Of conspiracy theories

Journal of Philosophy 96 (3):109-126 (1999)
Abstract
As the end of the Millennium approaches, conspiracy theories are increasing in number and popularity. In this short essay, I offer an analysis of conspiracy theories inspired by Hume's discussion of miracles. My first conclusion is that whereas Hume can argue that miracles are, by definition, explanations we are not warranted in believing, there is nothing analytic that will allow us to distinguish good from bad conspiracy theories. There is no a priori method for distinguishing warranted conspiracy theories (say, those explaining Watergate) from those which are unwarranted (say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans). Nonetheless, there is a cluster of characteristics often shared by unwarranted conspiracy theories. An analysis of the alleged explanatory virtues of unwarranted conspiracies suggests some reasons for their current popularity, while at the same time providing grounds for their rejection. Finally, I discuss how conspiracy theories embody an anachronistic world-view that places the contemporary zeitgeist in a clearer light.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.1084585
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 19,646
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Pete Mandik (2007). Shit Happens. Episteme: The Journal of Social Epistemology 4 (2):205-218.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Peter J. Lewis (2006). Conspiracy Theories of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):359-381.
Peter J. Lewis (2006). Conspiracy Theories of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):359-381.
Pete Mandik (2007). Shit Happens. Episteme: The Journal of Social Epistemology 4 (2):205-218.
Pete Mandik (2007). Shit Happens. Episteme 4 (2):205-218.
David Coady (2003). Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):197-209.
Steve Clarke (2002). Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (2):131-150.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

107 ( #34,133 of 1,789,927 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

20 ( #40,112 of 1,789,927 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  is 1 thread in this forum
2016-03-29
My alarm bells went off seeing mention of Al Qaeda and 9/11 in an abstract from 1999. Turns out the DOI and abstract here are not for Keeley's 1999 paper, but for an SSRN working paper by Sunstein and Vermeule from 2008 (which doesn't seem to have a separate philpapers entry). I can delete the abstract from this entry, but I can't find a way to edit the DOI.

What's the best thing for a user like me to do? I could create another entry with the correct DOI (which is 10.2307/2564659)&copy over the information from this one, then edit this one to describe the Sunstein and Vermeule paper, but I feel like there's got to be a better way--especially since that would distort the download stats for the two papers.
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14402 Reply