Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Debunking conspiracy theories

Synthese volume 198, pages 9897–9911 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper I interrogate the notion of `debunking conspiracy theories’, arguing that the term `debunk’ carries with it pejorative implications, given that the verb `to debunk’ is commonly understood as `to show the wrongness of a thing or concept’. As such, the notion of `debunking conspiracy theories’ builds in the notion that such theories are not just wrong but ought to be shown as being wrong. I argue that we should avoid the term `debunk’ (and other such loaded terms) and focus on investigating conspiracy theories. Looking at recent research work in epistemology on conspiracy theory, I argue that the best way to avoid talk of `debunking’ conspiracy theories is by (a) working with a non-pejorative definition of `conspiracy theory’, and (b) forming communities of inquiry which allow us to investigate the warrant of such theories without the prejudice associated with working with a pejorative definition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. See, for example, Butter and Knight’s ‘Bridging the Great Divide: Conspiracy Theory Research for the 21st Century’ (2016).

  2. See, for example, the work on conspiracy theory theory which is taking place in the journal of the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective.

  3. For a good overview of the literature, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (Pauly 2020) or the edited collection ‘Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously.’ (Dentith 2018c).

  4. See also Pigden’s discussion of the ‘cock-up theory of history’ (in press), and Basham and Räikkä’s discussion of ‘conspiracy theory phobia’ (2018) for more on the problems of coincidence theory (and its near relatives).

  5. Or conspiracies involving private, influential institutions which are taken to have a political or political-adjacent character; people are concerned about the lobbying activities, for example, of companies like Google or Facebook, because despite being private institutions, they also wield an awful lot of power when it comes to dealing with nation states and their representatives.

  6. See, for example, the work of Brotherton and French (2014), Douglas et al. (2016), and van Prooijen (2016).

  7. See, for example, Ward and Voas (2011), Wood and Douglas (2013), Franks et al. (2013), Franks et al. (2017), and Uscinski (2018a).

  8. For a survey of definitions see Dentith (2018b).

  9. See the aforementioned Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on ‘Conspiracy Theory’ (Pauly 2020).

  10. Both ‘generalism’ and ‘particularism’ are terms of art we owe to work of Buenting and Taylor (2010).

  11. See, for example, Basham (2011), Pigden (2018) and Hagen (2018).

  12. This is not to say that suspicion of something being wrong in the body politics is not sufficient to generate a theory about some conspiracy. Rather, it is to say that such suspicions do not necessarily commit people to conspiracy theories; someone can think that politicians are untrustworthy, for example, without thinking they are engaged in conspiracies (they could, for example, just be seen as venial and self-serving).

  13. For more on this, see Wood (2017), Dentith (2018a), and Lukicab et al. (2019).

  14. For more on this, see ‘The Problem of Conspiracism’ (Dentith 2018a).

  15. For more on the Romanian situation, see ‘Conspiracy Theory Theory, Epistemology, and Eastern Europe’ (Dentith in press).

  16. Arguable conspiracy theorising in the sense of being attentive to potential conspiracies is vital in any nation, in that conspiratorial activity is a suspicious activity we ought to keep in check.

  17. See, for example, ‘The Conspiratorial Mindset in an Age of Transition: Conspiracy Theories in France, Hungary and Slovakia’ (Gyárfášová et al. 2013).

  18. Measures of perceived corruption exist: Transparency International (TI) produce a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) which considers corruption as perceived by business members and the members of other large organizations who work in a given society (Transparency International 2018). There is also the ‘Digital News Report,’ which focusses on trust and misinformation when considering news consumption (Radu 2017). Eastern European polities tend to score on average as being relatively corrupt compared to their Western counterparts.

  19. For more examples of this, see the chapter on Slovakia in ‘Conspiracy Theories in Europe: A Compilation (Mesežnikov 2014)’.

  20. Much of this kind of analysis owes itself to Pigden’s seminal work, where he argues that as ‘History is littered with conspiracies successful and otherwise (1995, 3)’ the superstition that says we ought to dismiss conspiracy theories is untenable in the face of the evidence.

  21. See, for a discussion of the problems that come out of skewed definitions of what counts as the proper topic of a conspiracy theory, Hagen (2017).

  22. See my joint work with Keeley for more on this (2018).

  23. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the Oxford English Dictionary’s first recorded instance of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ refers to it as being a ‘recrudescence’ of an earlier conspiracy theory, suggesting that the pejorative way in which that theory was being discussed was all due to some previous investigation of the claim (2011).

  24. Indeed, in an ideal world, communities of inquiry will use counterfactual reasoning in their analyses anyway: not only would they assess the arguments on the available evidence, they should ask ‘What would need to be the case for this to be true?’ As such, a comprehensive analysis of some particular conspiracy theory will encompass alternative arguments as a given.

  25. For further discussion of this see Basham (2018) (particularly footnote 40), and Dentith (2018d).

  26. See, for example, ‘The Study of Conspiracy Theories (Uscinski 2018b)’.

References

  • Basham, L. (2011). Conspiracy theory and rationality. In C. Jensen & R. Harré (Eds.), Beyond rationality (pp. 49–87). Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basham, L. (2018). Joining the conspiracy. Argumenta, 3(2), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.23811/55.arg2017.bas.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basham, L., & Räikkä, J. (2018). Conspiracy theory phobia. In J. E. Uscinski (Ed.), Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them (pp. 178–186). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessi, A., Coletto, M., Davidescu, G. A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2015). Science versus conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotherton, R., & French, C. C. (2014). Belief in conspiracy theories and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buenting, J., & Taylor, J. (2010). Conspiracy theories and fortuitous data. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 40(4), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393109350750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butter, M., & Knight, P. (2016). Bridging the great divide: conspiracy theory research for the 21st century. Diogenes. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192116669289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassam, Q. (2016). Vice Epistemology. The Monist, 99, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onv034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coady, D. (2012). What to believe now : applying epistemology to contemporary issues. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coady, D. (2019). Psychology and conspiracy theories. In D. Coady & J. Chase (Eds.), The routledge handbook of applied epistemology (pp. 166–175). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentith, Matthew R. X. (2016). When inferring to a conspiracy might be the best explanation. Social Epistemology, 30(5–6), 572–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2016.1172362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentith, M. R. X. (2018a). The problem of conspiracism. Argumenta, 3(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.23811/58.arg2017.den.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentith, M. R. X. (2018b). Conspiracy theories and philosophy—Bringing the epistemology of a freighted term into the social sciences. In J. E. Uscinski (Ed.), Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them (pp. 94–108). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dentith, M. R. X. (Ed.) (2018c). Taking conspiracy theories seriously. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Dentith, M. R. X. (2018d). Taking conspiracy theories seriously and investigating them. In M. R. X. Dentith (Ed.), Taking conspiracy theories seriously (pp. 217–225). London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentith, M R. X. (in press). Conspiracy theory theory, epistemology, and eastern europe. In Astapova, A., & Colăcel O. (Eds.), Conspiracy theories in eastern europe, Corneliu Pintilescu, and Tamás Scheibner. Routledge.

  • Dentith, M. R. X., & Keeley, B. L. (2018). The applied epistemology of conspiracy theories. In D. Coady & J. Chase (Eds.), The routledge handbook of applied epistemology (pp. 284–294). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., Callan, M. J., Dawtry, R. J., & Harvey, A. J. (2016). Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning, 22(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, B., Bangerter, A., & Bauer, M. W. (2013). Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: An integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(242), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, B., Bangerter, A., Bauer, M. W., Hall, M., & Noort, M. C. (2017). Beyond ‘Monologicality’? exploring conspiracist worldviews. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 861. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, D. R. (2016). On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyárfášová, O., Kréko, P., Mesežnikov, G., Molnár, C., & Morris, M. (2013). The conspiratorial mindset in an age of transition: conspiracy theories in france, hungary and slovakia. Counterpoint; Political Capital: Policy Research & Consulting Institue; Institute for Public Affairs.

  • Hagen, K. (2017). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style: Do conspiracy theories posit implausibly vast and evil conspiracies? Social Epistemology, 32(1), 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, K. (2018). Conspiracy theorists and monological belief systems. Argumenta, 3(2), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.23811/57.arg2017.hag.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter, R. (1965). The paranoid style in american politics, and other essays (1st ed.). New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huneman, P., & Vorms, M. (2018). Is a unified account of conspiracy theories possible? Argumenta, 3(2), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.23811/54.arg2017.hun.vor.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukićab, P., Žeželj, I., & Stanković, B. (2019). How (Ir)rational is it to believe in contradictory conspiracy theories? Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i1.1690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesežnikov, G. (2014). Conspiracy theories in slovakia: state of affairs, shifts and contexts In Conspiracy theories in europe: A compilation (pp. 27–32). Counterpoint; Political Capital.

  • Moore, A. (2018). On the democratic problem of conspiracy politics. In J. E. Uscinski (Ed.), Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them (pp. 111–121). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OED Online. (2011). Conspiracy, N. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/39766; Oxford University Press.

  • Pauly, M. (2020). Conspiracy theories. 2020. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/conspira/.

  • Pierce, C. S. (1958). The fixation of belief. In P. Wiener (Ed.), Charles sanders peirce: Selected writings (pp. 91–112). New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigden, C. (1995). Popper revisited, or what is wrong with conspiracy theories? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 25(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319502500101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigden, C. (2018). Conspiracy theories, deplorables and defectibility: A reply to patrick stokes. In M. R. X. Dentith (Ed.), Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously (pp. 203–215). London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigden, C. R. (in press). Conspiracy theories and the conventional wisdom revisited. In Secrets and conspiracies, edited by Olli Loukola. Rodopi.

  • Popper, K. R. (1969). The open society and its enemies (5th ed., Vol. 2). London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radu, R. (2017). Digital news report—Romania. In Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A. L., & Nielsen, R. K. Retrieved November 14, 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20180729222820/http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2017/romania-2017/.

  • Stokes, P. (2018). Conspiracy theory and the perils of pure particularism. In M. R. X. Dentith (Ed.), Taking conspiracy theories seriously (pp. 25–37). London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transparency International. (2018). Corruption perceptions index. 2018. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018.

  • Uscinski, J. E. (2018a). How do conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists interact? In J. E. Uscinski (Ed.), Conspiracy theories & the people who believe them (pp. 109–110). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uscinski, J. E. (2018b). The study of conspiracy theories. Argumenta, 3(2), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.23811/53.arg2017.usc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J.-W. (2016). Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, C., & Voas, D. (2011). The emergence of conspirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 26(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2011.539846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, G. S. (1982). Conspiracy and the paranoid style: causality and deceit in the eighteenth century. He William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, 3, 401–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. J. (2017). Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: implications for theory and measurement. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2013). ‘What about building 7?’ A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for comments on this paper, particularly `Reviewer B’ who suggested the labels `pro-democracy argument’ and the `Debunker’s Fallacy.’

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    M R. X. Dentith

Authors
  1. M R. X. Dentith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M R. X. Dentith.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dentith, M.R.X. Debunking conspiracy theories. Synthese 198, 9897–9911 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02694-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02694-0

Keywords

search

Navigation