Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:30:46.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Is Conspiracy Theorizing Really Epistemically Problematic?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Abstract

In an article based on a recent address to the Royal Institute of Philosophy, Keith Harris has argued that there is something epistemically wrong with conspiracy theorizing. Although he finds “standard criticisms” of conspiracy theories wanting, he argues that there are three subtle but significant problems with conspiracy theorizing: (1) It relies on an invalid probabilistic version of modus tollens. (2) It involves a problematic combination of both epistemic virtues and vices. And (3) it lacks an adequate basis for trust in its information sources. In response to Harris, this article argues that, like previous criticisms, these criticisms do little to undermine conspiracy theorizing as such. And they do not give us good reasons to dismiss any particular conspiracy theory without consideration of the relevant evidence.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguilar, G. (2016). ‘NOVA's Cold Case: JFK – the Junk Science Behind PBS's Recent Foray into the Crime of the Century.’ Kennedys and King, 14 July. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs.Google Scholar
Aguilar, G. and Wecht, C. (2015). ‘Letter to the Editor: “Tracking the ‘Magic’ Bullet in the JFK Assassination”…AFTE Journal 47(3), 131–8.Google Scholar
Aguilar, G. and Wecht, C. (2016). ‘Letter to the Editor: “Tracking the ‘Magic’ Bullet in the JFK Assassination”…AFTE Journal 48(2), 6885.Google Scholar
Basham, L. (2018 a). ‘Joining the Conspiracy.Argumenta 3(2), 271–90.Google Scholar
Basham, L. (2018 b). ‘Social Scientists and Pathologizing Conspiracy Theorizing.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 95107. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Basham, L. and Dentith, M. (2018). ‘The Psychologists’ Conspiracy Panic: They Seek to Cure Everyone.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 7993. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Borjesson, K. (2004). Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Buenting, J. and Taylor, J. (2010). ‘Conspiracy Theories and Fortuitous Data.’ Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40(4), 567–78.10.1177/0048393109350750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, A. (2019). ‘Why did Bush go to War in Iraq? No, it Wasn't Because of WMDs, Democracy or Iraqi Oil. The Real Reason is Much More Sinister Than That.’ Al Jazeera, 20 March. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/bush-war-iraq-190318150236739.html.Google Scholar
Coady, D. (ed.). (2006). Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Cole, J. (2013). ‘The Official Collapse Narrative and the Experimental Method.’ In J. Gourley (ed.), The 9/11 Toronto Report, pp. 233–52.Google Scholar
Dentith, M. (ed.) (2018 a). Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dentith, M. (2018 b). ‘The Conspiracy Theory Theorists and Their Attitude to Conspiracy Theory: Introduction to Section Two.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 73–7. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goertzel, T. (1994). ‘Belief in Conspiracy Theories.’ Political Psychology 15(4), 731–42.10.2307/3791630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, A. (2019). ‘As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston.’ Democracy Now, 25 March. https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did.Google Scholar
Haag, L. (2019). ‘The Unique and Misunderstood Wound Ballistics in the John F. Kennedy Assassination.’ American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 40(4), 336–46.10.1097/PAF.0000000000000510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, K. (2018 a). ‘Conspiracy Theories and Monological Belief Systems.’ Argumenta 3(2), 303–26.Google Scholar
Hagen, K. (2018 b). ‘Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style: Do Conspiracy Theories Posit Implausibly Vast and Evil Conspiracies?’ Social Epistemology 32(1), 2440.10.1080/02691728.2017.1352625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, K. (2018 c). ‘Conspiracy Theorists and Social Scientists.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 125–40. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Harris, K. (2019). ‘What's Epistemically Wrong with Conspiracy Theorising?’ In Barker, S., Crerar, C. and Goetze, T.S. (eds), Harms and Wrongs in Epistemic Practice. Royal Institute of Philosophy Suppl. 84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hennelly, R. and Policoff, J. (1992). ‘JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story.’ The Village Voice. Available on Kennedys and King, https://kennedysandking.com/content/jfk-how-the-media-assassinated-the-real-story.Google Scholar
Husting, G. (2018). ‘Governing with Feeling: Conspiracy Theories, Contempt, and Affective Governmentality.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 109–23. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Keeley, B. (1999). ‘Of Conspiracy Theories.’ Journal of Philosophy 96(3), 109–26.10.2307/2564659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. (2014). 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America's Moral Integrity. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Neyfakh, L. (2018). ‘S1 Ep. 8: Going South.’ Slow Burn (podcast), Slate Plus, 30 January. Transcript available at: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/slow-burn/s1-ep-8-going-south-YKtLfrkziU7/.Google Scholar
Noguchi, T. (2014). ‘Medical Examiner's Case No. 68-5731: Robert F. Kennedy.’ In Coroner. New York, NY: Open Road Media.Google Scholar
Olmsted, K. (2009). Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Orr, M. and Dentith, M. (2018). ‘Clearing Up Some Conceptual Confusions about Conspiracy Theory Theorizing.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 141–53. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Palamara, V. (2015). JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium. Walterville, OR: Trine Day.Google Scholar
Raab, M. (2018). ‘To Measure or Not to Measure? Psychometrics and Conspiracy Theories.’ In Dentith, M. (ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, pp. 155–69. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Räikkä, J. and Basham, L. (2019). ‘Conspiracy Theory Phobia.’ In Uscinski, J. (ed.), Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, pp. 178–86. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rather, D. (2004). ‘The Patriot and the Censor's Necklace: An Interview with BBC Culture Correspondent Madeleine Holt.’ In Borjesson, K. (ed.), Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, pp. 3542. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Stubblefield, A. (2005). Ethics Along the Color Line. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. and Vermeule, A. (2009). ‘Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 17(2), 202–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taibbi, M. (2019). ‘It's Official: Russiagate is this Generation's WMD.’ Untitledgate, 23 March. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million.Google Scholar
Uscinski, J. (2018). ‘The Study of Conspiracy Theories.’ Argumenta 3(2), 233–45.Google Scholar
Walter, T. (2015). Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Berkeley, CA: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.Google Scholar
Wood, M., Douglas, K.M. and Sutton, R.M. (2012). ‘Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories.’ Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(6), 767–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar