<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body><br>
http://pos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/1/3<br>
<h2>
Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?
</h2>
<strong>
<nobr>Charles Pigden</nobr>
</strong>
<font size="-1">
University of Osago
</font><BR>
Conpiracy theories are widely deemed to be superstitious. Yet<sup> </sup>history appears to be littered with conspiracies successful<sup> </sup>and otherwise. (For this reason, "cock-up" theories cannot in<sup> </sup>general replace conspiracy theories, since in many cases the<sup> </sup>cock-ups are simply failed conspiracies.) Why then is it silly<sup> </sup>to suppose that historical events are sometimes due to conspiracy?<sup> </sup>The only argument available to this author is drawn from the<sup> </sup>work of the late Sir Karl Popper, who criticizes what he calls<sup> </sup>"the conspiracy theory of society" in <i>The Open Society</i> and elsewhere.<sup> </sup>His critique of the conspiracy theory is indeed sound, but it<sup> </sup>is a theory no sane person maintains. Moreover, its falsehood<sup> </sup>is compatible with the prevalence of conspiracies. Nor do his<sup> </sup>arguments create any presumption against conspiracy theories<sup> </sup>of this or that. Thus the belief that it is superstitious to<sup> </sup>posit conspiracies is itself a superstition. The article concludes<sup> </sup>with some speculations as to why this superstition is so widely<sup> </sup>believed.</body>
</html>