When Are Theories Not Worth the Papers They Are Written In?

A stimulating letter, by Harriet Friedmann, objects to the use of phrase 'conspiracy theories', suggesting that 'conspiracy myths' or 'conspiracy fantasies' would be more appropriate (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/conspiracists-peddle-myths-not-theories). I will admit to a good deal of sympathy for her position. I am an ancient scientist. I have consequently always adhered to the view, that the practice of my craft, involves carefully examining phenomena, before coming up with potential explanations that are testable. Explanations rooted in untestable ideas (e.g. the changes were caused by invisible pixies) are absolutely NOT Science. We call a testable explanation a hypothesis. The tests involve making a prediction e.g. 'if I did 'x', 'y' would follow' (if 'y' does happen, the hypothesis is supported). When the scientific area is new, there may initially be several competing hypotheses. Carrying out the tests (there are often several, giving or removing support) and having them confirmed, by other scientists (something we call 'replication') follows. This may result in ONE hypothesis becoming generally accepted by the majority of informed specialists. That ONE hypothesis is then given theory status (e.g. it's the Theory of Evolution, because most Biologists accept it). Scientists don't have competing theories (competition is at the hypothesis stage). Theories may, however, be modified, or even replaced by a new hypothesis, as more information becomes available/more tests are carried out. It is very obvious that conspiracy 'theories' are not intended to be tested. 'Theory', in this useage, just means 'an unsubstantiated claim, that a particular group favours'. Perhaps 'conspiracy scenario' captures the meaning? The idea doesn't need to be true. It just needs to be written in a manner (like an act in a TV thriller), that will appeal to fellow conspiracists.