The article seems to amount to "Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong". I don't see the connection.

No.

Here I consider in some detail a failure mode that classical rationality often recognizes. Unfortunately nearly all heuristics normally used to detect it seem remarkably vulnerable to misfiring or being exploited by others. I advocate an approach where we try our best to account for the key bias, seeing agency where there is none, while trying to minimize the risk of being tricked into dismissing claims because of boo lights.

To summarize.

When do conspiracy theories seem more likely than they are?

• The phenomena is unpredictable or can't be modelled very well
• Models used by others are hard to understand or are very counter-intuitive
• Thinking about the subject significantly strains cognitive resources
• The theory explains why bad things happen or why something went wrong
• The theory requires coordination

When you see these features you probably find the theory more plausible than it is.