Editing Conspiracy theory (section)

==Rhetoric==

Conspiracy theory rhetoric exploits several important [[cognitive bias]]es, including [[proportionality bias]], [[attribution bias]], and [[confirmation bias]].<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013">{{cite journal|last1=Thresher-Andrews|first1=Christopher|title=An introduction into the world of conspiracy|journal=PsyPAG Quarterly|volume=1|year=2013|issue=88|pages=5–8|doi=10.53841/bpspag.2013.1.88.5|s2cid=255932379|url=http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf}}</ref> Their arguments often take the form of asking reasonable questions, but without providing an answer based on strong evidence.<ref>Novella, Steven, et al. ''The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake''. Grand Central Publishing, 2018. p. 208.</ref> Conspiracy theories are most successful when proponents can gather followers from the general public, such as in politics, religion and journalism. These proponents may not necessarily believe the conspiracy theory; instead, they may just use it in an attempt to gain public approval. Conspiratorial claims can act as a successful rhetorical strategy to convince a portion of the public via [[appeal to emotion]].<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>

Conspiracy theories typically justify themselves by focusing on gaps or ambiguities in knowledge, and then arguing that the true explanation for this [[Argument from ignorance|must be a conspiracy]].<ref name="Brotherton2013"/> In contrast, any evidence that directly supports their claims is generally of low quality. For example, conspiracy theories are often dependent on [[eyewitness testimony]], despite its unreliability, while disregarding objective analyses of the evidence.<ref name="Brotherton2013"/>

Conspiracy theories are not able to be [[falsifiability|falsified]] and are reinforced by [[fallacious arguments]]. In particular, the logical fallacy [[circular reasoning]] is used by conspiracy theorists: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,<ref name="Byford" /><ref name="Keeley1999"/> whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.<ref name="Barkun2003"/><ref name="Barkun2011"/> The epistemic strategy of conspiracy theories has been called "cascade logic": each time new evidence becomes available, a conspiracy theory is able to dismiss it by claiming that even more people must be part of the cover-up.<ref name="Goertzel2010"/><ref name="Brotherton2013"/> Any information that contradicts the conspiracy theory is suggested to be disinformation by the alleged conspiracy.<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/> Similarly, the continued lack of evidence directly supporting conspiracist claims is portrayed as confirming the existence of a conspiracy of silence; the fact that other people have not found or exposed any conspiracy is taken as evidence that those people are part of the plot, rather than considering that it may be because no conspiracy exists.<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="Brotherton2013"/> This strategy lets conspiracy theories insulate themselves from neutral analyses of the evidence, and makes them resistant to questioning or correction, which is called "epistemic self-insulation".<ref name="Thresher-Andrews2013"/><ref name="Brotherton2013"/>

[[File:False balance in climate science.png|thumb|upright=1.3|In 2013, 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers that took a position on the cause of global warming said that humans are responsible, 3% said they were not. Among [[Fox News]] guests the same year, this was presented as a false balance between the two viewpoints, with 31% of invited guests believing it was happening and 69% not.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Nuccitelli|first1=Dana|title=Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism|access-date=5 October 2023|work=The Guardian|date=23 October 2013}}</ref>]]
Conspiracy theorists often take advantage of [[false balance]] in the media. They may claim to be presenting a legitimate alternative viewpoint that deserves equal time to argue its case; for example, this strategy has been used by the [[Teach the Controversy]] campaign to promote [[intelligent design]], which often claims that there is a conspiracy of scientists suppressing their views. If they successfully find a platform to present their views in a debate format, they focus on using rhetorical ''[[ad hominem]]s'' and attacking perceived flaws in the mainstream account, while avoiding any discussion of the shortcomings in their own position.<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>

The typical approach of conspiracy theories is to challenge any action or statement from authorities, using even the most tenuous justifications. Responses are then assessed using a double standard, where failing to provide an immediate response to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist will be claimed to prove a conspiracy. Any minor errors in the response are heavily emphasized, while deficiencies in the arguments of other proponents are generally excused.<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>

In science, conspiracists may suggest that a [[scientific theory]] can be disproven by a single perceived deficiency, even though such events are extremely rare. In addition, both disregarding the claims and attempting to address them will be interpreted as proof of a conspiracy.<ref name="Goertzel2010"/> Other conspiracist arguments may not be scientific; for example, in response to the [[IPCC Second Assessment Report]] in 1996, much of the opposition centered on promoting a procedural objection to the report's creation. Specifically, it was claimed that part of the procedure reflected a conspiracy to silence dissenters, which served as motivation for opponents of the report and successfully redirected a significant amount of the public discussion away from the science.<ref name="Goertzel2010"/>