# Quantifying Conspiracy: A Mathematical Model for Evaluating the Validity of Theories

**Byline:** Cara Mico · Coast Desk  
**Class:** Essay  
**Status:** Web excerpt; full paper on Drive

**Source:** [Google Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IGDBCx9Y_m5hB0HdKgSBMlJyg-5L8k7AGunmMvABkoY/edit)

---

This study presents a quantitative model for evaluating the validity of theories, from scientific hypotheses to conspiracy claims. The model scores the quality and verifiability of supporting statements, the credibility and expertise of sources, potential bias, reliance on obscured or nonexistent data, and public perception.

It was tested on the heliocentric model of the solar system, the existence of the Higgs boson, theories about the origin of COVID-19, and the “plandemic” claim. The model separated well-supported theories from weakly supported ones. One finding was how much the score moves when high-quality verifiable statements and expert sources are weighted more heavily.

The paper also names the hard case: theories that rest on obscured or nonexistent data. There the score can rank the relative strength of what is on the table. It cannot declare the claim true or false.

## Variables

The full inventory includes high- and low-quality verifiable statements, unverifiable statements, source credibility and expertise, funding bias, theoretical versus applied research, researcher bias, reliance on obscured data, incentive to lie, potential for a cover-up, public perception, historical precedent, scientific plausibility, consistency, simplicity, narrative consistency, emotional content, and contextual fit.

A later simplified set keeps the levers that moved the score in practice: anomalies, verifiable and unverifiable statements, credibility, incentive to lie, potential for cover-up, reliance on obscured data, expert agreement, and public perception.

## Cases

Higgs boson and human-induced climate change score as strongly supported once expert weight is in the formula. Later cases in the full paper take on COVID-origin claims and the “plandemic” narrative. Claims that lean on unverifiable statements and obscured data drop.

## Limit

A number cannot finish an argument that is missing its evidence. Used with other reading, the score makes the missing parts visible.