”That’s Just a Conspiracy Theory!”: Relevant Alternatives, Dismissive Conversational Exercitives, and the Problem of Premature Conclusions

References

• Basham, Lee. 2018. “Social Scientists and Pathologizing Conspiracy Theorizing.” In Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, edited by M R. X. Dentith, 95–107. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International.
   Google Scholar
• Baurmann, Michael, and Daniel Cohnitz. 2021. “Trust No One? The (Social) Epistemological Consequences of Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” In The Epistemology of Fake News, edited by S. Bernecker, A. K. Flowerree, and T. Grundmann, 334–357. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bjerg, Ole, and Thomas Presskorn-Thygesen. 2017. “Conspiracy Theory: Truth Claim or Language Game?” Theory, Culture & Society 34 (1): 137–159. doi:10.1177/0263276416657880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake-Turner, Christopher. 2020. “Fake News, Relevant Alternatives, and the Degradation of Our Epistemic Environment.” Inquiry 1–21. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2020.1725623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blome-Tillmann, Michael. 2009. “Knowledge and Presuppositions.” Mind 118 (470): 241–294. doi:10.1093/mind/fzp032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratich, Jack Z. 2008. Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caponetto, Laura. 2020. “Undoing Things with Words.” Synthese 197 (6): 2399–2414. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-1805-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelen, Herman, and Josh Dever. 2019. Bad Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coady, David. 2018a. “Anti-Rumor Campaigns and Conspiracy-Baiting as Propaganda.” In Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, edited by M R. X. Dentith, 171–187. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International.
   Google Scholar
• Coady, David. 2018b. “Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule on Conspiracy Theories.” Argumenta 3: 291–302.
   Google Scholar
• Coady, David. 2021. “The Fake News About Fake News.” In The Epistemology of Fake News, edited by S. Bernecker, A. K. Flowerree, and T. Grundmann, 68–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Ariel. 2001. “On the Generic Use of Indefinite Singulars.” Journal of Semantics 18 (3): 183–209. doi:10.1093/jos/18.3.183.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, Edward. 1990. Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cull, Matthew J. 2019. “Dismissive Incomprehension: A Use of Purported Ignorance to Undermine Others.” Social Epistemology 33 (3): 262–271. doi:10.1080/02691728.2019.1625982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeHaven-Smith, Lance. 2013. Conspiracy Theory in America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, M R. X. 2016. “The Problem of Fake News.” Public Reason 8: 65–79.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, M R. X. 2018. Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International.
   Google Scholar
• DeRose, Keith. 2009. The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dretske, Fred. 1970. “Epistemic Operators.” The Journal of Philosophy 67 (24): 1007–1023. doi:10.2307/2024710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, Owen. 2018. “Johnson & Johnson Knew for Decades Talcum Powder Contained Asbestos, Reports Allege.” British Medical Journal 363: k5430. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5430.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gardiner, Georgi. 2021. “Relevance and Risk: How the Relevant Alternatives Framework Models the Epistemology of Risk.” Synthese 199 (1–2): 481–511. doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02668-2.
   Google Scholar
• Girion, Lisa. 2018. “Special Report: J&J Knew for Decades That Asbestos Lurked in Its Baby Powder.” Reuters, December. www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-specialreport/special-report-jj-knew-for-decades-that-asbestos-lurked-in-its-powderidUSKBN1OD1RQ.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, Alvin. 1976. “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy 73 (20): 771–791. doi:10.2307/2025679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habgood-Coote, Joshua. 2019. “Stop Talking About Fake News!” Inquiry 62 (9–10): 1033–1065. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2018.1508363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagen, Kurtis. 2018. “Conspiracy Theorists and Monological Belief Systems.” Argumenta 3: 303–326.
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, Michael. 2015. “The Importance of Knowledge Ascriptions.” Philosophy Compass 10 (12): 856–866. doi:10.1111/phc3.12290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, Michael. 2020. “Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 101 (3): 591–611. doi:10.1111/phpr.12624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauswald, Rico. 2023. “Epistemische Invektivität in der Corona-Krise: Eine function-first-Analyse am Beispiel der Ausdrücke ‚Fake News‘, ‚Verschwörungstheorie‘ und ‚Wissenschaftsleugnung‘.” In Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer unter erschwerten Bedingungen: Der Einfluss der Corona-Krise auf die Erzeugung und Vermittlung von Wissen im öffentlichen Diskurs, edited by R. Hauswald and P. Schmechtig, 461–496. Baden-Baden: Alber.
   Google Scholar
• Hawke, Peter. 2016. “Relevant Alternatives in Epistemology and Logic.” In Epistemology, Knowledge and the Impact of Interaction, edited by Juan Redmond, Olga Pombo Martins, and Ángel Nepomuceno-Fernández, 207–235. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hayward, Tim. 2022. ““Conspiracy Theory”: The Case for Being Critically Receptive.” Journal of Social Philosophy 53 (2): 148–167. doi:10.1111/josp.12432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husting, Ginna, and Martin Orr. 2007. “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.” Symbolic Interaction 30 (2): 127–150. doi:10.1525/si.2007.30.2.127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husting, Ginna, Martin Orr, and M R. X. Dentith. 2022. “Some Dare Call It ‘Conspiracy Theory’”. Paper presented at The 1st International Conference on the Philosophy of Conspiracy Theory. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWw5EodfibI.
   Google Scholar
• Ichikawa, Jonathan. 2020. “Contextual Injustice.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1353/ken.2020.0004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jahng, M. Rosie, Elizabeth Stoycheff, and Annisa Rochadiat. 2021. “They Said It’s “Fake“: Effects of Discounting Cues in Online Comments on Information Quality Judgments and Information Authentication.” Mass Communication and Society 24 (4): 527–552. doi:10.1080/15205436.2020.1870143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langton, Rae. 2018. “Blocking as Counter-Speech.” In New Work on Speech Acts, edited by D. Fogal, M. Moss, and D. W. Harris, 144–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. Y. 2021. “Anticipatory Epistemic Injustice.” Social Epistemology 35 (6): 564–576. doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.1924306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339–359. doi:10.1007/BF00258436.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, David. 1996. “Elusive Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4): 549–567. doi:10.1080/00048409612347521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, Brian. 2020. “Dealing with Conspiracy Theory Attributions.” Social Epistemology 34 (5): 409–422. doi:10.1080/02691728.2020.1748744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maslen, Cai. 2013. “Keeping Score for Causal Claims: Causal Contextualism Applied to a Medical Case.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (1): 12–24. doi:10.1111/japp.12001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCain, Kevin, and Ted Poston. 2017. Best Explanations: New Essays on Inference to the Best Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGowan, Mary Kate. 2004. “Conversational Exercitives: Something Else We Do with Our Words.” Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (1): 93–111. doi:10.1023/B:LING.0000010803.47264.f0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGowan, Mary Kate. 2019. Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKenna, Robin. 2014. “Normative Scorekeeping.” Synthese 191 (3): 607–625. doi:10.1007/s11229-013-0293-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenzie-McHarg, Andrew, and Rolf Fredheim. 2017. “Cock-Ups and Slap-Downs: A Quantitative Analysis of Conspiracy Rhetoric in the British Parliament 1916–2015.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 50 (3): 156–169. doi:10.1080/01615440.2017.1320616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittendorf, Will. Forthcoming. “Conspiracy Theories and Democratic Legitimacy.” Social Epistemology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Napolitano, Giulia M., and Kevin Reuter. 2021. “What is a Conspiracy Theory?” Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-021-00441-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pigden, Charles R. 2010. “Coercive Theories of Meaning or Why Language Shouldn’t Matter (So Much) to Philosophy.” Logique Et Analyse 53: 151–184.
   Google Scholar
• Pigden, Charles R. 2017. “Are Conspiracy Theorists Epistemically Vicious?” In A Companion to Applied Philosophy, edited by K. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. Brownlee, and D. Coady, 120–132. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Prasada, Sandeep, Sangeet Khemlani, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Sam Glucksberg. 2013. “Conceptual Distinctions Amongst Generics.” Cognition 126 (3): 405–422. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Repp, Sophie, and Katharina Spalek. 2021. “The Role of Alternatives in Language.” Frontiers in Communication 6: 682009. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.682009.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, Craige. 2012. “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” Semantics & Pragmatics 5: 1–69. doi:10.3765/sp.5.6.
   Google Scholar
• Rysiew, Patrick. 2006. “Motivating the Relevant Alternatives Approach.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (2): 259–279. doi:10.1353/cjp.2006.0011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rysiew, Patrick. 2012. “Epistemic Scorekeeping.” In Knowledge Ascriptions, edited by Jessica Brown and Mikkel Gerken, 270–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shields, Matthew. Forthcoming. “Conceptual Engineering, Conceptual Domination, and the Case of Conspiracy Theories.” Social Epistemology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talisse, Robert B. 2021. “Problems of Polarization.” In Political Epistemology, edited by Elizabeth Edenberg and Michael Hannon, 209–225. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tuckwell, William. Forthcoming. “The Politics of Relevant Alternatives.” Hypatia.
   Google Scholar
• Uscinski, Joseph E. 2019. “Down the Rabbit Hole We Go!” In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski, 1–32. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, Sander, Costas Panagopoulos, and Jon Roozenbeek. 2020. “You are Fake News: Political Bias in Perceptions of Fake News.” Media, Culture & Society 42 (3): 460–470. doi:10.1177/0163443720906992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, Jesse. 2019. “What We Mean When We Say ‘Conspiracy Theory’.” In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski, 53–62. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitmer, Michelle. 2021. “Johnson & Johnson’s Connection to Asbestos.” The Mesothelioma Center. www.asbestos.com/companies/johnson-johnson.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, Michael J. 2016. “Some Dare Call It Conspiracy: Labeling Something a Conspiracy Theory Does Not Reduce Belief in It.” Political Psychology 37 (5): 695–705. doi:10.1111/pops.12285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, Michael J., Karen M. Douglas, and Robbie M. Sutton. 2012. “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (6): 767–773. doi:10.1177/1948550611434786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, Crispin. 2017. “The Variability of ‘Knows’: An Opinionated Overview.” In The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism, edited by Jonathan Ichikawa, 13–31. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar