This is confusing conspiracy theories with conspiracy theorists, which is precisely the distinction the OP is making. Of course we should pay attention to claims that challenge the accepted explanation. That's how investigation and science work. If someone produces credible evidence of an actual conspiracy, we examine it. If the evidence stands up, it ceases to be merely a “conspiracy theory” and becomes a demonstrated conspiracy. But that's not what we're discussing. The issue here is the conspiratorial mindset: the person who repeatedly sees hidden plots, secret agendas and deliberate deception wherever they look, and then treats every coincidence, anomaly or unanswered question as confirmation. And the fact that some conspiracies may have historically been uncovered doesn't validate the thousands of unsupported ones. That's essentially saying, “Sometimes people lie, therefore my particular suspicion might be true.” It doesn't follow. More importantly, if one supposed conspiracy is eventually exposed, the committed conspiracy theorist doesn't suddenly abandon the mindset. They simply move on to the next one. The theory changes; the methodology doesn't. Genuine scepticism says: “Show me the evidence and I'll follow it wherever it leads.” Conspiratorial thinking says: “I suspect a conspiracy, and now I'll interpret everything through that suspicion.” And one final point: if tomorrow's “preview of coming attractions” eventually becomes established fact, then it isn't a conspiracy theory any more. It's a theory or claim supported by evidence. The important question isn't whether someone occasionally guesses a hidden event correctly. It's whether their method reliably distinguishes a genuine conspiracy from an imaginary one. That's where the conspiracy theorist usually comes unstuck.
