I gave two succinct definitions: “the circumstances conspiracy theories must assume also, ironically, render the conspiracy moot.” and “theories that assume circumstances that render the titular “conspiracy” unnecessary.”
There is an element of Occam’s razor for sure, but relying on it exclusively is another instance of a potentially misleading heuristic. There’s going to be contention over what exactly counts as “simpler explanation” and also in reality sometimes the real explanations require more nuance or complexity. OCH approaches it from another direction by not challenging any of the conspiracy theory’s premises and instead shows that by the conspiracy theory’s own premises, the entire reason to have a conspiracy in the first place becomes unnecessary. IMO it’s a more straightforward method of establishing a logical contradiction within the conspiracy theory, rather than just asserting the simpler explanation is the more correct one.
Thanks. I’m probably missing the point, but I don’t see how these definitions apply to moon landing conspiracies, which much of your post seems to center on. The thrust of their argument, as I understand it, is that the US committed to landing on the moon by the end of the 60s, but that turned out to be much harder than anticipated so the landing was fabricated to maintain some geopolitical prestige/advantage. As you pointed out, pulling this off would require the secrecy of countless scientists and astronauts to their grave, or at least compartmentalizing tasks such that countless people think they’re solving real scientific problems that are achieving moon landing with a smaller group conspiring to fake the results. This seems improbable. Like you said, it could be “easier to just… go to the moon for real”.
But moon conspiracists seem to explicitly dismiss—rather than assume—these circumstances. They argue that landing on the moon was physically too difficult (or impossible) for the time such that faking the landing was the easier route. Applying OCH here seems to assume the conclusion, and I don’t understand how it provides a better/faster route to dismissing moon conspiracies than just applying existing evidence or Occam’s razor. Perhaps, though, I’m missing the “circumstances [moon landing] conspiracy theories must assume” in this example.
Can you succinctly explain what OCH is? Is it, roughly, applying Occam’s razor to conspiracy theories?
I gave two succinct definitions: “the circumstances conspiracy theories must assume also, ironically, render the conspiracy moot.” and “theories that assume circumstances that render the titular “conspiracy” unnecessary.”
There is an element of Occam’s razor for sure, but relying on it exclusively is another instance of a potentially misleading heuristic. There’s going to be contention over what exactly counts as “simpler explanation” and also in reality sometimes the real explanations require more nuance or complexity. OCH approaches it from another direction by not challenging any of the conspiracy theory’s premises and instead shows that by the conspiracy theory’s own premises, the entire reason to have a conspiracy in the first place becomes unnecessary. IMO it’s a more straightforward method of establishing a logical contradiction within the conspiracy theory, rather than just asserting the simpler explanation is the more correct one.
Thanks. I’m probably missing the point, but I don’t see how these definitions apply to moon landing conspiracies, which much of your post seems to center on. The thrust of their argument, as I understand it, is that the US committed to landing on the moon by the end of the 60s, but that turned out to be much harder than anticipated so the landing was fabricated to maintain some geopolitical prestige/advantage. As you pointed out, pulling this off would require the secrecy of countless scientists and astronauts to their grave, or at least compartmentalizing tasks such that countless people think they’re solving real scientific problems that are achieving moon landing with a smaller group conspiring to fake the results. This seems improbable. Like you said, it could be “easier to just… go to the moon for real”.
But moon conspiracists seem to explicitly dismiss—rather than assume—these circumstances. They argue that landing on the moon was physically too difficult (or impossible) for the time such that faking the landing was the easier route. Applying OCH here seems to assume the conclusion, and I don’t understand how it provides a better/faster route to dismissing moon conspiracies than just applying existing evidence or Occam’s razor. Perhaps, though, I’m missing the “circumstances [moon landing] conspiracy theories must assume” in this example.