I was reading an old essay I wrote and saw a footnote reading as follows:

If anyone plans to respond to my description of Israel as an ally using the words "USS Liberty", please don't bother. I have read the sites, seen the arguments, and I am convinced "fog of war" explains it all perfectly. I have to think those who insist on some Israeli plot have another agenda, as not only isn't the evidence there, but what possible motive could Israel have? Unless you are of the "Israel=Evil Jews" school, what could explain an intentional attack on the Liberty?

I realized that some readers may have been a bit confused by this comment. I am normally quite ready to argue even the most implausible points, yet here I am dismissing an entire topic.

Actually, this is not the only case where I have done this. I also refused to reply to comments form 9/11 truthers in another post, and, were the topic ever to arise, I would refuse to discuss conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination as well.

The reason I don't discuss these topics is simple. It is the same reason that, while I am willing to discuss theology, I am not willing to debate the truth or falsehood of any religion. Conspiracy theories are not reasoned beliefs, they are a substitute for religion.

If you want evidence, just disprove one aspect of any conspiracy theory. Once the first flush of pure hatred has passed, the believer will find some way to explain away your argument, grasping at any straw just to retain belief in their theory. It is evident that their belief is more important than facts or the truth. They have spent so much effort on their theory that they no longer can give it up. It has become a big part of who they are, and surrendering their beliefs, even if it is proven false, would cost them too much.

But what do I mean by conspiracy theory? I have been throwing that word around a lot and have not yet defined it. I suppose the best definition is a theory that some or all major events in history have been secretly manipulated by a specific group and that this manipulation has managed to remain largely unnoticed.

Yes, there have been conspiracies throughout history, I do not deny that. But, historically, the larger the group, or the greater its impact, the less success it has had staying hidden. In the world of conspiracy theories, this is stood on its head, and large groups commit acts which change the world, yet remain out of public view. 

But, as conspiracies have existed in the past, and even managed to stay out of sight for a time, I suppose the best definition I cna give is that I dismiss a conspiracy theory if it fails to answer four simple questions:

1. Who would benefit and how?
2. How is that even possible?
3. Why would anyone go along with that scheme?
4. How would anyone keep that secret?

Let us examine how these four questions help us identify some common conspiracy theories.

The first question, who would benefit, is best illustrated by the previously mentioned USS Liberty incident. In my mind it is quite simple to explain everything that happened by accepting the explanation of the Israeli's that either the flag was not flying or was not seen by the pilots. No other explanation is needed to make sense of the entire event. But, for those who insist on a more sinister explanation, I have one question, "Who would benefit from this attack?" At the time, Israel was quite dependent on the US for support. The rest of the world was not fond of the nation, they were engaged in a series of wars with their immediate neighbors, and the US had been, however inconsistently, their one ally through their history. So, what exactly would motivate Israel to attack a US spy ship? It is not as if Israel could blame it on the Arab League, it was quite clear who was attacking. There simply is no conceivable motive, unless we posit that Jews are simply evil and like to kill gentiles. (Assuming, of course, there were no Jews on the Liberty, a fact I have never cared enough to check.)

The second question, is it possible, is probably best illustrated by some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Before I start on specific theories, let me plug a favorite site here, and direct readers to 911myths.com for debunking of many popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. From the mistaken belief that the CIA funded bin Ladin to the reports of hijackers being found alive overseas, this is an invaluable site. Now, on to specifics.

One of my favorite 9/11 truth theories is that the WTC towers were struck by remote control planes. Now, this raises two questions. If the planes were remotely controlled while filled with pilots and crew, the theory just falls apart, as a very good essay explains that it would simply be impossible to do so without alerting the flight and ground crew, and, even if it were possible, there exist countless ways the pilot could have regained control from the remote systems. So, we must assume that the plane was empty at the time of the crash, which leaves us with the question of how it was substituted for a plane full of people with no one noticing and where that plane and those people are now. About a minute of thought will show that this theory either requires a conspiracy involving several thousand people, including all passengers, every air traffic controller and anyone operating radar in the area, or else it is simply impossible.

The other 9/11 theory that falls apart on ground of impossibility is the "controlled demolitions" theory. Not that controlled demolition is impossible, it is done every day. What the theory misses is that during a controlled demolition, interior walls, insulation, lesser supporting structures, and a host of other architectural features are removed before the demolitions, while a number of holes are drilled and a huge quantity of explosives are brought in. That anything like this could have been done during the weeks before 9/11 is just absurd. Even if we postulate that it was done on weekends and at night, it just makes no sense. The building is not completely empty at night or on weekends, so we start having to postulate a conspiracy involving several hundred maids and security guards in order to keep this theory viable, which is a sure sign that the theory has become implausible. Once again, the theory falls apart once we ask if it is physically possible.

The third question, why would anyone go along, is a good argument against something that is not commonly called a conspiracy theory, but fits the category quite well. I am speaking of the worries many have that China is buying out US defense contractors with the intent of doing something nefarious. I think the best way to illustrate this is to imagine a conversation between an engineer and his supervisor following the Chinese buyout:

Jim, Supervisor: John, you work on those surveillance satellites for the military, right?
John, Engineer: Yep, that's me.
Jim: Well, the new management has a request. They want you to add this to all your new designs.
John: (Examining the black box) What is it?
Jim: (Shrugs) I don't know. They said it is called "The Evil Circuit". I think it has something to do with accounting.
John: Do you have any circuit diagrams?
Jim: No. Comrade Vice President just told me to make sure it went into ever piece of military hardware.
John: OK, let me just make a call. (Into phone) Homeland security?

Of course, even that is absurd, as it is unlikely any changes could be made to a military contract without a review by the military. But my little skit does prove a point. The contractors China is buying are staffer with American workers. It is very unlikely they will suddenly become supporters of the PRC just because their company is purchased. It just makes no sense. And so, the question "why would anyone go along" shows how far fetched these fears are.

The final question, how could they keep that secret, tends to be the rock upon which most conspiracy theories are wrecked. Most of these theories require massive numbers of people which make keeping secrets quite impossible. But I think the best example, by a wide margin, is the theory proposed in Holy Blood, Holy Grail (and other books by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln) and then plagiarized by The DaVinci Code, the theory that there exists a secret order which has protected and hidden the bloodline of Jesus.

Let us just think about this for a moment. This secret order has lasted from circa 33 AD until the 1980's without discovery until Mssrs. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln uncovered it? That just stretches credulity way beyond breaking. The Freemasons were once the archetype of secretive groups, yet their secret rituals were published less than a century after their public announcement of their existence. Nor have religious scruples kept the temple rituals of the Mormons secret. If neither of these groups, both quite adept at secrecy, could not keep their most private secrets out of public view for even a century, what are the odds that this conspiracy could keep even its existence secret for so long? It would take only one member losing faith for the entire thing to be revealed. And it seems hard to believe that for almost 2000 years not one member later had second thoughts, or turned atheist, or decided the public should know the secret. Even a member with an axe to grind against a fellow could let the cat out of the bag.

In short, to believe this theory, we have to accept that a large secret society existed for 2000 years with not one member ever having a conflict with another or anyone ever having a doubt about the rightness of the organization's aims and methods. I doubt you could keep that much agreement going for long in a group of even three people, much less in a large organization. It is simply impossible.

Of course, I have just scratched the surface with my descriptions. Obviously there are more theories than I have mentioned here. But, in my experience, not one of them can answer all four questions adequately. But if you doubt me, try it yourself. Take whatever conspiracy theory you like and apply the questions, see if you can honestly answer all four questions concerning your favorite theory.

Just please don't send me the answers.