How to Tell Real Conspiracies from Conspiracy Theories, With the BBC's Marianna Spring

<p>The purpose of this episode is to help us think about how do we talk to people who are either confused by conspiracy theories or committed to them. How do we interact with family members who are in one of these categories.</p><p><br></p><p>In just the last week I’ve had confronted these circumstances in my own life. I don't think I did very well. One of my biggest mistakes was trying to argue over text and email rather than in person or over the phone. </p><p><br></p><p>And I talk here with Marianna Spring, who in March was assigned by the BBC in the UK to start reporting full time on the issue of disinformation and conspiracy theories. </p><p><br></p><p>We discuss how to know the difference between a real conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, what the distinguishing hallmarks are of a conspiracy theory, and how to talk to people in these two groups: those confused by conspiracy theories and those committed to them. </p><p><br></p><p>There are real conspiracies that have been uncovered in the past, like the Watergate scandal, or the CIA’s domestic spying program during the in the late 60’s and early 70’s, or the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal, or the use of extraodinary rendition and torture of military detainees by the U.S. government after 9/11, or the tobacco industry’s deceit of the public about the health effects of smoking.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>All came to light through investigative journalism, the courage of whistle-blowers working with the press, or state-sponsored inquiries. Tools like Freedom of Information requests have been crucial as well.&nbsp;</p><p><br></p><p>None of these things were uncovered by people who believe in the kind of conspiracy theories that are defined by the following characteristics:</p><ul><li>Negative evidence - the absence of evidence is the first tell-tale sign. It is the first chess move of a conspiracy theory, because it serves to prompt the obvious retort from a skeptic: “Where is the evidence?” This response is then used to paint the skeptic as close-minded and poten