Argument of Definition

For my paper I would like to define the term "conspiracy theorist."  Many times society labels conspiracy theorists  as someone who is extremely paranoid or unstable in order to discount what they are saying. I would like to argue that there is no doubt some very logical and very sane member of our society who believe in theories that everyone may not accept as truth.  Everyone has their own form of truth and everyone is allowed to believe in what they want, but anytime big business or the government tells the general public something it will mostly like be a version of the truth and not the whole truth.  Whether these entities keep secrets to protect the public or just to save face, I am glad there are good people who question the "truth" for the betterment of society.  

For my secondary source, I am using an essay written by Dr. Floyd Rudmin.  Dr, Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department at the University of Tromso, in Tromso Norway.   Rudmin's background in psychology makes him a credible source in this discussion, but also he has a very succinct way of explaining why conspiracy theory has been given a negative connotation and why in so many ways it is wrong. Rudmin uses examples of many different publications to show why the negative views of conspiracy theory is given a bad rap.  Such as, a book written by Daniel Pipes called Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From.  Pipes' book, on title alone, discredits the conspiracy believer by labeling them as paranoid.  Rudmin refutes the presuppositions that goes along with conspiracy theory and explains why people should be given the chance to express doubt before being labeled a "nutcase."

I believe an essay such as this is a  great source because Rudmin uses over 30 references in his essay and he displays both sides of the argument for and against conspiracy theory.  His style of writing is very interesting and could compel more people to be less cynical of conspiracy. He is also avery credible because he is a professor who devotes his time to studying human behavior and how we interpret behavior.  So, he is indeed an expert.  Rudmin has been published in 15 scholarly journals all on the subject of psychology and human behavior.  His writings are primarily directed at an educated audience and he doesn't seem to have any real motive other than to arouse the interest of his readers and beg the question,  why does society deem conspiracy theory to false? 

Rudmin, Floyd W. "CONSPIRACY THEORY AS NAIVE DECONSTRUCTIVE HISTORY." New    Democracy World. N.p., Apr. 2003. Web. 10 Sept. 2012. <http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/conspiracy.htm>.