- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
The Iniquity of the Conspiracy Inquirers
Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 8 (8):1-11 (2019)
Abstract
A reply to “Why ‘Healthy Conspiracy Theories’ Are (Oxy)morons” by Pascal Wagner-Egger, Gérald Bronner, Sylvain Delouvée, Sebastian Dieguez and Nicolas Gauvrit.Author's Profile
Other Versions
No versions found
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Clearing Up Some Conceptual Confusions About Conspiracy Theory Theorising.Matthew R. X. Dentith & Martin Orr - 2017 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6 (1):9-16.
Social science's conspiracy theory panic: Now they want to cure everyone.Lee Basham & Matthew Dentith - 2016 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5 (10):12-19.
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.
The Philosophy of Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously. [REVIEW]Ori Freiman - 2019 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 8 (9):51-61.
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.
Reconciling Conceptual Confusions in the Le Monde Debate on Conspiracy Theories, J.C.M. Duetz and M R. X. Dentith.Julia Duetz & M. R. X. Dentith - 2022 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 10 (11):40-50.
Is ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Harmful? A Reply to Foster and Ichikawa.Scott Hill - 2023 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 12 (9):27-31.
Substantive Disagreement in the Le Monde Debate and Beyond: Replies to Duetz and Dentith, Basham, and Hewitt.Scott Hill - 2022 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (11):18-25.
In Defence of Particularism: A Reply to Stokes.Matthew R. X. Dentith - 2016 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5 (11):27-33.
Why a Pejorative Definition of ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Need Not Be Unfair.Juha Räikkä - 2023 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 12 (5):63-71.
Analytics
Added to PP
2019-08-20
Downloads
797 (#35,853)
6 months
103 (#69,487)
2019-08-20
Downloads
797 (#35,853)
6 months
103 (#69,487)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Dimensions of Conspiracy: Toward a Unifying Framework for Understanding Conspiracy Theory Belief.Melina Tsapos - manuscript
An Interdisciplinary Drama: Conspiracist Philosophers versus Conspiring Social Scientists?Francesco Censon - 2024 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 13 (4):12-22.
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.
References found in this work
The Open Society and its Enemies.Karl R. Popper - 1945 - Princeton: Routledge. Edited by Alan Ryan & E. H. Gombrich.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-786669fdf6-5dwlc uwo