Alternative science, alternative experts, alternative politics. The roots of pseudoscientific beliefs in Western Europe

References

• Albertazzi, D., and D. McDonnell. 2008. “Introduction: The Sceptre and the Spectre.” In Twenty-First Century Populism the Spectre of Western European Democracy, edited by D. Albertazzi and D. McDonnell, 1–11. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Blancke, S., M. Boudry, and M. Pigliucci. 2017. “Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience.” Theoria 83 (1): 78–97. doi:10.1111/theo.12109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boykoff, M. T. 2007. “Flogging a Dead Norm? Newspaper Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006.” Area 39 (4): 470–481. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M., and F. Neresini. 2008. “Science and Public Participation.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 449–472. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caiani, E., and P. Graziano. 2019. “Understanding Varieties of Populism in Times of Crises.” West European Politics 42 (6): 1141–1158. doi:10.1080/01402382.2019.1598062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. 2013. The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, M. R. X. 2018. “Expertise and Conspiracy Theories.” Social Epistemology 32 (3): 196–208. doi:10.1080/02691728.2018.1440021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberl, J. -M., R. A. Huber, and E. Greussing. 2021. “From Populism to the “Plandemic”: Why Populists Believe in COVID-19 Conspiracies.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 31 (sup1): 272–284. doi:10.1080/17457289.2021.1924730.
   Google Scholar
• Einstein, K. L., and D. M. Glick. 2015. “Do I Think BLS Data are BS? The Consequences of Conspiracy Theories.” Political Behavior 37 (3): 679–701. doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejaz, W., M. Ittefaq, H. Seo, and F. Naz. 2021. “Factors Associated with the Belief in COVID-19 Related Conspiracy Theories in Pakistan.” Health, Risk & Society 23 (3–4): 162–178. doi:10.1080/13698575.2021.1929865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enders, A. M., J. E. Uscinski, M. I. Seelig, C. A. Klofstad, S. Wuchty, J. R. Funchion, M. N. Murthi, K. Premaratne, and J. Stoler. 2021. “The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation.” Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09734-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein, N. 2011. “Salvaging Science Literacy.” Science Education 95 (1): 168–185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleck, L. 1935. “O obserwacji naukowej i postrzeganiu w ogóle, Przegląd Filozoficzny, 38, 57–76. [Scientific Observation and Perception in General (1986).” In Cognition and Fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck, edited by R. S. Cohen and T. Schnelle, 59–78. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Gemini, L., G. Boccia Artieri, F. Giglietto, M. Farci, S. Brilli, and E. Zurovac. 2021. “Ciarlatani. Post-verità, contropubblici online e nuove articolazioni della fiducia nel sistema della medicina.” Salute e Società XX (2): 201–222. doi:10.3280/SES2021-002014.
   Google Scholar
• Gidron, N., and B. Bonikowski 2013. “Varieties of Populism: Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Working Paper, 4/2013. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgi, A., and H. Eslen-Ziya. 2022. “Populism and Science in Europe.” In Populism and Science in Europe, edited by H. Eslen–Ziya and A. Giorgi, 1–24. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2013. “Defining Pseudoscience and Science.“ In Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem,edited by M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 61–77. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2017. “Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 63: 39–47. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2021 “Science and Pseudo-Science.” In E. N. Zalta (edited by) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Summer 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/pseudo-science/.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., E. Peters, M. Wittlin, P. Slovic, L. Larrimore Ouellette, D. Braman, and G. Mandel. 2012. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change 2: 732–735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keren, A. 2018. “The Public Understanding of What? Laypersons’ Epistemic Needs, the Division of Cognitive Labor, and the Demarcation of Scienc.” Philosophy of Science 85 (5): 781–792. doi:10.1086/699690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, M. Dolezal, S. Bornschier, and T. Frey. 2006. “Globalization and the Transformation of the National Political Space: Six European Countries Compared.” European Journal of Political Research 45 (6): 921–956. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00644.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazer, D., M. Baum, N. Grinberg, L. Friedland, K. Joseph, W. Hobbs, and C. Mattsson 2017. “Combating Fake News: An Agenda for Research and Action Drawn from Presentations by.” https://shorensteincenter.org/combating-fake-news-agenda-for-research/
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., G. E. Gignac, and K. Oberauer. 2015. “The Robust Relationship Between Conspiracism and Denial of (Climate) Science.” Psychological Science 26 (5): 667–670. doi:10.1177/0956797614568432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., K. Oberauer, and G. E. Gignac. 2013. “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.” Psychological Science 24 (5): 622–633. doi:10.1177/0956797612457686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyotard, J. -F. 1979. La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport sur le Savoir. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
   Google Scholar
• Mancosu, M., S. Vassallo, and C. Vezzoni. 2017. “Believing in Conspiracy Theories: Evidence from an Exploratory Analysis of Italian Survey Data.” South European Society & Politics 22 (3): 327–344. doi:10.1080/13608746.2017.1359894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoy, J., T. Rahman, and M. Somer. 2018. “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities.” The American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 16–42. doi:10.1177/0002764218759576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMyler, B. 2021. “Trust and Authority.” In The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, edited by J. Simon, 76–87. Abingdon, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mede, N. G., and M. S. Schäfer. 2020. “Science-Related Populism: Conceptualizing Populist Demands Toward Science.” Public Understanding of Science 29 (5): 473–491. doi:10.1177/0963662520924259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, M. J., and A. Zaslove. 2021. “Measuring Populism in Political Parties: Appraisal of a New Approach.” Comparative Political Studies 54 (2): 372–407. doi:10.1177/0010414020938081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, C. 2004. “The Populist Zeitgeist.” Government and Opposition 39 (4): 541–563. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, C. 2017. “Populism: An Ideational Approach.” In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, edited by C. R. Kaltwasser, P. Taggart, P. O. Espejo, and P. Ostiguy, 27–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. 2013. “The Problem of Demarcation. History and Future.“ In Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem,edited by M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 101–120. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, J. E., and T. J. Wood. 2014. “Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 952–966. doi:10.1111/ajps.12084.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N. 2019. “Systematicity is Necessary but Not Sufficient: On the Problem of Facsimile Science.” Synthese 196 (3): 881–905. doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1481-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pariser, E. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Pasek, J. 2019. “Don’t Trust the Scientists! Rejecting the Scientific Consensus 'Conspiracy'.“ In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by J. E. Uscinski, 201–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry, edited by. 2013. Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rooduijn, M., S. Van Kessel, C. Froio, A. Pirro, S. De Lange, D. Halikiopoulou, P. Lewis, C. Mudde, and P. Taggart 2019. The PopuList: An Overview of Populist, Far Right, Far Left and Eurosceptic Parties in Europe. www.popu-list.org.
   Google Scholar
• Rothkopf, D. J. 2003. “When the Buzz Bites Back.” The Washington Post, May 11.
   Google Scholar
• Safford, T. G., E. H. Whitmore, and L. C. Hamilton. 2020. “Questioning Scientific Practice: Linking Beliefs About Scientists, Science Agencies, and Climate Change.” Environmental Sociology 6 (2): 194–206. doi:10.1080/23251042.2019.1696008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saurette, P., and S. Gunster. 2011. “Ears Wide Shut: Epistemological Populism, Argutainment and Canadian Conservative Talk Radio.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 44 (1): 195–218. doi:10.1017/S0008423910001095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stecula, D. A., and M. Pickup. 2021a. “How Populism and Conservative Media Fuel Conspiracy Beliefs About COVID-19 and What It Means for COVID-19 Behaviors.” Research & Politics 8 (1). doi:10.1177/2053168021993979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stecula, D. A., and M. Pickup. 2021b. “Social Media, Cognitive Reflection, and Conspiracy Beliefs.” Frontiers in Political Science 3: 647957. doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.647957.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, M. J. , and G. R. Smulewicz-Zucker, edited by. 2018. Anti-Science and the Assault on Democracy: Defending Reason in a Free Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Uscinski, J. E., edited by. 2019. Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Prooijen, J. -W., A. P. M. Krouwel, and T. V. Pollet. 2015. “Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories.” Social psychological and personality science 6 (5): 570–578. doi:10.1177/1948550614567356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vezzoni, C., G. M. Dotti Sani, A. M. Chiesi, R. Ladini, F. Biolcati, S. Guglielmi, N. Maggini, et al. 2022. “Where does the Coronavirus come from? On the mechanisms underlying the endorsement of conspiracy theories on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 52: 51–65. doi:10.1017/ipo.2021.19.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, K. 2017. “Why we believe alternative facts.” Monitor on Psychology 48 (5). http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/05/alternative-facts.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, M. J., and K. M. Douglas. 2019. “Conspiracy Theory Psychology. Individual differences, Worldviews, and States of Mind.“ In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them,edited by J. E. Uscinski, 245–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, M. J., K. M. Douglas, and R. 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
• Zagzebski, L. T. 2012. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zulianello, M. 2020. “Varieties of populist parties and party systems in Europe: From state-of-the-art to the application of a novel classification scheme to 66 parties in 33 countries.” Government and Opposition 55 (2): 327–347. doi:10.1017/gov.2019.21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zulianello, M., and E. G. Larsen. 2021. “Populist Parties in European Parliament Elections: A New Dataset on Left, Right and Valence Populism from 1979 to 2019.” Electoral studies 71: 102312. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar