Editing Conspiracy theory (section)

==Lack of evidence==
Belief in conspiracy theories is generally based not on evidence but on the faith of the believer.{{sfn|Barkun|2003|p=7}} [[Noam Chomsky]] contrasts conspiracy theory to [[institutional analysis]], which focuses mainly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or [[mainstream media]] reports.<ref name="WintonickQuébec)1994">{{cite book|editor-last=Achbar|editor-first=Mark|year=1994|title=Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media|url=https://archive.org/details/manufacturingcon00achb|url-access=registration|publisher=Black Rose Books Ltd.|isbn=978-1-55164-002-0|page=[https://archive.org/details/manufacturingcon00achb/page/131 131]}}</ref> Conspiracy theory conversely posits the existence of secretive coalitions of individuals and speculates on their alleged activities.<ref>{{cite book|title=Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture|author=Jack Z. Bratich|publisher=State University of New York Press, Albany|pages=98–100|access-date=16 June 2015|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC|isbn=9780791473344|date=7 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190418133830/https://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC&printsec=frontcover|archive-date=18 April 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction|author=Jovan Byford|publisher=Palgrave MacMillan|pages=25–27|access-date=16 June 2015|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m5Er9ELOwQkC|isbn=9780230349216|date=12 October 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140125180033/http://books.google.com/books?id=m5Er9ELOwQkC&printsec=frontcover|archive-date=25 January 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> Belief in conspiracy theories is associated with biases in reasoning, such as the [[conjunction fallacy]].<ref name="BrothertonFrench2014">{{cite journal|last1=Brotherton|first1=Robert|last2=French|first2=Christopher C.|title=Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy|journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology|volume=28|issue=2|year=2014|pages=238–248|doi=10.1002/acp.2995|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Clare Birchall at [[King's College London]] describes conspiracy theory as a "form of popular knowledge or interpretation".{{efn|Birchall 2006: "[W]e can appreciate conspiracy theory as a unique form of popular knowledge or interpretation, ''and'' address what this might mean for any knowledge we produce about it or how we interpret it."<ref name=Birchall2006>{{cite book|last=Birchall|first=Clare|contribution=Cultural studies on/as conspiracy theory|editor-last=Birchall|editor-first=Clare|title=Knowledge goes pop from conspiracy theory to gossip|publisher=Berg|location=Oxford, New York|year=2006|isbn=978-1-84520-143-2}}</ref>{{rp|66}}}} The use of the word 'knowledge' here suggests ways in which conspiracy theory may be considered in relation to legitimate modes of knowing.{{efn|Birchall 2006: "What we quickly discover&nbsp;... is that it becomes impossible to map conspiracy theory and academic discourse onto a clear illegitimate/legitimate divide."<ref name=Birchall2006/>{{rp|72}}}} The relationship between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge, Birchall claims, is closer than common dismissals of conspiracy theory contend.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Birchall|first=Clare|title=Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you|journal=Culture Machine, Deconstruction Is/In Cultural Studies|volume=6|year=2004|url=http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/12/11|access-date=11 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923211857/http://www.culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/view/12/11|archive-date=23 September 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Theories involving multiple conspirators that are proven to be correct, such as the [[Watergate scandal]], are usually referred to as [[investigative journalism]] or [[historical analysis]] rather than conspiracy theory.<ref name="knight-2003">{{cite book|author=Peter Knight|title=Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA730|date=1 January 2003|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-57607-812-9|pages=730–|access-date=27 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160906162011/https://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA730|archive-date=6 September 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> Bjerg (2016) writes: "the way we normally use
the term conspiracy theory excludes instances where the theory has been
generally accepted as true. The Watergate scandal serves as the standard
reference."<ref name="bjerg1">{{cite journal|last1=Bjerg|first1=Ole|title=Conspiracy Theory: Truth Claim or Language Game?|journal=Theory, Culture & Society|date=2016|volume=34|issue=1|pages=7–8|doi=10.1177/0263276416657880|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0263276416657880?journalCode=tcsa|access-date=24 April 2024|quote=It also seems to be the case that the way we normally use the term conspiracy theory excludes instances where the theory has been generally accepted as true...Just as the Watergate scandal is now part of the official account of the Nixon administration, the NSA monitoring practices are arguably also part of our present understanding of the way that US intelligence works and neither thus qualify as 'conspiracy theories' anymore. The point here is that when we employ the term 'conspiracy theory' in actual language use, we are implicitly assuming and implying that the claims advanced by the theory are not true.|hdl=10398/815ad149-79b0-4000-9d07-327893a24ee6|hdl-access=free}}</ref> By contrast, the term "Watergate conspiracy theory" is used to refer to a variety of hypotheses in which those convicted in the conspiracy were in fact the victims of a deeper conspiracy.<ref>{{cite magazine|author=Ron Rosenbaum|title=Ah, Watergate|url=https://newrepublic.com/article/104169/ah-watergate|year=2012|magazine=New Republic|access-date=29 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160806155414/https://newrepublic.com/article/104169/ah-watergate|archive-date=6 August 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> There are also attempts to analyze the theory of conspiracy theories (conspiracy theory theory) to ensure that the term "conspiracy theory" is used to refer to narratives that have been debunked by experts, rather than as a generalized dismissal.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Bigliardi|first=Stefano|date=July–August 2020|title=Who's Afraid Of Conspiracy Theory Theory?|magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]]|location=Amherst, New York|publisher=[[Center for Inquiry]]}}</ref>