"an explanation of observed events in current affairs and history (✓) … which
alleges that those events were planned and caused in secret by powerful (or allegedly powerful) conspirators (✓), who thereby…
benefit at the expense of others (✓, sort of), and who therefore…
lie, and suppress evidence, about their secret actions (✓), and…
lie about the motives for their public actions (✘)."

Conspiracy theory:
I understand. Its like yellow cake and outing of Valerie Plame. Sometimes it really is Karl Rove and a plan of the influential to distort reality. Sometimes it is only a conspiracy theory about yellow cake and Saddam Hussein. On the surface both meet the criteria. The proof is in the pudding (or cake as it were).

Neither the theory that Saddam's regime sought to purchase uranium from Niger, nor the theory that Karl Rove sought to discredit Joe Wilson by drawing attention to his wife's involvement in having him sent on his mission to Niger, is a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, both theories are highly plausible.

So it would appear that both are highly plausible conspiracies convoluted and tangled together as each may be by the ingredient mix of truths and fictions. See above. It will be very hard to completely separate conspirators/players and their roles in this because of the juiciness of the yellow cake story and how it serves to connect the figments of recent history. The lessons in this are many. That's my theory and I am sticking to it until proved otherwise.

A dictionary definition of a conspiracy theory is: A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.

There is no mention of a requirement of dupes being involved. There doesn't have to be any dupes working on behalf of the conspirators.

You say in part 2, "That is one reason why, in practice, conspiracy theories are always false." Always false? Have you ever heard of price fixing? Corn syrup, milk, gasoline, all of these products have been price fixed in regions around the country. So there are groups of people who meet in secret and decide the price of products. Those are conspiracies! And they involve greedy capitalists! Those events really happened whether you want to believe them or not. I'll give you the fact that lots of the theories are out in left field and very unbelievable, but to bury your head in the sand and say no one conspires is just naive. Simple minded people just cannot contemplate how to put a conspiracy together so, in their minds, none exist.

And the government is never involved in secret projects on unsuspecting people, oh no, never. Ever heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis study, the CIA LSD study, or Project MKULTRA? These were secret plots by powerful conspirators. Or do you claim all of the subjects were just volunteers with full knowledge of what was to happen to them? If those people did not know the plot, then those projects fit the description of a conspiracy theory.

It seems that all the examples you have given are things that you disapprove of, but there is nothing in your dictionary's definition that requires that. According to it, anything done by two or more powerful people that has some effect and is not done live on television is a conspiracy. In fact, being powerful is not stated as a necessary condition, so any claim that two or more people have done anything at all, that has had any effect at all, counts as a conspiracy theory according to your definition.

Also, none of your examples are conspiracy theories by our definition. Therefore, pointing out the former has no bearing on whether the latter are ever true. It does not address our argument.

According to this the conspiracy theories about 9/11 aren't actually conspiracy theories:

* an explanation of observed events in current affairs and history (✓) … which
* alleges that those events were planned and caused in secret by powerful (or allegedly powerful) conspirators (✓), who thereby…
* benefit at the expense of others (✓, sort of), and who therefore…
* lie, and suppress evidence, about their secret actions (✓), and…
* lie about the motives for their public actions (x).

The US government wouldn't have to lie about it's motives (fight terrorism, preserve freedom) for any 9/11 conspiracy I've heard. For the sake of argument, let's say some 9/11 conspiracy is true. In order to pass the test, whichever members of the government devised the conspiracy would just have to believe that, in the big picture, invading Afghanistan and Iraq to get oil, strategic military positioning, whatever else, was the best way to fight terrorism and secure freedom and prosperity for Americans. So, according to this test, it is not a conspiracy theory.

The US government wouldn't have to lie about it's motives (fight terrorism, preserve freedom)

Yes they would. They would have to be lying about whether their motives are the same as those of hundreds of thousands of people who actually implemented their policy, and of the tens of millions who supported it politically.

Note: this post is by MonkeeSage, not Editor

Yes they would. They would have to be lying about whether their motives are the same as those of hundreds of thousands of people who actually implemented their policy, and of the tens of millions who supported it politically.

You're moving the goal posts. The question isn't whether "the government" (i.e., some conspiratorial subset of the entire government) have the same motives as the superset which implements their purposes (at least not according to the characteristics of a "Conspiracy Theory" you specified). The question is whether "the government" has to hold secret, ulterior motives that differ from their acknowledged, public motives. I see no reason why any conspiracy theory about 9/11 requires this. You might very well argue that they require a different belief about which actions will best secure the goals implied by the motives--but that is a completely different question. (E.g., Marxists and the Austrian School both claim that their motives are foster a stable, sustainable, healthy society--but they have radically different ideas about how to achieve this goal).

That some of their motives (e.g. fighting terrorism) would be open and shared is no argument that the conspiracy theory would not require them to have hidden motives. Deciding on a plan itself causes one to have additional motives.

For instance, if the government's motive was to fight terrorism, but their opinion was that this should be done by enraging the American people by attacking them then this means that they would also acquire subsidiary motives, such as wanting the American people to be enraged, and wanting the attack to cause a lot of suffering. For the plan to work, they would have had to cause people who had the opposites of these two motives, to cooperate with them.

Our arguments about the structural irrationality of conspiracy theories apply as much to such 'subsidiary' motives as to 'overall' motives, which is why the term 'motives' in our definition of conspiracy theories has to include those too. And in any case, there is no such thing as an 'overall' motive. 'Fighting terrorism' is itself not just a motive but a plan, subsidiary to motives like wanting to save lives, respect rights, protect America, and so on.

By that turn of reason, almost everything the government does is a conspiracy. For example, does the secretary for some big-wig general intend everything the general may or may not order in the next week, when he / she types up an executive memorandum for the general? Obviously not. He / she intends only a broad outcome, based on a basic motive. I dare say that even in the highest eschalons of government, nobody knows everything that is happening at every minute regarding our government.

So "save lives, respect rights, protect America" can certainly be valid ground-motives for the actions engaged in by the "uninitiated" members of the government (assuming some conspiracy theory were true), and the conspiratorial subset wouldn't need to try to hide their motives at all (assuming they were in line with the general ground-motives above)--they would only have to disagree with and-or conceal their beliefs about the best courses of action to reach the goals informed by those motives.

Isn't it ironic that we spend so much time on the obviously flawed logic belonging to some conspiracy theories and ignore the others? The real concern is the ones that have come to pass into history as truth and what ones are before us to be found as truth. I wonder if they will be in the history books? I know MKULTRA, the gunpowder plot, and cuba are not in my children's history books in the government social schooling intitutions. We sure don't want to start teaching them young to question our govenment, military, and corporate machines that keep the country turning. We wouldn't want the world to think it's time to throw ourselves upon the wheels and make the machine stop.

There seems to be a recent period in history where we have become complacent, apathetic, and chronically disinterested in matters outside of our personal sphere of experience. I blame propaganda. The news, media, our government institutions of education. We've all been given a false sense of being a part of it all. We have failed to recognize through our history the mistakes we are now returning to today, and the obvious abject horror that it brings. If you cannot wrap your mind around this, take a break from posting and actually google images of the effects on war, hunger, and the monopoly game being played with our lives. Many would rather turn on CSI and watch a husband kill his wife in a murder case. Then an average person will wonder amazingly on the local news later on that night where a man found it acceptable behavior to kill your wife because she was with another person. Most will shrug and look for something else to watch on TV. The next distraction...

It is no longer a "conspiracy" that the federal reserve is not an American entity. It is separate and our government, economy, and our very lives are controlled by it. We are also told this is the way it is. How it should be. We are left with a feeling as though we can't do anything about it. Now we all have to deal with it. We all have to look in the mirror and say, how am I going to contribute in changing this. Have I contemplated what it means to be an American governed and controlled monetarily by outside forces? For the corporations, by the corporations...

The Bilderberg group is no longer a conspiracy it has become a fact and recognized. These are wealthy bankers who admittedly control the world economic system and strives to create a new world order. I still remember the horror I felt about 20 years ago when I learned that Hitler felt his way was the right way and the whole world would follow his way or die. The parallel of watching America be the watchdogs and bulldogs of spreading "democracy" to those of other countries in the name of fighting terrorism is a striking comparison. War on terrorism? It's perfect. The eternal war, because there will always be people who question authority. How is it again we have not become controlled by a fascist force?

I'm tired of hearing about this conspiracy theory or that conspiracy theory and the general mockery directed toward the conspiracies. What is a conspiracy theorist if not an intellectual who has questions? It's somebody who questions the story that has been given him or her and wants clarification. The debate on who is right and wrong matters little to me, the fact that their was debate and accountability is what is actually important. That's seeking truth. Anyone who can't respect that, has already become a fascist themselves in my opinion. I'm tired of the apathy and the excuses people give themselves to not act or contemplate or even research genuinely.

The most hopelessly enslaved are those that believe they are free. ~ Thomas Jefferson