The tendency to be more excluding on account of views and beliefs held has intensified all the more. The proliferation of discussions and forums through social media reflects both the potential and challenges of the Internet as a public sphere. While these platforms foster widespread and immediate engagement, the rise of echo chambers, characterized by selective information sharing and trust disparities, undermines inclusivity and genuine public discourse. This paper examines the tension between echo chambers and the Internet's potential as a (...) public sphere, where individuals can engage in meaningful and rational discussions, specifically those involving relevant socio-political deliberations. Grounded in Jürgen Habermas’s framework, the paper explores the Internet as a communal space that fosters open dialogue, contrasting it with the exclusionary dynamics of echo chambers. By analyzing the essential features of echo chambers within the context of the 2022 Philippine National Elections, the paper situates this phenomenon in the broader socio-epistemological landscape. It demonstrates how the Internet embodies the characteristics of a public sphere while addressing its challenges. Ultimately, this paper argues that echo chambers are antithetical to the democratic nature of the Internet, emphasizing the need for digital spaces that promote inclusive and critical engagement. (shrink)

I argue that forays into history of science in Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962/1996) are by and large instances of “Great Man” history of science. “Great Man” history is the idea that history is the biography of great men. The “Great Man” of science model not only excludes women and people of color from science but also suggests that only special, exceptional people can succeed in science. If this is correct, then Kuhn (1962/1996) fails to usher in a (...) “historiographic revolution in the study of science” or a “new historiography” (Kuhn 1962/1996, 3), as the book purports to do. Instead, it merely perpetuates the defunct historiography of the “Great Man” of science. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Nader Shoaibi (2024) makes a valuable contribution to the discussion on genealogies and conspiracy theories (CTs) by focusing on a particular kind of genealogy: what he calls 'political genealogies'. Roughly, political genealogies are not so much interested in the epistemic warrant (or rationality) of a given belief or theory. Rather, their function is to illuminate the social and political conditions that give rise to the spread of (unwarranted) CTs. Shoaibi also notes that such genealogies have an (...) important normative dimension: by drawing on the social/political conditions surrounding CTs we are also invited to engage in a ‘constructive strategy’ concerning CT-believers. This strategy, according to Shoaibi, can be cashed out in terms of ‘world-travelling’ which, as per feminist philosopher Maria Lugones, involves radical humility and playfulness. I agree with a lot of what Shoaibi has to say in his paper. I find his notion of CT political genealogies philosophically fruitful since it carves out what I take to be novel conceptual space in the literature. And I welcome the appeal to ‘world-travelling’ when dealing with proponents of unwarranted CTs. In this piece I respond to some of Shoaibi’s worries against epistemic genealogies, and I raise a concern about the possibility of political genealogies being hijacked by malicious actors. I also make some preliminary remarks about what could be called 'genealogical pluralism' about CTs, while also arguing for the primacy of epistemic genealogies. (shrink)