How much circumstantial evidence is required to convert a conspiracy theory to a conspiracy fact?

Answer 1

The standards of rational thought (which is what we use in the Western civilizations) is generally speaking, "A preponderance of the evidence."

Circumstantial evidence is indeed used in rational thought to help create an understanding, inform answers, and build hypothesis which are then used to establish fact.

What this means in plain English is that despite that absolute proof of something may not exist, having enough compelling circumstantial evidence about something is pretty convincing to a rational person.

When there is enough circumstantial evidence present and no other reasonable explanation exists, then what we're left with is a genuine theory for how something works or occurred.

The keys here are:

1. A lot of evidence, and the evidence needs to be credible.

2. The circumstantial evidence that is present needs to all make sense and generally point toward the same conclusion.

3. The evidence must be credible. If at any stage of the investigation the evidence seems to be concocted, misinterpreted, or falsified then it is exponentially more difficult to compel others to accept the rest of the circumstantial evidence regardless of how legitimate it may be. Tainted evidence can very quickly and easily undermine any attempt to substantiate conspiratorial claims.

4. The vast majority of the evidence must point towards the same conclusion.

5. That conclusion must stand the test of reason (Eg: "Does this make sense?")

6. There must be no other reasonable explanation available that could also explain the evidence.

If these criteria are met, then by and large the circumstantial evidence can, and usually will, be enough to compel most people to look twice at the issue and bring about further study on the topic.