Conspiracy Theories, Scepticism, and Non-Liberal Politics

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Epistemology Pub Date : 2023-03-13 DOI:10.1080/02691728.2023.2177127
F. Matthews
{"title":"Conspiracy Theories, Scepticism, and Non-Liberal Politics","authors":"F. Matthews","doi":"10.1080/02691728.2023.2177127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There has been much interest in conspiracy theories (CTs) amongst philosophers in recent years. The aim of this paper will be to apply some of the philosophical research to issues in political theory. I will first provide an overview of some of the philosophical discussions about CTs. While acknowledging that particularism is currently the dominant position in the literature, I will contend that the ‘undue scepticism problem’, a modified version of an argument put forward by Brian Keeley, is an important general objection to many CTs. This in turn leads to some substantial conclusions for liberal political philosophy, as the undue scepticism problem sets up a strong argument against non-liberal alternatives to liberal thought. I shall argue that we are justified in having far more doubt about the reliability of official sources in non-liberal societies, and it is legitimate to be more sceptical about claims designed to bolster non-liberal politics. Moreover, because scepticism is often more warranted in non-liberal societies, this may provide the possibility for the state to be stable, even if it is highly tyrannical or ineffective. These considerations are not intended to be decisive, but raise unresolved questions about the viability of non-liberal politics.","PeriodicalId":51614,"journal":{"name":"Social Epistemology","volume":"37 1","pages":"626 - 636"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2023.2177127","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT There has been much interest in conspiracy theories (CTs) amongst philosophers in recent years. The aim of this paper will be to apply some of the philosophical research to issues in political theory. I will first provide an overview of some of the philosophical discussions about CTs. While acknowledging that particularism is currently the dominant position in the literature, I will contend that the ‘undue scepticism problem’, a modified version of an argument put forward by Brian Keeley, is an important general objection to many CTs. This in turn leads to some substantial conclusions for liberal political philosophy, as the undue scepticism problem sets up a strong argument against non-liberal alternatives to liberal thought. I shall argue that we are justified in having far more doubt about the reliability of official sources in non-liberal societies, and it is legitimate to be more sceptical about claims designed to bolster non-liberal politics. Moreover, because scepticism is often more warranted in non-liberal societies, this may provide the possibility for the state to be stable, even if it is highly tyrannical or ineffective. These considerations are not intended to be decisive, but raise unresolved questions about the viability of non-liberal politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阴谋论、怀疑论与非自由政治
近年来,哲学家们对阴谋论产生了浓厚的兴趣。本文的目的是将一些哲学研究应用于政治理论中的问题。我将首先概述一些关于ct的哲学讨论。虽然承认特殊主义目前在文献中占主导地位,但我认为“过度怀疑主义问题”是布赖恩·基利(Brian Keeley)提出的论点的修改版本,是对许多ct的重要普遍反对意见。这反过来又为自由主义政治哲学带来了一些实质性的结论,因为过度的怀疑主义问题建立了一个强有力的论据,反对自由主义思想的非自由主义替代品。我认为,在非自由社会中,我们有理由对官方消息来源的可靠性产生更多的怀疑,而对旨在支持非自由政治的主张持更大的怀疑态度也是合理的。此外,由于怀疑主义在非自由社会往往更有理由,这可能为国家的稳定提供可能性,即使它是高度专制或无效的。这些考虑并不是决定性的,而是对非自由主义政治的可行性提出了尚未解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Social Epistemology provides a forum for philosophical and social scientific enquiry that incorporates the work of scholars from a variety of disciplines who share a concern with the production, assessment and validation of knowledge. The journal covers both empirical research into the origination and transmission of knowledge and normative considerations which arise as such research is implemented, serving as a guide for directing contemporary knowledge enterprises. Social Epistemology publishes "exchanges" which are the collective product of several contributors and take the form of critical syntheses, open peer commentaries interviews, applications, provocations, reviews and responses
期刊最新文献
Scientism and the Problem of Self-Referential Incoherence Testimonial Injustice from Countervailing Prejudices ‘Blackness’, the Body and Epistemological and Epistemic Traps: A Phenomenological Analysis The Contribution of Logic to Epistemic Injustice Friend or Foe? Rethinking Epistemic Trespassing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1