The term is often used to try to discredit unconventional ideas. But there is a running debate among philosophers, psychologists, and social/political scientists about its proper and improper uses.
The lab leak hypothesis doesn't require a conspiracy. Fauci misrepresented the risks versus benefits of gain-of-function research, kept funding it and did not keep oversight of what was happening in Wuhan. When a leak actually happens, everybody acts out of self interest.
I reject the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" outright as propaganda weapons. One clear argument against the term "conspiracy theory" being used in certain situations at least is that quite often arguments against an official narrative don't call conspiracy nor present a theory so the term is effectively being used as a strawman argument.
When Fire Protection Engineer, Scott Grainger, says:
”Steel structural frame buildings, high-rise buildings, simply do not collapse due to fire. There has never been until 9/11 an experience where there was a high-rise building that was steel frame completely collapsed,”
where's the calling of conspiracy and where's the theory?
I call myself a psyop analyst and where there are no signs of a psyop (psyops have a very distinctive MO) I say - assuming the evidence otherwise shows it - "True!" This is why I reocgnise the moon landings as an astonishing accomplishment but recognise the lie that applies to most other official narratives whose refutations attract the epithet "conspiracy theory". The trouble is that neither the Believers (those who tend to favour official narratives) nor the Disbelievers (those who tend to disbelieve official narratives) apply the correct lens when evaluating narratives because if they did they'd recognise both:
--- that the moon landings were real but
--- the people pushed out prominently such as Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan to say they were faked are agents whose job is to encourage the Disbelievers to undermine themselves Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they call out the real lies
While the Believers correctly recognise the moon landings as real it wouldn't even occur to them that the prominent moon hoaxers have a particular job to do while the Disbelievers have got it wrong on the moon landings and completely miss that Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan do not utter a single word that stands up to scrutiny against the reality of the moon landings and - especially in the case of the cartoonish Bill Kaysing - show all the typical signs of being agents.
I've written a post, 12 logical fallacies unmasked in the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist"
The lab leak hypothesis doesn't require a conspiracy. Fauci misrepresented the risks versus benefits of gain-of-function research, kept funding it and did not keep oversight of what was happening in Wuhan. When a leak actually happens, everybody acts out of self interest.
This is a good one, too.
https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/political-paranoia-versus-political-realism-distinguishing-between-bogus-conspiracy
It's also worth noting that (aspects of) the October Surprise "conspiracy theory" were recently proven true in a confession printed in the NYT.
Here is a totally crazy unhinged conspiracy theory straight out of flat-earther asylum.
Scientists constantly conspire to cover up research fraud in order to defraud the public for money.
Totally nuts, worse than QAnon, ask any professional science journalist.
I reject the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" outright as propaganda weapons. One clear argument against the term "conspiracy theory" being used in certain situations at least is that quite often arguments against an official narrative don't call conspiracy nor present a theory so the term is effectively being used as a strawman argument.
When Fire Protection Engineer, Scott Grainger, says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmw9iql4e64
”Steel structural frame buildings, high-rise buildings, simply do not collapse due to fire. There has never been until 9/11 an experience where there was a high-rise building that was steel frame completely collapsed,”
where's the calling of conspiracy and where's the theory?
I call myself a psyop analyst and where there are no signs of a psyop (psyops have a very distinctive MO) I say - assuming the evidence otherwise shows it - "True!" This is why I reocgnise the moon landings as an astonishing accomplishment but recognise the lie that applies to most other official narratives whose refutations attract the epithet "conspiracy theory". The trouble is that neither the Believers (those who tend to favour official narratives) nor the Disbelievers (those who tend to disbelieve official narratives) apply the correct lens when evaluating narratives because if they did they'd recognise both:
--- that the moon landings were real but
--- the people pushed out prominently such as Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan to say they were faked are agents whose job is to encourage the Disbelievers to undermine themselves Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they call out the real lies
While the Believers correctly recognise the moon landings as real it wouldn't even occur to them that the prominent moon hoaxers have a particular job to do while the Disbelievers have got it wrong on the moon landings and completely miss that Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan do not utter a single word that stands up to scrutiny against the reality of the moon landings and - especially in the case of the cartoonish Bill Kaysing - show all the typical signs of being agents.
I've written a post, 12 logical fallacies unmasked in the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist"
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/11-logical-fallacies-unmasked-in