Schaubert’s Law of Conspiracies

It seems presumptuous to title a law about conspiracies and conspiracy theories after oneself and yet it is the nature of these sorts of laws tend to end up titled after the last names of their authors anyways, so the title’s more of a resignation to convention than an outgrowth of arrogance or pretense. Obviously if this syllogism exists somewhere else, please tell me as soon as possible. I’ll be delighted to remove my name from it, fade into obscurity, and post the better syllogism.

Happy to have you improve upon this in the comments:

  1. Humans conspire with one another to gain power over the powerless, often using secret, illegal, and immoral means. We call this praxis conspiracy.
  2. The powerless, devoid of sufficient information just like every other category of scientist, will come up with hypotheses and theories regarding those conspiracies — those hidden sins — that keep the powerful in power.
  3. Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true and the majority turn out to be false.
  4. The majority turn out to be false because in all scientific inquiry, hypotheses dramatically outnumber conclusions.
  5. Regardless of veracity, most of these hypotheses are yet-to-be proven true or false.
  6. Those yet to be proven true or false are called “conspiracy theories.”
  7. Unlike other theories which in the public eye remain yet-to-be proven, the term “conspiracy theory” is belittling because it implies psychosis. The term carries the weight of psychosis because those who truly do conspire use the sheer number of hypotheses as a way to divide the attention of those who would seek to prove or disprove any given conspiracy. This forces the few remaining observers, researchers, and journalists to obsess over pet theories, compounding this stereotype of psychosis.
  8. Therefore the moment a conspiracy theory is made public without sufficient proof and peer review to prove it is not a conspiracy theory, but rather a true conspiracy, the public at large will preserve status quo by writing off said conspiracy hypothesis the moment those who truly do conspire choose to appeal to the very existence of said conspiracy theory, naming it a “conspiracy theory” before the public at large.
  9. Once written off publicly, the resulting bandwagon effect of labeling any given conspiracy theory, true or false, a “conspiracy theory” will render both proof and peer review exponentially more difficult due to the public shame associated with any given theory that poses a threat to conspirators.
  10. And therefore the mere act shaming reflective and inquiring minds for investigating conspiracy theories is a sort of passive and universal conspiracy that keeps the powerful in power.
EDIT: Per /u/BobCrosswise’s suggestion:

“I would only add that there’s an additional aspect to #7 – I’d say it’s also the case that the reflexive opprobrium heaped on anyone who might dare to publicly mention anything that might be called a ‘conspiracy theory’ actually leads to a situation in which the set of those who continue to investigate them anyway is skewed toward people who are already relatively psychologically unbalanced, since they’re less wary of the reflexive charge that their mere interest in a ‘conspiracy theory’ indicates some intellectual/psychological shortcoming. Those who are more concerned about their images are immediately scared away by the likelihood that if they take the notion seriously, others will judge them harshly.

“So the popular notion that ‘conspiracy theories’ are only taken seriously by stupid and/or crazy people is ultimately somewhat self-fulfilling. Conveniently.”

lancelot tobias mearcstapa schaubert monogram

cover image by Wassim LOUMI

What's on your mind?

%d bloggers like this: