User:Zachml/sandbox

= Counterfact Conspiracy Theories = "Counterfact Conspiracy Theories" is a 2011 philosophy paper by Susan Feldman, a professor of philosophy at Dickinson College, that aims to define a special type of conspiracy theory known as the "counterfact conspiracy theory". "Counterfact Conspiracy Theories" was published in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy.

Overview
According to Feldman, contemporary philosophical treatment of conspiracy theories often focuses on explanatory conspiracy theories, or theories that aim to explain historical events through the lens of a conspiracy. This focus, however, leaves out theories which do not fit this explanatory pattern. "Counterfact Conspiracy Theories," defines this unique subgroup as the "counterfact conspiracy theory" (abbreviated to CFCT), which aims to assert "counterfacts" or facts that "run contrary to accepted and authorized beliefs". Feldman spends the paper describing what the CFCT is, how they are different from other conspiracy theories, their framework, examples of CFCTs, and concludes with how the reasoning patterns present in CFCTs are epistemically vicious.

Defining Explanatory Theories
Feldman begins by defining what exactly a conspiracy theory is. She first alludes to Brian L. Keeley's definition, which states that a conspiracy theory is "a proposed explanation of some historical event (or events) in terms of the significant causal agency of a relatively small group of persons—the conspirators—acting in secret." Feldman however notices two problems with this definition: calling a group of people "conspirators" implies sinister purposes and that Keeley's definition does not differentiate between conspiracy "theories" and actual conspiracies, like 9/11 being a conspiracy plotted among Al-Qaeda members. With this in mind, she refines the definition as "a proposed explanation of events, contrary to an officially sanctioned alternative, involving the causal agency of a group of agents working together in secret, often or usually for a sinister purpose".

This definition, however, primarily describes explanatory conspiracy theories, or theories that aim to explain historical events through the lens of a conspiracy. By articulating this exact definition, Feldman concludes that "Barkun's taxonomy allows us to see that some conspiracy theories are not explanatory", rather counterfact.

Counterfact Conspiracy Theory Defined
Feldman's paper primarily focuses on counterfact conspiracy theories (CFCTs), the specific subgroup that does not follow an explanatory pattern. Like all conspiracy theories, CFCTs declare that a conspiracy exists. However, unlike explanatory conspiracy theories, the primary goal of CFCTs is to assert counterfact evidence that does not agree with the generally accepted factual claims and evidence made by authors, professionals, or any other reputable source. Feldman notes that when asserting counterfact conspiracy theories, agents are not concerned with providing an alternative explanation for officially recognized historical events. Rather, agents primarily utilize CFCTs to present counterfacts, invoking a conspiracy to explain the suppression or hidden nature of those counterfacts. In other words, the goal of the agent is to present new counterfactual evidence when proclaiming CFCTs, rather than giving an alternative explanation as to why an event occurred. Feldman furthers this definition: “The aim of CFCTs is to establish counterfacts and uncover the conspiracy hiding them from general view… counterfact theories invoke conspiracies as the means of hiding counterfacts".

Counterfact Conspiracy Theory Framework and Examples
According to Feldman, all CFCTs follow a basic two-step schema:


 * 1) an assertion of counterfacts that are deemed true, despite being "contrary to a set of widely accepted factual claims, which are false"
 * 2) an invocation of a cover-up conspiracy that "suppresses the truth of the counterfacts"

From this, one can see the pattern in all CFCTs. Feldman uses the Obama birth certificate theory to demonstrate this. Proponents of the Obama birth certificate theory ("birthers") claim that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore, should not have been eligible to serve as President. Instead, they allege that a coverup involving family members and government officials is responsible for creating fake documents and other pieces of fabricated evidence to hide the "fact" that Obama was not born in the United States. Following the structure, the assertion of counterfacts is the claim that Obama was not born in the United States (despite ample proof proving otherwise). Next, birthers allege that a coverup headed by Obama family members and government officials has led to the creation of false evidence proving Obama's U.S. citizenship, meanwhile the evidence proving its falsity has been hidden or destroyed. In another example, Feldman cites UFOs to further demonstrate the framework. First, proponents claim the counterfact that UFOs have had a constant presence on Earth. Next, they invoke the conspiracy that the government has been hiding evidence for UFOs all along.

Explanatory Conspiracy Theory Example and Comparison to CFCTs
In addition to providing an example of a counterfact conspiracy theory, Feldman presents the 9/11 inside job conspiracy theory as an example of an explanatory conspiracy theory, highlighting the difference between counterfact and explanatory conspiracy theories. According to Feldman, proponents of the 9/11 inside job theory believe that the US government rather than al-Qaeda operatives were responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers, and that pre-planted explosives rather than the hijacked planes caused the towers' collapse. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is an example of an explanatory theory, as its primary goal is to present an alternative explanation (inside job by the US government) for a widely accepted or officially recognized historical event (planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 and the towers subsequently collapsed). Unlike counterfact conspiracy theories like the Obama birth certificate theory that promote only counterfacts and accept no official facts, proponents of explanatory conspiracy theories accept at least some official or uncontested facts about the relevant historical event.

Reasoning Pattern of Counterfact Conspiracy Theories
According to Feldman the non-explanatory nature of CFCTs results in simpler reasoning patterns than ECTs. As stated previously, all CFCTs follow the basic two-step schema of: 1. An assertion clause claiming the counterfacts are true despite widely accepted evidence of the contrary, and 2. The conspiracy clause, or the claim that a cover-up conspiracy is at work in order to suppress the truth of the counterfacts. On the other hand, ECTs exhibit the following schema in reasoning patterns:

1. There exists a set of uncontested facts

2. There are “holes” or anomalies in the official explanation of said facts and/or unexplained data

3. The conspiracy theory offers another explanation of these facts

4. The conspiracy theory offers an explanatorily stronger alternative to the widely accepted explanation of the facts

Based on the logic that the event or the facts are real, but that the explanation is false, the reasoning patterns of ECTS involve the examination and the scrutiny of official accounts and evidence in order to detect any anomalies that discredit the official account or support the conspiracy explanation. CFCTs in contrast, refute the accepted and official facts altogether, and by this logic, any and all evidence to the contrary of the counterfact can be dismissed as false. Any official evidence that opposes the conspiracy can simply be regarded as an element of a “cover up.”

Problems of CFCT Reasoning
Feldman concludes the paper by describing the inherent problem of CFCT reasoning: epistemic vice. As she describes, those concerned with epistemic virtuousness uphold traits such as "open-mindedness, dealing fairly and honestly with evidence, and using responsible or reliable methods of evidence gathering and reasoning." And yet, CFCT proponents do not care for these traits.

Instead, CFCTs attack facts widely regarded as truthful, and when presented with new evidence further confirming the validity of the allegedly "false" facts, proponents dismiss the evidence, citing it as doctored or forged. Ironically, proponents employ an "unfair and dishonest deployment of evidence and standards", being more lenient when proving counterfacts than they would with accepted facts. To further underscore the arbitrariness of CFCT reasoning, Feldman inquires why, out of all the options, proponents chose their specific fact (for example, why, out of all places, birthers chose Kenya as Obama's birthplace, and not Honolulu, or perhaps even Cleveland, Ohio?); what makes it so that this counterfact is more legitimate than accepted, evidence-based facts. These inherent problems and qualities thus makes, as Feldman describes, CFCT proponents not "[irrational], but epistemic[ally] vic[ious]".

Combating Counterfact Conspiracy Theories
Unlike explanatory conspiracy theories, CFCTs have no established set of common facts that agree with the widely accepted narrative. Therefore, Feldman argues that attempting to combat CFCTs on an evidentiary basis leads to meaningless and ineffective debate. Feldman's reasoning asserts that proponents of CFCTs show their poor "epistemic character" in the way they treat evidence. Namely, the double standard for the way proponents of CFCTs analyze and reason with evidence shows their lack of fairness and academic dishonesty. For this reason, Feldman claims that identifying a conspiracy theory as a CFCT helps narrow the argument against one. Because CFCTs are not based on facts and evidence, proponents of CFCTs instead base their beliefs on "deeply held world views." So, Feldman concludes that when analyzing a CFCT or debating a proponent of a CFCT, the argument should be focused on beliefs that establish world views which lead to the conspiracy, instead of trying to debate the evidence. Classifying a conspiracy theory as a CFCT leads to effective, meaningful dialogue because it allows the identification of the "underlying expressive truth" of a CFCT where the source of the conspiracy is exposed.