qed
Senior Member
Skeptoid proposes two criterion for judging whether a conspiratorial proposition deserves the name "conspiracy theory", with the aim of rejecting certain significant true conspiracies as not qualifying as examples of "conspiracy theories that turned out to be true".
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4416
Certainly 2. must be satisfied if one is to claim an example of a "conspiracy theory that turned out to be true".
Certainly 2. must be satisfied if one is to claim an example of a "conspiracy theory that turned out to be true".
- But is 1. really valid?
- Can Skeptiod REALLY then claim that 9-11 is not a true conspiracy theory, because back in the early 2000's it could not be falsified?
Last edited by a moderator: