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


Be sure to share and comment. And subscribe.

Comment early, comment often, keep it civil:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Quick note from Lance about this post: when you choose to comment (or share this post with your friends) you help other readers just like you.

How?

Well, see, your comments & sharing whisper a few things to those who come after you:

The first is that this site is a safe place to speak up & stay curious. That it's civil. That discussion is encouraged. That there's no such thing as a stupid question (being a student of Socrates, I really and truly believe this). That talking to one another and growing together is more important than anything we could possibly publish. That the point is growing in virtue and growing together and growing wise. That discovery is invention, deference is originality, that we all can rise together. The only folks I'm going to take comments down from are obvious jerks who argue in bad faith, don't stay curious, or actively make personal attacks. And, frankly, I'd rather we talk here than on some social media farm — I will never show ads and the only thing I'm selling anywhere on the site or my mailing list is just the stuff I make.

You're also helping folks realize that anything you & they build together is far more important than anything you come to me to read. I take the things I write about seriously, but I don't take myself seriously: I play the fool, I hate cults of personality, and I also don't really like being the center of attention (believe it or not). I would much rather folks connect because of an introduction I've made or because they commented with one another back and forth and then build something beautiful together. My favorite contributions have been lifelong business and love partnerships from two people who have forgotten I introduced them. Some of my closest friends NOW I literally met on another blog's comment section fifteen years ago. I would love for that to happen here — let two of you meet and let me fade into the background.

Last, you help me revise. I'm wrong. Often. I'm not embarrassed to admit it or worried about being cancelled or publicly shamed. I make a fool out of myself (that's sort of the point). So as I get feedback, I can say, "I was wrong about that" and set a model for curious, consistent learning, and growing in wisdom. I'm blind to what I don't know and as grows the island of my knowledge so grows the shoreline of my ignorance. It's the recovery of innocence on the far end of experience: a child is in a permanent state of wonder. So are the wise: they aren't afraid of saying, "I don't know. That's new: please teach me." That's my goal, comments help. And I read all reviews: my skin's tough, but that's not license to be needlessly cruel. We teach one another our habits and there's a way to civilly demolish an idea without demolishing another person: just because I personally can take the world's meanest 1-star review doesn't mean we should teach one another how to be crueler on the internet.

For three magical reasons — your brave curiosity, your community, & my ignorance:

Please comment & share with friends how you prefer to share:

Follow The Showbear Family Circus on WordPress.com

Thanks for reading the Showbear Family Circus.
  1. "I think you can write about yourself without the vain, self-focused naval gazing. Good storytelling is a gift from writers…

  2. "His fans didn’t just write fiction about it. One calculated the tensile strength of the material it was made of.…

  3. My mother was the volatile Italian and my dad was the calming influence when things went awry. Dad was our…

  4. Lancelot, thank you, for that congrats, but I fear that continues my jinxed lament - that the late Andy Warhol…

Copyright © 2010— 2023 Lancelot Schaubert.
All Rights Reserved.
If we catch you using any of the substance of this site to train any form of artificial intelligence, we will prosecute
to the fullest extent permitted by any law.

Human children and adults always welcome
to learn bountifully and in joy.