. Take, first, one of the holy grails of the scientific method: prediction. These abound in the natural sciences, ranging from how, why and when your PC will turn on to flying planes and equations of time and space. The social sciences, as already mentioned, tread on a much more precarious, unreliable and unstable ground. However, by collecting data based on conceptualized variables and statistical models of causality, predictions can be imposed. Anyone with an investment portfolio can see the benefits of employing time series and regression analysis in economics, although the latest 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 its applicability, and guarantee evidence that at least makes its explanations plausible or highly probable. Although in the social sciences these are not mapped exactly due to the nature of the measurement of artificially constructed social variables, conspiracy theory falls dramatically short of the relationship between observed phenomena, explanation, and the use of reliable data. and relevant and therefore prediction.
Here we must separate 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 for these occurrences, only weak inductive inferences. Consequently, as an easily defensible claim, conspiracy theorists have the grace of a clock that always turns on its 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 same reasons that in this context both Marxism and conspiracy theories are pseudoscientific theories, since neither of them 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. Elsewhere I have argued that conspiracy theory is a form of political theory and philosophy. However, conspiracy theory is not even competitively viable as a political and social theory. To further address these issues, one has to look at the philosophical frameworks and implications of the use of theory in the social sciences, the area in which conspiracy theory is trying to work. Whether one is a structuralist, functionalist, critical theorist, or postmodernist, one can observe social phenomena and at least easily apply identifiable frameworks to these events based on, in one way or another, the use of data and evidence. Thus, a discourse analyst would observe how the issues of insanity at work and the reports of the clinical psychologists themselves are constructed, bringing 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 the citizens of the modern state. From the position of the social sciences they share the same point of view in the sense that there is a phenomenon to explain and a theory is applied that may be supported by some type of evidence, although the constitution of evidence in the social sciences is a elusive activity.
Conspiracy Theory operates in reverse with paradoxical tendencies in terms of both observed phenomena and epistemology. This is because, by its very nature, the conspiracy theory runs counter to what is observed in terms of widely accepted explanations. That is to say, it is a polemicist contrary to other explanations that are presented. Therefore, he advocates a “behind the scenes” explanation of what is really going on. Financial collapse, civil unrest, and government problems are not caused by idioms advocated by the social sciences, but are a deliberately conspired plot run 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 actually happening does not match the accepted explanations and thus the explanation. accepted 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 scope of the conspiratorial explanation. The explanation encapsulates the activity of Kabbalistic agents operating great detour tricks, and at the same time, these great tricks are not only spotted by conspiracy theorists, they are completely deciphered. In effect, conspirators are completely competent and almost omnipotent, since they can control all facets of social activity, but they are completely inept at keeping secrecy, since they leave a cumulative trail of clues for the conspirators to find.
The final part of conspiracy theory as a pseudo theory is its malleability against empirical data. When the evidence and data do not match a theory in science, the theory is reformulated or discarded. This is the same in conspiracy theory, where the theories themselves evolve and adapt to account for emerging evidence. We’ve seen this with the 911 truth movement constantly evolving its theory in the face of mounting evidence from structural engineers about how the twin towers collapsed from fire. However, when theory is adapted to science, the fit between theory and 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 compare the observable data in a correlated way. Once again, however, the theory goes in the opposite direction, moving further away from the evidence presented towards the elaboration and embellishment of the Conspiracy Theory. Take, for example, the skull and bones theory that the United States government and financial system are secretly run by a white boys club at Yale University; or something related to a secret Mason organization. So what happens when a black Harvard president takes office? The data do not quite fit the theory. Abandon theory? Don’t rephrase it to the contrary that Obama must be a black Freemason.
What the conspiracy theory does is more than just keep an equation between the data and the theory in reverse and backward fashion, but the conspiracy theory schema means that, in terms of psychological inference, all data is interpreted as conspiratorial phenomena. This rarely happens in science, because when data no longer fits a theory, it is soon overlooked. 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 social and natural 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 therefore neglecting the data and the observed phenomena, is only one aspect that makes Conspiracy Theory a pseudo theory.
