Actually, it is. Truth respects persons who put the effort into finding the truth. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, belong to people who jump to conclusions because of insufficient research.
The words "conspiracy theory" are definitely perjorative. The phrase is seemingly applied at least in part on the basis of whether or not the speaker agrees with whatever theory he/she is referring to. Obviously some theories are more plausible than others. But that's a function of the nature of the theory and of the evidence that supports or contradicts it. If they hope to remain intelligent, people can't dodge addressing the justifications for other people's beliefs merely by assigning a perjorative label: "fascist", "racist", "sexist", "communist", "superstitious", "atheist", "anti-science" or "conspiracy theory". Unfortunately, attempts to insult opponents into silence is very common in contemporary rhetoric.
I'd probably tell the world the day after I quit my job. It's not a matter of job security because someone who has credible evidence of alien spacecraft (and even many who have poor evidence) can make a ton of money selling books and making appearances. You're arguing against your own point. The existence of real conspiracies such as Watergate shows us clearly that: 1. It is virtually impossible to keep a conspiracy secret, even if it is small, simple, self-contained and involves the most powerful man in the world. 2. Watergate was exposed, mainstream and recognized as valid pretty much instantly and universally: It was less than 2 months from when the office was broken-into that the President resigned. Conversely, the lack of traction of flying saucer conspiracy theories is a reflection of the fact that there is no quality evidence of flying saucers, much less a conspiracy to cover them up. These are aside from the usual/obvious conspiracy theorist self-contradiction that the conspiracy is secret from everyone...except of course from the conspiracy theorist! That's just crackpots smelling their own farts (believing their own BS). I only skimmed the list, but all appeared to either be wrong, misleading or not conspiracy theories. Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Yes, it really did happen (they claimed it didn't). Operation Northwoods? No, it didn't happen (they claimed it did). Northwoods is archetypal example of how conspiracy theories work. Conspiracy theorists need *something* to build the "theory" around; they can't just make them up from scratch. So they pounce on something small or vague or tentative and pump it up beyond what it was. But hey - the name was real so the story must be real, right? Uh, no. With Northwoods, there was the potential of something bad, but it didn't happen. At best/worst you might call it a "conspiracy proposal". Again, real conspiracies happen, sure. They either remain secret or they become public knowledge, but they almost never pass through a "conspiracy theory" stage where only crackpots believe them.
So anyone who believes there's a conspiracy has done insufficient research? That doesn't follow at all. Sufficient research often uncovers the conspiracy to begin with. See Watergate.
It's the same perjorative tactic people use to dismiss other claims by calling them "woo". If with a mere label like "conspiracy theory" you can justify not looking into people's claims, associating it with some defunct mental state or paranoia, then it saves yourself a lot of time and energy. You don't have to consider any claims you call "woo" or a "conspiracy theory" because the very label disqualifies it from being worthy of your attention. How convenient. In the meantime you have done absolutely nothing to discount the claims.
No conspiracy of a ufo coverup? Read about the work of respected physicist James McDonald and what hot water he got into for supporting scientific ufo research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McDonald "In his Statement on Unidentified Objects to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, McDonald made the following remarks regarding types of UFO accounts. 'The scope of the present statement precludes anything approaching an exhaustive listing of categories of UFO phenomena: much of what might be made clear at great length will have to be compressed into my remark that the scientific world at large is in for a shock when it becomes aware of the astonishing nature of the UFO phenomenon and its bewildering complexity. I make that terse comment well aware that it invites easy ridicule; but intellectual honesty demands that I make clear that my two years' study convinces me that in the UFO problem lie scientific and technological questions that will challenge the ability of the world's outstanding scientists to explain - as soon as they start examining the facts.' In the same statement, he said he had "become convinced that the scientific community ... has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance."
No quality evidence for flying saucers? Take a gander at this file of dozens of some of the best photographs of ufos dating back to the 1800's. If this isn't evidence I don't know what is. http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html
conspiracy noun, plural conspiracies. 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud,or other wrongful act. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy
Just so I'm clear then, you would classify all people who hold military secrets as being part of a conspiracy? And when you refer to "conspiracy theories" you are basically just saying: "I think there are secrets being kept"? Fair enough. But please note that when people refer to "conspiracy theories" or "conspiracy theorists" as a label, they are almost always implying an element of the irrational about the theory being held, or in the MO of the person. So it may be worth differentiating between the technical notion and the meaning behind the label.
I am aware of the pejorative use of the term "conspiracy theory." Its use and meaning is limited to those who want only to dismiss a theory based on nothing more than it's psychological implications. But I don't accept that as a valid critique of the theory. Every theory, even ones about conspiracies, needs to be evaluated on the evidence gathered for it. Pejorative labeling is not a means to this desired end. At best it expresses merely the resistance of the status quo or majority view against alternative theories. The automatic pathologization of the minority view in the attempt to marginalize and censor it from public awareness.
The Army had been entitled to spray the population without consent, concluded Conti, under the “discretionary function exception” in the Federal Tort Claims Act. http://priceonomics.com/how-the-us-government-tested-biological-warfare-on/
Approx 5% of blue book investigations listed as Unknown. Plenty of others dismissed and the official explanation doesnt hold water: http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/bluelist.htm quote from link below: When the UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO UFO PROJECT was initiated in 1966, a copy of Weitzel’s report was hand-delivered to the director, Dr. Edward U. CONDON, for his consideration. The CONDON REPORT, published two years later, does not mention the case. http://www.nicap.org/portage.htm And the ever present Low Memo: One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing - the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFO's. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message. http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm
I think you mistake it being pejorative (which it is, to a degree) with it being an argument in and of itself (which it isn't). Many of those who use it as a pejorative, on this site and elsewhere, do so as a conclusion, not as an argument. They see the same "evidence" but see no rational reason for invoking the notion of a conspiracy. And thus they conclude that those who do are of the irrational variety - hence the pejorative. It is not, in many cases, a dismissal at the outset without any regard for what "evidence" is presented. It is a dismissal after the assessment. That view smacks of playing the victim, MR, but in most cases I'm aware of on this site the evidence is reviewed, and upon review it is dismissed as rationally leading to the theory in question (be it conspiracy, ghosts, UFOs etc). The pejorative labelling comes afterward. Once someone is tagged with that label the term is used (fallaciously or otherwise) as well as assessment of the presented evidence. But if you do feel someone is simply using any pejorative term as an argument in its own right then call them out on it for the fallacious argument it is.
If there IS a conspiracy, sufficient research sometimes uncovers it. But we SEE that conspiracy theories often (usually) DON'T have sufficient research. One example is the "we never went to the moon" conspiracy theory. Its proponents display a profound ignorance of photography and an adamant refusal to learn anything.
That quote doesn't say anything about a conspiracy or coverup. Maybe you are using non-standard definitions of those words. Please describe what makes that quote fit your definitions.
I don't buy that for a second. If a particular theory has so easily been disproven as wrong, there'd be no need to condemn it just on the grounds that it's a "conspiracy theory." The whole tactic of denying credibility to someone espousing a theory because they are a stereotypical "conspiracy theorist" is not a conclusion at all based on simply disproving the theory. It is equivalent to ad homing by which the theory is hopefully invalidated because it is deemed from someone with a questionable psychology. It then generalizes itself to all theories about conspiracies as invalid in their own right, not because they have been proven wrong. People who have not examined the evidence for or against the theories can now at the very outset assume it is questionable because it is afterall just a "conspiracy theory." Did they consider the evidence for it? Well no. Why not? Because it's been called a "conspiracy theory", and we all know those are always de facto wrong and nutty. In fact that is not true. A theory about a conspiracy is not de facto wrong. Conspiracies have existed in the past, and still do exist now. If you believe they exist, it doesn't make you wrong or a nut. Done. Every time that internet meme of 30 traits of a conspiracy theory gets posted here I call it out as fallacious. All theories about empirically confirmable states of affairs should be held up to the evidence, not dismissed as symptoms of a mentally ill temperament.
