Can conspiracy theories ever be plausible? The role of narrative rationality in the assessment of online conspiracy theories

Abstract

Conspiracy theories (CTs) represent a persistent challenge in evaluating major events, as they often employ fallacious forms of narrative reasoning and persuasion to posit conspiratorial agency and motives. While many CT narratives conflict with logic and reason, a minority may possess a degree of plausibility. But by what standards can plausibility of a CT be measured? This article introduces concepts from legal storytelling, rhetoric and cognitive linguistics to expand Walter Fisher's narrative paradigm framework, enabling auditors to critically engage with the rhetorical dynamics of CT narratives. Through an analysis of official and alternative narratives surrounding the death of a Russian spy, this article demonstrates how, in a similar way to the role of jurors in criminal trials, auditors may either join the rhetor in co-creating a coherent and plausible narrative, or end up challenging the rhetor by identifying problems and thus planting the potential seeds of rival accounts.