User:RTGarber/sandbox



= "Counterfact Conspiracy Theories" by Susan Feldman =

Introduction
Susan Feldman is an American philosophy professor who teaches at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Feldman received her bachelor's from Case Western Reserve University in 1974, then received her Master's from the University of Rochester in 1978. In 1980, Feldman earned her Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Feldman’s classes comprise the philosophy of science, which goes into depth about the distinction between science and non-science, the relation of evidence to scientific theories, truth and rationality in science, and methods of scientific thinking. Her interests are an extensive field of topics that include public policy, the status of women, environmental philosophy, the science of ethics, modern philosophy, and knowledge vs. skepticism. She also teaches century philosophy, focusing on Rationalists, Empiricists, Kant, and the issues of epistemology and metaphysics. Feldman has been teaching a variety of classes in the philosophy department at Dickinson College. Since then, Feldman has released a multitude of publications regarding epistemology, philosophy of gender, race, sexuality, as well as 17th and 18th century philosophy. In 2011, Feldman published "Counterfact Conspiracy Theories" to the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, focusing on applied ethics.

Overview
Susan Feldman’s ideas about counterfactual conspiracy theories were originally put forth in 2011, while at Dickinson College, in her article titled: “Counterfact Conspiracy Theories.” Feldman’s article focuses on three major aspects of conspiracy theories:


 * 1) Defining and explaining Explanatory Conspiracy Theories
 * 2) Defining and explaining Counterfact Conspiracy Theories
 * 3) Providing examples for both

Feldman articulates in her article the roots of conspiracy theories, and the strategies/methods used by conspiracy creators to give validity to their claims. Feldman explains the real world consequences and dangers of these kinds of theories, as they spread misinformation and detract from the truth. Feldman first defines "Explanatory Conspiracy Theories," theories that offer a narrative counter the generally accepted truth of an event, and subsequently compares that to "Counterfact Theories." Counterfact Theories use a "fact" that counters a generally understood claim. Feldman believes these these kinds of conspiracies are a growing pandemic that affect our everyday lives. The "Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy" is one example that Feldman uses in her article to discuss the potential and power of misinformation to spread throughout populations.

Explanatory Conspiracy Theories
Explanatory conspiracy theories are those that offer a narrative to an event that is counter to the account that is generally accepted as true. The counter narrative typically results from a small assembly of conspirators working together to affect the outcome of an event in a specific way. In “Counter Fact Conspiracy Theories” Susan Feldman explores several definitions of "conspiracy theory" in an effort to understand explanatory conspiracy theories. First, she alludes to Brian Keeley’s definition of conspiracy theory as an explanation of events in terms of the small group of collaborators working covertly to cause said event. Feldman asserts that this definition should include the designation of malicious motives to the conspirators. Feldman further explains the need to delineate conspiracy theories from factual accounts involving conspiracies and references the following definition given by David Coady, “a conspiracy theory is a proposed explanation of an events, contrary to an officially sanctioned alternative, involving the causal agency of a group of agents working in secret, often or usually for a sinister purpose." Most conspiracy theories are explanatory in nature. Susan Feldman provides the following schema for Explanatory Conspiracy Theories:

i-e) F is a set of uncontested facts.

ii-e) The official explanation of F is flawed by anomalies-- unexplained data.

iii-e) The conspiracy counter-narrative also explains F.

iv-e) The conspiracy explanation of F provides an explanatorily stronger alternative.

Counterfact Conspiracy Theories
Counterfact conspiracy theories do not offer explanations of historical events but rather produce a fact that counters the official or accepted claim and the evidence supporting it. The aim of a counterfact is to put forth a counterclaim and therefore assert that the official claim is hiding the counterfact from being known. Counterfact conspiracy theories do not offer an alternative explanation for accepted facts, as they dismiss the official claim and its support altogether. Counterfact conspiracy theories take on a specific structure. To simplify its definition, counterfact conspiracy theories first put forth a counterfact and then apply, not create, a coverup conspiracy. Although counterfacts can be used as an alternative explanation, their original intent is not explanatory, which differs from systemic conspiracy theories. This very aspect of counterfact conspiracy theories allows them to escape the subjection of meticulous review that explanatory and systematic conspiracy theories can not, making it all the more difficult to refute them.

Counterfact conspiracy theories allege an alternative truth but do not offer a further explanation. Instead, they go about their goal by dismissing the previously held evidence in an epistemically vicious manner. They reverse the game, claiming that another oppressive conspiracy has covered up their 'truth.' What makes counterfact conspiracy theories epistemically vicious is that they completely dismiss all opposing evidence, even when it meets all the standards the counterfact conspiracy theorizers require. When evidence is presented, it is deemed insufficient or flawed. Often, counterfact conspiracy theorists target a fact's legitimacy -- and do so for additional responses to prior challenges, effectively rendering similar scrutiny to their claims useless. This strategy makes it easy to challenge official claims even when the counterfact itself has little to no evidence of its own. These types of conspiracy theories go even further, as when the inadequacy of counterfacts is pointed out, it is just more evidence of the efficacy of the official claim's conspiratorial oppression. These components allow counterfacts to take on a specific, difficult-to-invalidate form. The strategy begins by asserting the counterfact, then identifying what evidence has been gathered supporting the official claim. Counterfact conspiracy theorists then criticize said evidence by claiming disparity of the evidence, which could only be caused by 'purposeful tampering by those involved who share malevolent motives', thereby discarding the evidence in its use to support the accepted claim. This methodology allows them to assert that, therefore, the official claim is genuinely false. In turn, the conclude that the counterfacts merit more belief.

Examples of Counterfact Conspiracy Theories
A specific example of Counterfact Conspiracy Theories that Feldman describes is the Obama birth certificate theory. This theory states that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and thus violates the constitutional requirement that the President of the United States must be born in the United States. Theorists assert that family and officials have created false, cover up documentation of Obama's birth certificate, claiming that Obama was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya or somewhere else outside of the US. This alleged false birth certificate "covers up" that Obama is not a natural born US citizen. This theory acknowledges no other facts relevant to the issue, making it epistemically corrupt. Proponents of this theory demand to see an official copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate, but refuse to accept the documents as being genuine, thus rejecting any counterfacts to their own theory.

The Obama birth certificate theory provides a two-step schema that is typical of all CFCTs:

1. the assertion of counterfacts

2. invocation of a coverup conspiracy

Another example that Feldman discusses is the theory that US government officials were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 and that members of al-Qaeda were actors. This theory proposes that airplane crashes could not destroy the towers and that other destructive means were planted (explosives) to make the towers fall. Like the Obama birth certificate theory, 9/11 conspiracy theorists refuse to accept any facts that refute their argument, making this another CFCT.

Consequences and Effects
Feldman’s creation of the counterfact conspiracy theory grouping and subsequent analysis of counterfact conspiracy theories has significant implications for both the philosophical community and society as a whole. The consequences and effects of Feldman’s work stem from the following:

1. Proposing a novel category of conspiracy theories for which to study and analyze. The impact of this proposal should not be understated, as counterfact conspiracy theories are a relatively new niche that has now been opened to further exploration by both Feldman and the greater philosophical community.

2. Challenging the current philosophical treatment of conspiracy theories. Feldman asserts in the abstract of her paper that recent philosophical treatment of conspiracy theories supposes all conspiracy theories to be explanatory. One of Feldman’s purposes of writing is to encourage the philosophical community to make the distinction between explanatory and counterfact conspiracy theories when discussing conspiracy theories. It’s difficult to trace the direct effect Feldman’s paper has had, but it has certainly made some readers think more critically about their philosophical treatment of conspiracy theories.

3. Offering a better understanding of conspiracy theories and suggesting a different means of treatment for counterfact conspiracy theories. Feldman defines the key differences between explanatory conspiracy theories and counteract conspiracy theories, while also identifying the unique structure and mechanisms of counterfact conspiracy theories. Hence, Feldman’s analysis lays the groundwork for dispelling and mitigating the negative impacts of counterfact conspiracy theories.