Conspiracy Theories and Democratic Legitimacy

References

• Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3 (1): 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8.
   Google Scholar
• Audi, Robert. 1997. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Audi, Robert, and Nicholas Woltersdorff. 1997. Religion in the Public Square. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, André, John S. Dryzek, and Jane J. Mansbridge. 2018. “The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited by Mark E. Warren. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barkun, Michael. 2015. “Conspiracy Theories as Stigmatized Knowledge.” Diogenes 62 (3–4): 114–120. doi:10.1177/0392192116669288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basham, Lee. 2018. “Joining the Conspiracy.” Argumenta 3 (2): 271–290. doi:10.23811/55.arg2017.bas.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. Situating the Self. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Buenting, Joel, and Jason Taylor. 2010. “Conspiracy Theories and Fortuitous Data.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (4): 567–578. doi:10.1177/0048393109350750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassam, Quassim. 2019. Conspiracy Theories. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cerovac, Ivan. 2020. Epistemic Democracy and Political Legitimacy. Palgrave Studies in Ethics and Public Policy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cíbik, Matej, and Pavol Hardoš. 2020. “Conspiracy Theories and Reasonable Pluralism.” European Journal of Political Theory 21 (3): 445–465. doi:10.1177/1474885119899232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, Steve. 2002. “Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (2): 131–150. doi:10.1177/004931032002001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coady, David. 2006. “Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories.” In Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, edited by David Coady, 115–128. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Coady, David. 2007. “Are Conspiracy Theorists Irrational?” Episteme 4 (2): 193–204. doi:10.3366/epi.2007.4.2.193.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97 (1): 26–38. doi:10.1086/292815.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, M. 2016. “When Inferring to a Conspiracy Might Be the Best Explanation.” Social Epistemology 30: (5–6: 572–591. doi:10.1080/02691728.2016.1172362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dentith, M. 2018a. “The Problem of Conspiracism.” Argumenta 3 (2): 327–343.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, M. 2018b. “Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously and Investigating Them.” In Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, edited by M Dentith, 217–225. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, M. Forthcoming. Some Conspiracy Theories. Social Epistemology.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, Karen M., Robbie M. Sutton, and Aleksandra Cichocka. 2017. “The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 26 (6): 538–542. doi:10.1177/0963721417718261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John S., and Aviezer Tucker. 2008. “Deliberative Innovation to Different Effect: Consensus Conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States.” Public Administration Review 68 (5): 864–876. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00928.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enoch, David. 2013. “The Disorder of Public Reason.” Ethics 124 (1): 141–176. doi:10.1086/671386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David M. 1997. “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman James and William Rehg,173–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2007. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, James S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 109–142. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fung, Archon. 2003. “Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 338–367. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaus, Gerald. 2012. The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jurgen. 2006. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00241.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagen, Kurtis. 2022a. Conspiracy Theories and the Failure of Intellectual Critique. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hagen, Kurtis. 2022b. “Are ‘Conspiracy Theories’ so Unlikely to Be True? A Critique of Quassim Cassam’s Concept of ‘Conspiracy Theories.’” Social Epistemology 36 (3): 329–343. doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.2009930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannon, Michael, and Jeroen Ridder, eds. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harambam, Jaron. 2021. “Against Modernist Illusions: Why We Need More Democratic and Constructivist Alternatives to Debunking Conspiracy Theories.” Journal for Cultural Research 25 (1): 104–122. doi:10.1080/14797585.2021.1886424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstadter, Richard. 2008. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays. New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, Lu, Scott E. Page, and William J. Baumol. 2004. “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101 (46): 16385–16389. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ichino, Anna, and Juha Räikkä. 2020. “Non-Doxastic Conspiracy Theories.” Argumenta 7 (1): 247–263.
   Google Scholar
• Jolley, Daniel, and Karen M. Douglas. 2014. “The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions.” PLoS One 9 (2): 89177. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeley, Brian L. 1999. “Of Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109–126. doi:10.2307/2564659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, Jack., H. Landemore, N. Urbinati, and D. Viehoff. 2016. “Roundtable on Epistemic Democracy and Its Critics.” Critical Review 28 (2): 2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2016.1206744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène E. 2012. “Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few and Why It Matters.” Journal of Public Deliberation 8 (1). doi:10.16997/jdd.129.
   Google Scholar
• Larimore, Charles. 1987. Patterns of Moral Complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, Michael P. 2021. “The Value of Truth.” The Boston Review. https://bostonreview.net/articles/michael-patrick-lynch-epistemology-tk/.
   Google Scholar
• Mang, Franz. 2017. “Public Reason Can Be Reasonably Rejected.” Social Theory and Practice 43 (2): 343–367.
   Google Scholar
• Misak, Cheryl. 2000. Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Misak, Cheryl. 2004. “Making Disagreement Matter: Pragmatism and Deliberative Democracy.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 18 (1): 9–22.
   Google Scholar
• Muirhead, Russell, and Nancy L. Rosenblum. 2020. A Lot of People are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, Martha C. 2011. “Perfectionist Liberalism and Political Liberalism.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 39 (1): 30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1878. “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Popular Science Monthly 12 (January): 286–302.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, Michael J. 2010. The Political Morality of Liberal Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peter, Fabienne. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Peter, Fabienne. 2021. “Epistemic Norms of Political Deliberation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology, edited by Michael Hannon and Jeroen Ridder, 395–406. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pigden, C. 1995. “Popper Revisited, or What is Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25 (1): 3–34. doi:10.1177/004839319502500101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, Karl R. 1963. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pow, James. 2021. “Mini-Publics and the Wider Public: The Perceived Legitimacy of Randomly Selecting Citizen Representatives.” Representation, February. 1–20. doi:10.1080/00344893.2021.1880470.
   Google Scholar
• Quong, Jonathan. 2004. “The Rights of Unreasonable Citizens*.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (3): 314–335. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00202.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quong, Jonathan. 2011. Liberalism Without Perfection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Räikkä, Juha. 2009a. “The Ethics of Conspiracy Theorising.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 43: 457–468. doi:10.1007/s10790-009-9189-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Räikkä, Juha. 2009b. “On Political Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (2): 185–201. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00300.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, Bertrand. 2001. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sandel, Michael. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartzman, Micah. 2011. “‘The Sincerity of Public Reason.’” The Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (4): 375–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott-Kakures, Dion. 2000. “Motivated Believing: Wishful and Unwelcome.” Nous 34: 348–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, Jason. 2018. How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, Patrick. 2018a. “Conspiracy Theory and the Perils of Pure Particularism.” In Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, edited by M Dentith, 25–37. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, Patrick. 2018b. “On Some Moral Costs of Conspiracy Theory.” In Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, edited by M Dentith, 189–202. London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Stout, Jeffrey. 2004. Democracy and Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. 2009. “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures*.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (2): 202–227. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talisse, Robert B. 2009. Democracy and Moral Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Karen M. 2018. “Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Basic Principles of an Emerging Research Domain.” European Journal of Social Psychology 48 (7): 897–908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, Steven. 2002. “Is Public Justification Self-Defeating?” American Philosophical Quarterly 39 (4): 385–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, Bernard. 1973. Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers 1956-1972. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, Iris. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar