Corresponding Conspiracy Theorists

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 13 (5):15-32 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

In Defence of Particularism: A Reply to Stokes.Matthew R. X. Dentith - 2016 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5 (11):27-33.
Conspiracy Theories and Their Investigator(s).R. X. Dentith Matthew - 2017 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6 (4):4-11.
Treating Conspiracy Theories Seriously: A Reply to Basham on Dentith.Matthew R. X. Dentith - 2016 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5 (9):1-5.
The Role of Stereotypes in Theorizing About Conspiracy Theories: A Reply to Dentith.Scott Hill - 2022 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8):93-99.
Knowledge in a Conspiratorial World. [REVIEW]Ori Freiman - 2017 - The Berlin Review of Books:online.
The Philosophy of Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously. [REVIEW]Ori Freiman - 2019 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 8 (9):51-61.
Is ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Harmful? A Reply to Foster and Ichikawa.Scott Hill - 2023 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 12 (9):27-31.
Avoiding the Stereotyping of the Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories: A Reply to Hill.M. R. X. Dentith - 2022 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8):41-49.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-05-30

Downloads
204 (#102,269)

6 months
204 (#17,150)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

M R. X. Dentith
Beijing Normal University
Patrick Stokes
Deakin University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references