{"id":938,"date":"2020-06-15T10:00:38","date_gmt":"2020-06-15T09:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=938"},"modified":"2020-06-12T16:01:44","modified_gmt":"2020-06-12T15:01:44","slug":"the-epistemic-predicament-of-the-conspiracy-theorist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-epistemic-predicament-of-the-conspiracy-theorist\/","title":{"rendered":"The epistemic predicament of the conspiracy theorist"},"content":{"rendered":"

A group of international public health scientists has recently published a statement in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet<\/em> about the origins of the Sars-CoV-2 virus, the pathogen responsible for the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. In their statement, they report that on the basis of the publication and analysis of its genomes, scientists from multiple countries have achieved the overwhelming conclusion that the causative agent originated in wildlife. The explicit aim of the statement is to debunk \u201cthe conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin\u201d and that it has been bioengineered in a Chinese military laboratory. In some versions of this theory, the virus would have been purposely released to spread a global pandemic in the attempt to harm rival economies; according to a milder version of the theory, the virus would have leaked accidentally from the lab and the Chinese authorities would have covered it up. This theory is not an isolated phenomenon. Quite on the contrary, in the dawn of the Covid-19 pandemic conspiracy theories proliferate widely. As of today, to take just another example, many 5G towers have been set to fire in the UK and in the Netherlands, presumably by people persuaded of the existence of a causal link between the epidemic and the new technology.<\/p>\n

That so many people should firmly believe conspiracy theories such as these, and even end up acting upon them, have long attracted the interest of scholars from multiple disciplines, including philosophy. For the most part, the philosophers who have devoted their attention to this phenomenon have been driven by the aim to investigate its normative dimension; namely, to understand whether the proponents and consumers of conspiracy theories, as it is commonly alleged, are criticisable almost by definition; and, if so, for what distinctive fault they can be so criticized. K. Popper, among the first philosophers to walk along this path, has described as the \u201cconspiracy theory of society\u201d the methodological assumption that major historical events are always to be explained as the result of the secret undertakings by a small group of powerful individuals. This assumption Popper derides as overly simplistic, as a view which is blind to an obvious fact: society is far too complex and articulated for any large-scale plan, such as those postulated by average conspiracy theories, to ever come off as intended.<\/p>\n

Popper hasn\u2019t had the last word, though. For even if the whole of human history could not possibly be described as the unfolding of an uninterrupted series of conspiracies, we know that some conspiracies in history have been successful. So, we must admit that some conspiracy theories were true after all, and that at a certain point it has been rational on our part to believe that they were.<\/p>\n

Granted, we have no a priori <\/em>guarantee that conspiracy theories are false and unreasonable. Many philosophers still insist that there is something epistemically illegitimate with such theories, or with those who propound and endorse them: the conspiracists. Q. Cassam is an example of the latter approach. In a recent book, Cassam has proposed to explain the usual concerns with conspiracy theories by suggesting, roughly, that those who accept them typically exhibit a number of criticisable epistemic vices, such as gullibility, dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and negligence. A different approach focuses more chiefly on the theories themselves and their epistemic flaws (there\u2019s no real conflict, of course: it is nothing but to be expected that the tendency to accept epistemically flawed theories reveals epistemic vice.) \u00a0Many philosophers, for instance, have observed that conspiracy theories have a pathological relation to adverse evidence. Whenever a conspiracy theory is faced with contrary<\/em> evidence, or simply evidence not favoring<\/em> the theory, the theory can resort to its core claim\u2013\u2013the existence of a conspiracy\u2013\u2013and re-interpret the evidence as confirming the theory, by claiming \u00a0that the evidence has been faked <\/em>by the conspirators.<\/p>\n

This in-built capacity to immunize themselves against refutation and to craft fresh support from contrary evidence can appear illegitimate. After all, it threatens to render them unfalsifiable, and this, again by Popper, we are told is an epistemological peccatum mortale. <\/em>But, on the other hand, that adverse evidence must be fake evidence seems to be exactly what your overarching belief in a conspiracy rationally commits<\/em> you to believing. The conspirators, after all, want to hide and have power. So, that they pollute the evidential environment so as to put their existence beyond anyone\u2019s epistemic reach is precisely what you should expect.<\/p>\n

I think that there is some grain of truth in both reactions. The conspiracists are right. Once you believe in a conspiracy, you are rationally committed to construing adverse evidence as evidence favoring the theory. But they are also wrong. To reinterpret the evidence in the way just advertised is often open to epistemic criticism. All depends on the grounds for which the conspiracists believe in the conspiracy to start with. Let me explain. Let (P) be your conspiracy claim, for instance the claim that the current pandemic is the result of biological warfare. It follows from P that (Q) a global conspiracy is going on. Finally, let assume that the sole available evidence (E) is evidence reporting the existence of the Lancet<\/em> report. Taken at face value, (E) disconfirms (P). But as is apparent, your belief in Q allows you to read the Lancet<\/em> report as a fake (\u201cthe Lancet<\/em> scientists are part of the conspiracy\u201d); hence, to read E as evidence favoring<\/em> P. But Vorsicht<\/em>: your belief in Q must be justified independently of P, if E is to be legitimately interpreted so as to lend the desired support to P. For suppose your only ground for believing Q is P and E is your only ground to believe P. In this case, your entire reasoning would exhibit a criticisable form of circularity: P could be justified on the basis of E only if Q were justified; but Q could be justified only if E justified P, and P, in turn, Q.<\/p>\n

According to recent epistemology (e.g. J. Pryor, C. Wright), the skeptical challenge can be cast along similar lines. The deliverances of our senses\u2013\u2013so the sceptic is portrayed as arguing\u2013\u2013could justify ordinary perceptual beliefs like the belief that we have two hands only if we had antecedent justification for believing that there is an external world, and that we are properly connected to it. But the only way in which we could justifiably believe such things would be via inference from such beliefs as that we have two hands. Hence, according to this sceptic, we are caught in a circle and doomed to epistemic disaster.<\/p>\n

If my reconstruction of her epistemic predicament is on the right track, the conspiracist is in a slightly better position, and is left with some room for manoeuvre. First of all, there\u2019s no principled reason why a conspiracy theory could not be supported by direct evidence, namely not by prima facie <\/em>adverse evidence reinterpreted as favoring evidence. Moreover, if they manage to pile up some independent <\/em>evidence that a conspiracy is going on, they are allowed, epistemically speaking, to exploit this background belief in the attempt to motivate their characteristic reinterpretation of adverse evidence as evidence for their theory.<\/p>\n

Successful conspiracy theories\u2013\u2013such as the Watergate\u2013\u2013arguably exhibit just these epistemic features. The problem with most conspiracy theories is however that the right sort of evidence is normally not available and is very hard to find. Even worse, it is rarely sought after, or the need for it felt.<\/p>\n

Image via Flicker – Bio Lab\u00a0 by Amy Loves Yah – Attribution 2.0 Generic (CCBY2.0)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A group of international public health scientists has recently published a statement in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet about the origins of the Sars-CoV-2 virus, the pathogen responsible for […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":941,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Anew post on Open for Debate \"The epistemic predicament of the conspiracy theorist\" by Tommaso Piazza","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[236,225,36],"custom_author":[235],"class_list":["post-938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-conspiracy-theories","tag-covid-19","tag-epistemology","custom_author-piazza-tommaso"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-f8","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1242,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/conspiracies-and-counterspeech\/","url_meta":{"origin":938,"position":0},"title":"CONSPIRACIES AND \u2018COUNTERSPEECH\u2019","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u2018The 2020 US election was stolen.\u2019 \u2018COVID-19 was intentionally developed as a biological weapon.\u2019 \u2018Climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.\u2019 The times have been good for conspiracy theories. This, in turn, is dangerous. As these examples illustrate, conspiracy theories often sow confusion or scepticism about crucially important\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Picture-Lepoutre-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Picture-Lepoutre-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Picture-Lepoutre-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Picture-Lepoutre-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Picture-Lepoutre-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/07\/Picture-Lepoutre-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1581,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/red-pills-and-rallying-lies-conspiracy-theories-skepticism-and-collective-action\/","url_meta":{"origin":938,"position":1},"title":"Red Pills and Rallying Lies: Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Collective Action","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMost of the things that we take to be a fact in our lives are told to us through our stories, or the news that we hear. So, my question would be: if they were deceiving you with the stories they tell you, would you be able to recognize that?\u201d\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/Image-Red-Pills-and-Rallying-Lies--scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2290,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/conspiracy-theories-and-their-epistemology\/","url_meta":{"origin":938,"position":2},"title":"Conspiracy theories and their epistemology","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 23, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"You may believe that on 20 July 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the surface of the Moon aboard the Lunar Module Eagle. Or you might think that the moon landing was a fake, made in a film studio under the direction of Stanley Kubrick. You might\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/secret.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1669,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/a-conspiratorial-philosopher\/","url_meta":{"origin":938,"position":3},"title":"A CONSPIRATORIAL PHILOSOPHER","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Although much is being written these days about conspiracy theories, the topic of conspiracy theorizing in philosophy is not discussed in the literature.\u00a0 Political epistemologists cherish easier topics, like the causes of the deaths of famous people, and conspiracy theories about science, pandemics and the like. But Heidegger offers a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/04\/Heidegger_3_1960.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2281,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-distant-can-conspiracy-theories-be-from-democracy\/","url_meta":{"origin":938,"position":4},"title":"How distant can conspiracy theories be from democracy?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Imagine you are the leader of a democratic, liberal, prestigious, \u201cold\u201d party in a Western democracy of our time. We might bet that, if you held such a position, the burden of responsibility would feel particularly heavy on your shoulders: a significant portion of your former voters is flying to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/clark-young-Qtbx4j4UjRg-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/clark-young-Qtbx4j4UjRg-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/clark-young-Qtbx4j4UjRg-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/clark-young-Qtbx4j4UjRg-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/clark-young-Qtbx4j4UjRg-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/06\/clark-young-Qtbx4j4UjRg-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":891,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/following-the-science-trust-experts-and-covid-19\/","url_meta":{"origin":938,"position":5},"title":"Following the science: trust, experts, and COVID-19","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Students of recent social epistemology could be forgiven for thinking that the world\u2019s social and political problems begin and end with the threat of \u201cfake news\u201d. The thought is that something new and dangerous has emerged at the end of the end of history: a \u201cpost-truth\u201d new world order in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/ashkan-forouzani-ignxm3E1Rg4-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/ashkan-forouzani-ignxm3E1Rg4-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/ashkan-forouzani-ignxm3E1Rg4-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/ashkan-forouzani-ignxm3E1Rg4-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/ashkan-forouzani-ignxm3E1Rg4-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/04\/ashkan-forouzani-ignxm3E1Rg4-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/06\/4528869007_dbae1d6b03_o-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/938","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=938"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/938\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":942,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/938\/revisions\/942"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/941"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=938"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}