Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories: Generalism vs. Particularism
Introduction to the Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories
General Context: Philosophers have spent the past years debating the academic problems surrounding conspiracy theories. The central question is whether we should be suspicious of all conspiracy theories as a class or if we should judge each case by its specific evidence.
Particularism: This is the current consensus position in philosophy. It argues that we should not treat all conspiracy theories as intrinsically irrational or unwarranted. Instead, we must examine them on a case-by-case basis. Particularists believe that conspiracy theories are like any other theory (e.g., scientific theories) and should be judged based on the evidence supporting them.
Generalism: This position argues that we have grounds to be suspicious of conspiracy theories as a whole class before even examining particular instances. Generalists claim that conspiracy thinking is intrinsically irrational and that we have a prima faca reason for an initial suspension of these theories given that they are typically false or suspect.
Defining Conspiracy Theories through Examples and Elements
Popular Examples Discussed: * Flat Earth Theory: Often involves people collecting data and performing experiments to prove the Earth is flat. A documentary on Netflix (lasting to hours) illustrates how these believers work. * Lizard People: The theory that the world is secretly controlled by lizard people, including powerful figures like Zagbog. * Assassinations: The JFK assassination, with some theories suggesting he "self-exploded." * Non-existent Landmasses: Theories claiming that Australia or New Zealand do not exist (the evidence cited for New Zealand is its absence on certain mining maps). * Historical and Modern Events: The classic case of 9/11 as an "inside job," COVID-19 origins (Chinese people accusing Americans of inventing it and vice versa), and vaccine conspiracies involving control or harm. * Monster Energy Drink: There are conspiracy theories related to this brand as well.
Distinguishing Elements: Conspiracy theories are often characterized as being counter-authority, relying on little to no evidence, connecting random or normalized events together, and attempting to explain events that are much bigger than the data provided.
Karl Popper and the "Conspiracy Theory of Society"
Popper's View: Considered the first modern philosopher of conspiracy theories, Popper (referred to as Popo in current debate) defined them as views where social phenomena are explained by discovering powerful groups or individuals who planned the occurrences for their own hidden interests.
Popo's Criticism of Conspiracy Logic: * Over-simplification: Social life is too complex to be reduced to the successful control of events by a few individuals. This ignores other social factors, policy choices, wars, institutional failures, and market dynamics. * Human Agency and Determinism: Popo argues these theories rely too much on the power of human agency, neglecting structural factors and unintended consequences. They represent a form of determinism where everything is the result of intentional action. * Moral and Social Danger: Popo believed belief in conspiracies leads to authoritarian tendencies. He cited Hitler and the belief in the Jewish world conspiracy as an extreme case. Hitler used this to justify the Holocaust, turning complex German social problems into a story about "hidden enemies." * Modern Superstition: Popo argued that conspiracy thinking has replaced old religious/superstitious explanations. Where people used to blame God for earthquakes or wars, they now blame secret groups, anchoring complex events in a single clear cause.
Particularist Rebuttals: Charles Pickton and the Reality of Conspiracies
Charles Pickton's Criticism: A professor at the University of Otago also referred to as Peyton, he argues that real conspiracies happen all the time (e.g., surprise parties, resistance movements against authoritarian regimes, political plotting, and assassinations).
The Neutral Definition: Pickton proposes a neutral definition: a conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to influence events through covert action. Because many accepted historical explanations are actually conspiracy explanations, rejecting the class of conspiracy theories would mean rejecting much of ordinary history.
The Dilemma for Generalists: Pickton argues that unless you believe history books and news are largely false (which would make you a conspiracy theorist), you must accept that history involves many conspiracies. Therefore, almost every literate person is technically a conspiracy theorist by accepting reliable historical accounts of political plotting or events like Worthgate.
The Problem of Labelling: Pickton maintains that the label "conspiracy theory" should not automatically make a claim look irrational. The focus should be on evidence and the quality of the explanation, not the label itself.
David Coding and the "Witch-Hunt" Analogy
The Mystery of the Witch-Hunt: David Coding (or David Cody) uses an analogy based on Arthur Miller's work on witch hunting. He argues that Popper (referred to as Popo) started an intellectual "witch hunt" against conspiracy theorists.
Defining the Objectionable: Whether a belief (like being a witch or a conspiracy theorist) is objectionable depends on the definition used. * Popo's definition (that everything is caused by successful conspiracy) is objectionable but "empty" because almost no one actually believes it. * Pickton's neutral definition is non-objectionable and not "empty."
The Side Irony: Popo wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, yet Coding argues that Popo's dismissal of conspiracy theories makes society less open. It silences whistleblowers and investigative journalists who question official accounts, effectively protecting government conspiracies from exposure.
New Generalism: Kassan and Conspiracy as Political Propaganda
Vice Epistemology: Kassan (also referred to as Consent) approaches conspiracy theories through the lens of habits or characters that make one a bad knower (epistemic vices).
Conspiracy Theory vs. Theory about Conspiracy: Kassan makes a distinction. The official report on 9/11 involves a conspiracy (by Al-Qaeda), but it is a "theory about a conspiracy." Only the "inside job" theory qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" in the critical sense.
Key Features of Conspiracy Theories according to Kassan: 1. Speculative: They rely on circumstantial clues and anomalies rather than direct evidence or testimony. 2. Amateurish: They are often proposed by people lacking expertise in relevant fields (e.g., criminology). 3. Self-Sealing: They re-interpret counter-evidence (like official reports) as being part of the conspiracy itself, making the theory immune to refutation.
Political Function: Kassan argues conspiracy theories are fundamentally a form of political propaganda or ideology (like antisemitism) rather than purely epistemic phenomena. He notes that "New Conspiracism" (e.g., Donald Trump's "fake news" claims) doesn't even bother with arguments or data.
Objections to Modern Generalism
The Harris Objection: Harris (and Harriet) argues that not all conspiracy theories are political propaganda. Flat Earth Theory has no immediate political agenda, though it might encourage distrust of experts.
Critique of the Three Features: * Speculative nature: Science often begins with hypotheses and anomalies; this is not a reason for dismissal. * Amateur authors: Judging a theory by its author's qualifications rather than the intellectual quality of the work is a flawed approach. * Self-sealing nature: Official accounts can also be self-sealing by dismissing any dissenters as "conspiracy theorists." Therefore, the only way forward is to listen to arguments and examine the specific evidence of the case.
Questions & Discussion
Student Question: Why do some people believe in Flat Earth if it's so ridiculous?
Response: This was discussed in light of the Kassan approach. According to a documentary, many believers initially thought it was ridiculous, but upon checking "evidence" and maps, they were convinced. They truly believe it without necessarily having a political ideology. However, some argue it facilitates a populist politics by rejecting authority.
Student Question: Is the debate between generalism and particularism just about how we define the term "conspiracy theory"?
Response: Yes, some people argue that generalists use the term in a circular, pejorative way (defining it as unwarranted), while particularists like Charles Pickton and David Coding use a neutral definition, which leads to their different conclusions.