Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While conspiracy theories are often considered epistemologically suspect, this work endeavors to provide a neutral assessment of these theories on epistemological grounds, and then examining the phenomenon that underlies the pejorative understanding.Beginning with a broad definition, conspiracy theories are assessed within the context of inquiry, and connections are drawn to similar types of theory present throughout history, such as a superstition and myths.Then, conspiracy theories are considered within the context of epistemic attitudes, and a distinction is drawn between conspiracy theorists, individuals who hold to at least one conspiracy theory, and conspiracists, individuals who demonstrate an attachment to conspiracy theories beyond their epistemological warrant.Conspiracism is then evaluated in the context of inquiry and the epistemic attitudes in order to identify where it errs, why individuals subscribe to it, and how it harms those individuals and those connected to them.By investigating conspiracism, this work seeks to set the stage for possible means of addressing this phenomenon.May 3, 2024 §1. IntroductionOn a dark night outside an urban center in North America, a science experiment is being conducted.There is a camera on a tripod facing a flat board with a hole cut in it a short distance away.Beyond that, another board with another hole cut in it.The camera, and each hole, is measured to be 17 feet above the water level.On one end, an individual is manning the camera and speaking through a walkie-talkie.On the other end, his partner is holding up a flashlight attached to a measuring stick.If the flashlight is held at 17 feet above water level, and the light can be seen by the camera through both holes, hundreds of years of science will be called into question.Indeed, this would indicate that the Earth has no curvature.However, if the camera cannot see the light until the flashlight is held at 23 feet above water level, then this result will match the current scientific consensus; namely, that the Earth is a globe. 1Jeran Campbell, the man at the camera, is expecting the former result.He asks his partner for the measurement on the flashlight.They reply that it is currently at 17 feet above water level.However, the camera cannot see the light.He asks that his partner raise the flashlight slowly and tells him to stop when the light can finally be seen by the camera.He asks for the current measurement, and his partner replies that the flashlight is 23 feet above water level.Jeran replies, "Interesting."This is a description of a scene from a documentary titled Behind the Curve, which follows several proponents of the 'Flat Earth Theory'. 2 This theory posits that there is a global conspiracy which aims to convince the populace that the Earth is a globe, rather than being a flat circle surrounded by an ice wall.While this theory is considered absurd by many, it is not its absurdity that I find intriguing.What I find most interesting is not the theory itself, but the adherents who believe it and their actions in the face of contrary evidence.In the case of the Flat-Earthers, these are individuals who are following the scientific method: they encounter a 1 A diagram of this experiment can be found in Appendix A. 2 (Clark, 2018)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,049 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».