Conspiracy Theories, Probabilities, and Truth

Tracking truth these days is no small feat. What's the truth about conspiracies?

Hi everyone,

I’m occasionally pulled into discussions about conspiracy theories, and lately the discussions seem more insistent and more frequent. Their prevalence in culture is a big threat, and I can’t pretend to get very far here with this post, but I’m keen to get out a few cursory thoughts to help make sense of this seemingly growing problem today. So let’s dive in. We can start with lies, or rather, secrets.

An Inconvenient Truth

Conspiracy theorists are hyper-alert to the devious machinations and prevarications of those in power. But it’s widely accepted that powerful interests dissemble and lie—history is full of examples. The real question isn’t whether they lie, but whether dark truths can be kept hidden indefinitely—or for very long at all. Both history and common sense suggest otherwise.

The idea that major conspiracies can remain undetected simply doesn’t hold up. While conspiracy enthusiasts may see subversive forces at every turn, they often ignore the basic reality of how people and lies interact. The principle is simple: the more people involved and the higher the stakes, the harder it is to keep a secret.

Take Watergate, for example. What started as a seemingly minor operation—a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters—quickly spiraled into one of the biggest political scandals in American history. Although the initial burglary involved only a handful of operatives, the cover-up efforts extended far wider, eventually involving high-level officials within the Nixon administration. As more people became implicated, the web of lies and deceit began to unravel. The sheer number of individuals who knew about the cover-up made it impossible to maintain secrecy. Facts collided with lies, and the truth inevitably came out, leading to the resignation of President Nixon.

The dynamic is the same for any large-scale conspiracy: the more moving parts, the more people who know, the greater the chance that someone will talk, that a mistake will be made, or that the truth will slip out.

The Long Arm of the Law

One way to understand the dynamics of truth-seeking is to consider the jury system in jurisprudence. Early theorists hit upon the idea of adversarial competition: the defense vigorously defends the accused, and the prosecution relentlessly pursues a guilty verdict. The hope is that these colliding forces will eventually uncover the truth. It makes sense: if one side searches for every piece of evidence to prove innocence and the other digs deep to establish guilt, the facts should emerge over time. Of course, this system isn’t flawless. Innocent people can be wrongly convicted, and the guilty can go free—especially if they’re rich and powerful. But the key idea is that we have no better method for approximating the truth.

This logic also applies to how we discern what’s true in the face of conspiracies. If, after every investigation, committee review, and independent inquiry, a particular version of events survives, we have no other reason to believe that an alternative narrative is the truth. If you’re still convinced of the "alt" version after all credible sources have taken a crack at finding the truth, it’s a strong indication that you’re probably wrong—and that you’ve crossed into conspiracy theory territory.