阴谋论理论的概念框架

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
N. Pfeifer
{"title":"阴谋论理论的概念框架","authors":"N. Pfeifer","doi":"10.1080/02691728.2023.2172698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I present a conceptual framework for classifying generalist and particularist approaches to conspiracy theories (CTs). Specifically, I exploit a probabilistic version of the hexagon of opposition which allows for systematically visualising the logical relations among basic philosophical positions concerning CTs. The probabilistic interpretation can also account for positions, which make weaker claims about CTs: e.g. instead of claiming ‘every CT is suspicious’ some theorists might prefer to claim ‘most CTs are suspicious’ and then ask about logical consequences of such claims. Finally, I illustrate the proposed conceptual framework by selected claims about CTs drawn from the CT research literature.","PeriodicalId":51614,"journal":{"name":"Social Epistemology","volume":"37 1","pages":"510 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a Conceptual Framework for Conspiracy Theory Theories\",\"authors\":\"N. Pfeifer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02691728.2023.2172698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT I present a conceptual framework for classifying generalist and particularist approaches to conspiracy theories (CTs). Specifically, I exploit a probabilistic version of the hexagon of opposition which allows for systematically visualising the logical relations among basic philosophical positions concerning CTs. The probabilistic interpretation can also account for positions, which make weaker claims about CTs: e.g. instead of claiming ‘every CT is suspicious’ some theorists might prefer to claim ‘most CTs are suspicious’ and then ask about logical consequences of such claims. Finally, I illustrate the proposed conceptual framework by selected claims about CTs drawn from the CT research literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51614,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Epistemology\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"510 - 521\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Epistemology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2023.2172698\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Epistemology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2023.2172698","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: 4

摘要

摘要:我提出了一个概念框架,用于对阴谋论的广义方法和特殊方法进行分类。具体来说,我利用了对立六边形的概率版本,它允许系统地可视化关于CT的基本哲学立场之间的逻辑关系。概率解释也可以解释对CT提出较弱主张的立场:例如,一些理论家可能更倾向于声称“大多数CT都是可疑的”,然后询问这些主张的逻辑后果,而不是声称“每个CT都可疑”。最后,我通过从CT研究文献中选取的关于CT的声明来说明所提出的概念框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards a Conceptual Framework for Conspiracy Theory Theories
ABSTRACT I present a conceptual framework for classifying generalist and particularist approaches to conspiracy theories (CTs). Specifically, I exploit a probabilistic version of the hexagon of opposition which allows for systematically visualising the logical relations among basic philosophical positions concerning CTs. The probabilistic interpretation can also account for positions, which make weaker claims about CTs: e.g. instead of claiming ‘every CT is suspicious’ some theorists might prefer to claim ‘most CTs are suspicious’ and then ask about logical consequences of such claims. Finally, I illustrate the proposed conceptual framework by selected claims about CTs drawn from the CT research literature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信