This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\nAbstract:
\nConspiracy theories &ldquo\;have been and continue to be mainstream&rdquo\;. Nonetheless\, in ordinary language\, the term &lsquo\;conspiracy theory&rsquo\;is predominantly pejorative\, suggesting that all such theories are false. Politically the term is often used to easily dismiss opponents. This is evident\, for example\, in the official position of the White House under Trump surrounding conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic. Some scholars interpret the available empirical research as suggesting &ldquo\;that conspiracy theories are harmful&rdquo\;: These theories can be dangerous\, particularly when they exacerbate existing problems\, such as anti-vaxxers sentiment\, climatechange denial and hate speech against minorities. Belief in conspiracy theories is said to hinderanadequateunderstandingofreality\, \;andcould\,inturn\,destabilizesocietyasawhole by diminishing trust in epistemic authorities and fostering paranoia. Thus\, it is clear\, that conspiracy theorising poses a threat to democracy.
\nDespite the pejorative use in ordinary language\, not all conspiracy theories can be false\; some\, such as the Watergate scandal of 1972\, have been proven true. Consequently\, the philosophical debate seems to have settled on the approach that the plausibility of each conspiracy theory must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to avoid dismissing promisingconspiracy theories prematurely\, each one must be investigated from a neutral point of view with sufficient research effort.
\nHowever\, this seems to be an unrealistic expectation: Typically\, the necessary expertise\, cognitive capacity and time are too limited to thoroughly investigate every conspiracy theory before forming an epistemic position on its plausibility. Instead\, it should be possible to swiftly dismiss absurd conspiracy theories\, such as the idea that reptilians rule the world or that the Earth is flat\, without investing research effort. One&rsquo\;s capacities should instead be reserved for more meaningful conspiracy theories that seem more probable\, such as the Watergate scandal. So far\, literature providing guidance on how to handle conspiracy theories pragmatically and epistemologically has been scarce. Furthermore\, there is a lack of nuanced\, established definitions of conspiracy theories.
\nThe aim of this paper is to address this issue. It seeks to provide a conclusive definition that distinguishesbetweendifferenttypesofconspiracytheory\,whileacknowledgingboththepejorative use of the term in everyday language and the possibility that some theories may be true. The paper suggests a pragmatic three-step process for determining the type of a given conspiracy theory\, enabling one to dismiss absurd theories and focus their efforts on thoroughly investigating only the more meaningful ones. As evaluation criteria the epistemic virtues proposed by Kuhn were chosen and are used to determine the loveliness and thus the likeliness of a conspiracy theory\, building on Lipton's considerations regarding the inference to the best explanation. The resulting framework provides a nuanced understanding of conspiracy theories\, offering a reliable basis for responsible handling.
\nAbout the Author:
\nEva Pö\;ll was awarded a Master's degree in Philosophy earlier this year. She completed her studies with a thesis on the epistemic status of conspiracy theories\, a topic that also inspired her presentation here. She is currently completing a Master's degree in Information Systems\, focusing on Software Development and Process Management. Until summer 2023\, she was a research assistant in the philosophy department at the university of Mü\;nster. During this time\, she worked on the interdisciplinary BlockTechDiVer project\, analysing the demands\, preconditions\, and possible implementations of blockchain applications from a consumer perspective. Her current research interests lie in applied ethics\, particularly conspiracy theories and conceptual engineering.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR