There's a limit on the topics, which you can find in the Terms of Service. But as long you don't get into Meta topics (discussing how DU deals with conspiracy theories for example), you can talk about them all you want here.

http://books.google.ch/books/about/Conspiracy_theories.html?id=SoyalAxDItYC&redir_esc=y

blurb:

Conspiracy theories have a bad reputation. In the past, most philosophers have ignored the topic, vaguely supposing that conspiracy theories are obviously irrational and that they can be easily dismissed. The current philosophical interest in the subject results from a realisation that this is not so. Some philosophers have taken up the challenge of identifying and explaining the flaws of conspiracy theories. Other philosophers have argued that conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, and that conspiracy theorists do not deserve their reputation for irrationality. This book represents both sides of this important debate. Aimed at a broad philosophical community, including epistemologists, political philosophers, and philosophers of history. It represents a significant contribution to the growing interdisciplinary debate about conspiracy theories.

In it, you'll find a very apt discussion of prominent methods and concepts used in order to discuss conspiracy theories so far. There's a very interesting discussion of Popper's view in it, too. Certainly not the last word on the topic, but a good place to start.

Very nice article.

I'd like to highlight this part (emphasis mine):

"Here is an interesting question to ponder: In what kind of society will it be easiest for the ruling elite to do bad things in secret, to everybody else’s disadvantage, without people finding out? In my view, in a society where most people believe that claims about the ruling elite doing bad things in secret must be laughably absurd and therefore necessarily incorrect -- you know, ‘conspiracy theories.’

I would submit that this is a law of anthropology: When those in power are watched less, they tend to get away with more.

On the basis of this law, if someone ever asks you the question, ‘Might there not be conspiracies by the ruling elite?’, you can already produce an intelligent guess even without doing any research on any specific allegation of conspiracy. You can ask yourself this: Is it the case that most people automatically believe that conspiracies cannot be happening? The answer is yes, because ‘conspiracy theories’ are supposed to be automatically idiotic. This makes conspiracies much easier to carry out, and with such a tremendous incentive, it would be surprising if the ruling elites were not in fact taking advantage. But in order to find out what exactly the ruling elites are or aren’t doing, of course, scientific research -- i.e. research that other people can verify -- will be necessary, because false accusations of conspiracy are also possible, and publications that allege conspiracies without providing documentation should not be trusted.

I leave you with this question. How to interpret the fact that The New York Times, which is supposed to be keeping an eye on government, tells us that ‘conspiracy theories’ are automatically incorrect?"

A fair point, ALWAYS ignored by media parrots here.

Whenever I try to bring this to discussion, I'm ignored.