Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories

Philosophy of conspiracy theories

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Philosophy of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and/ or WP:SYNTH A loose necktie (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've consulted the NOR page and the section on synthesis, and I don't think this article has these problems. I've removed one paragraph anyway, which might be objectionable on notability grounds. And I changed the introduction to be a simple straightforward statement of the topic.

I would note that the content is largely, though not exclusively, a summary of summaries, as can be seen by looking at the references. For example, in one section, I repeatedly cite David Coady's introduction to his book Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, in which he summarizes the published articles on this topic up until 2006. Isn't that exactly what I'm supposed to do?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuteson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson is the creator of the article and the major contributor to it. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Summarizes a topic from the academic literature without advancing a new thesis about it. It might need a going-over with the encyclopedic-tone-alizer, but the subject is legitimate and the sourcing is OK. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, basically per XOR'easter. bd2412 T 19:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no branch of philosophy, per sources, that is called "Philosophy of conspiracy theories." This is a blatantly false claim. There's a plethora of work on conspiracy theories, in general or about particular ones, their origins, their effect on society and people, and so on. (The text looks like a student's paper, by the way, one of the avalanche of papers that are trying to find their way onto Wikipedia lately.) At best, this text needs to be draftified and get a serious make over. -The Gnome (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. (I assume I can vote for a page I originated, although my support is already implicit.) It seems The Gnome is suggesting that one of the sources is illegitimate because it, apparently, characterized the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a "branch" of philosophy. The Gnome calls this a "blatantly false claim." It is not clear which source is the offending one, so that makes checking the context difficult. In any case, I'm not sure it is quite fair to call this a "blatantly false claim." Personally, I would prefer to describe the philosophy of conspiracy theory as a subfield of applied epistemology, which is a subfield (or perhaps "branch") of applied philosophy, which may be considered a branch of philosophy. However, I think there is some ambiguity regarding what counts as a "branch" and that the word may legitimately be used in a loose way in this circumstance. The Gnome may disagree. But I don't think this criticism amounts to much, as there can be little question that it refers to a distinct, albeit small, subfield of philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson, could you then please name a few philosophers of conspiracy theories? Philosophers, please, and not sociologists, psychologists, analysts, reporters, critics, and so on. Additionally, could we locate any philosophy studies taught anywhere with Conspiracy Theories as their subject? All philosophical schools and subjects are taught somewhere. But, first, let's identify the philosophers, which denotes something quite specific. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. : There is nothing "loose" or vague about the term "philosophy", or its derivatives, i.e. "philosopher". We may be saying in everyday parlance, "Paul is being philosophical about his misfortune", but that is a metaphorical, colloquial use. -The Gnome (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bona fide philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject include: Charles Pigden, David Coady, Steve Clarke, Quassim Cassam, Matthew Dentith, Lee Basham, Kurtis Hagen, Brian Keeley, Patrick Stokes and Juha Räikkä. Other philosophers who have written at least one article include on the topic include: Keith Harris, Neil Levy, Pete Mandik, Philippe Huneman and Marion Vorms (jointly), and Joel Buenting and Jason Taylor (jointly). Other notable scholars who are not philosophers, such as Cass Sunstein and Adrien Vermeule, have contributed to the discussion in philosophy venues (such as the Journal of Political Philosophy). As to whether it is taught at universities: According to Google, “Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories” has been taught as a philosophy course, by Professor of Philosophy Aaron James, at the University of California, Irvine. I imagine it has been taught elsewhere to some degree, perhaps by some of the philosophers who publish in that area, though I don’t know the extent. Knuteson (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I should add that the Companion to Applied Philosophy (Wiley Blackwell, 2017) contains a chapter, “Are Conspiracy Theories Epistemically Vicious?” by Charles Pigden. This suggests that such questions are regarded as relatively representative of applied philosophy. Knuteson (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I should also add that the Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology (2019) has a chapter called ‘The applied epistemology of conspiracy theories: An overview’ by M. R. X. Dentith and Brian Keeley. (And I seem to have missed the work of philosopher Susan Feldman. I have probably missed others as well.) Knuteson (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to Knuteson:

1. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. When a subject, e.g. conspiracy theories, is discussed and taught in classes of epistemology, that on its own does not make those subjects part of philosophy! Epistemology addresses such questions as, "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", etc? In the course of epistemological analysis one may focus on superstitions, delusions, or cults. But this does not make any of them part of philosophy! An expert in astrology or a conspiracy theorist would hardly be called a "philosopher." Therefore, all that stuff about epistemology is irrelevant.
2. The fact that, in philosophy classes, the epistemology of conspiracy theories is (sometimes) taught, and not conspiracy theories per se, should be edifying - and enough.
3. The poet Roger Angell writes regularly, and one would dare say gloriously, about baseball. Yet, this does not make the game part of the poetry canon. Baseball can only be denoted as "poetry" metaphorically. Same goes for all those "philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject" of conspiracy theories, whom you brought forth as evidence of your argument. If you'd care to read what they have written, you'd see that they're treating the subject as a social phenomenon; not as part of some philosophical endeavor. Random samples: Charles Pigden here; Quassim Cassam here; Patrick Stokes here; Brian L. Keeley here (quote "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"); and so on.)
4. You cite the existence of a chapter titled “Are Conspiracy Theories Epistemically Vicious?” in a book for philosophy classes. But this is simply part of various issues in life that philosophers also examine, as I explained above. It does not mean, as you assert, that "questions [such as conspiracy theories] are regarded as relatively representative of applied philosophy." Applied philosophy has nothing to do with the plethora of unsupported, insane beliefs that are out there, nor is is "represented" by them! It merely offers an elementary warning against them; end of story. The effort to establish that there exists some kind of philosophy of conspiracy theories is both groundless and a serious liguistic mistake. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to The Gnome:

This is getting a little tiring. You had asked questions, and I answered them. Now you seem to be moving the goal post. I thought the question was whether bona fide philosophers have discussed the epistemic merits of conspiracy theories in philosophical venues, including philosophy journals and philosophy classes. They have. But now you are turning it into a question of whether this really counts as philosophy of that subject.

1. It is not that conspiracy theories are part of philosophy, it is that treating them philosophically is part of philosophy. The same can be said of religion and science (see point 2 below). In any case, I suppose we could trade examples and give competing arguments by analogy regarding the meaning of “philosophy of …” But the important fact is that the phrase “the epistemology of conspiracy theories” has been used in philosophical circles (as cited above) to refer to the philosophical exploration of the epistemic merits and demerits of conspiracy theories, and the phrase “the philosophy of conspiracy theories” has been used to indicate the same terrain while also being inclusive of ethical issues. (I have not yet included a section on the ethics of conspiracy theorizing, but I plan to). Is your objection that the page has been improperly titled? In that case the solution is not deletion, but simply changing the title. (Any suggestions?) Or is it that you think philosophers discussing conspiracy theories in the philosophical literature is not a topic that should be permitted on Wikipedia? If so, on what basis?
2. A “philosophy of science” class would not involve science, but rather philosophical discussions about science; a “philosophy of religion” would not teach religion, but rather involve a philosophical discussion about issues related to religion. Similarly, the philosophy of conspiracy theories involves philosophical considerations regarding ethical and epistemological issues related to conspiracy theories. (The epistemology of conspiracy theories covers the subset of epistemological considerations.)
3. In point 3 you seem to suggest that philosophers who discuss conspiracy theories in philosophy forums are somehow not doing philosophy when they do so. They are like, you seem to suggest, philosophers who happen to be talking about baseball, rather than discussing philosophical issues involved in baseball. (There is, in fact, a book called “The Philosophy of Baseball,” by a philosopher, which is presumably a work of philosophy.) In fact, if they are treating the matter philosophically, they are doing the kind of philosophy called “applied philosophy,” and it does count as philosophy—philosophy departments count this work as research in philosophy relevant to tenure and promotion. (It is unclear why the papers by Stokes and Keeley, in particular, are supposed to be examples of “not philosophy.” They most certainly count as philosophy. Whether they treat conspiracy theories as “a social phenomenon” is totally irrelevant. Of course conspiracy theorizing is a social phenomenon. One can philosophize about social phenomena—and I’m not using the word “philosophize” loosely here.)
4. Point 4 seems to reflect multiple misunderstandings (some of which have been discussed above), as well as lack of familiarity with the material. Also, your understanding of “conspiracy theory” seems highly skewed. In the philosophical literature, at least, the meaning that you imply has been largely repudiated. Coincidently, I have just finished, and will be adding, a new section on the discussion of the definition of conspiracy theory. Perhaps the fact that most academic philosophers who write on this subject don’t share your perspective rubs you the wrong way. But that is not a good reason to delete the page. (Since this is Wikipedia, anyone is free to check the references and make adjustments if something seems to be mischaracterized, or to add bits or sections, if one thinks I’ve given a skewed account.)

Although I am just learning the ways of Wikipedia, I have done the reading on this topic (everything I’ve cited, and more, but not everything written by everybody), and I have had some training in philosophy. I do know what I’m talking about, and I’d appreciate it if you did not insinuate otherwise. Knuteson (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)