Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is a Greek term combining; ‘episteme’ and ‘logos.’ ‘Episteme’ can be translated as ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding’. While ‘logos’ can be translated as ‘account’ or ‘argument’ (Britannica, 2020). Throughout history most philosophers have discussed epistemology and it is one of the central schools of thought. Recently with the approach of the digital age, these conversations have been modernised.
How can we know anything?
There are three ways that we normally use the term ‘knowledge.’ Firstly, is ‘knowing how’, a task or a skill. For example, we may know how to play the piano or how to swim, this is called procedural knowledge. Secondly, is ‘knowing that’, perhaps it’s being aware of facts. For example, Dublin is the capital of Ireland this is called propositional knowledge. Finally, ‘knowing one’; knowing either a person or an entity; for example knowing your mum or an orange! This is called acquaintance knowledge.
With these three ways of looking at knowledge we can then discuss how we access it. In Plato’s work, Theaetetus, he developed a near-universally accepted analysis of the notion of knowledge, that it was: 1. Justified 2. True 3. Belief.
Here is an example of JTB S knows that p if
p is true and
S believes that p and
S is justified in believing that p.
For centuries Justified True Belief (JTB) was recognised as the only means of attaining knowledge. Until in 1963, Edmund Gettier, a philosopher, challenged the traditional opinion in a three-page document. In this piece he argued that there are some situations in which we have JTB, but which do not count as knowledge, that instead it’s perhaps epistemological luck. Let us look at this example: You see a group of people at a bar and see your friend. As you get closer you learn that it’s not a friend but a stranger. Then, after a few minutes you discover your friend really is there but standing behind that stranger. Originally you believed your friend was there, but did you know it? This is demonstrating how luck and chance aren’t knowledge, and how truth is needed for it to be knowledge. And this is referred to as "The Gettier Problem.”
The definition of knowledge can be picked apart by an endless variety of Gettier-type examples. In other words, when we believe something, there are reasons for which we believe it, we deem it to be true to our reality.
Knowledge can be disrupted when we bring it into human behaviour. We can skew JTB to fit our narratives. It can be a way by which we both connect and disconnect from others, the world and even ourselves. One way of looking at this is through conspiracy theories.
What do conspiracy theories have to do with knowledge?
Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year in 2016 was post-truth, this is defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
Conspiracy theories appear to give wide-ranging, internally asserting versions of knowledge that allow people to hold onto beliefs in the face of uncertainty and challenge. They are epistemic (i.e., explain most events) and counter-normative (i.e., confront generally agreed upon knowledge). They are often assumed to be inherently irrational or false.
If we think back to the types of knowledge, and how they may have been taught to us by authority figures, parents, carers, teachers. What happens when we have authority figures who spread mistruths? Give us false beliefs, alternative facts and fake news? What happens when these then fit into beliefs that we already have?
Using the American election as an example, we had a person of power, vocally whip up misinformation and propaganda; by stating the election was fraudulent. As a result, inciting an insurrection of individuals that believed that the election was rigged without appropriate justification and having been discounted as a truth.
Ultimately, fake news is designed to deceive. Specifically, between false and reality. There is an attempt to distort the truth to create or maintain a narrative. This then fits the account that one may hold about how they see the world.
Research has demonstrated that Conspiracy theories tend to be epistemically held in times of crisis, or when attempting to make sense of a situation. What we can deduct from that is that they might only be epistemically relevant when there is a sense of uncertainty. Therefore honing in on explanations that give the opportunity for conviction, despite them being epistemically fraudulent, may give a sense of control.
The propositional content of conspiracy theories can be accidentally true (let’s think of Watergate as a famous example). However, JTB would say that while knowledge does not require certainty, it does require a high degree of justification. So wishful thinking, desire for luck, warranted vs justification, fallible knowledge don’t equate to knowledge. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that not just any level of justification will do.
Conclusion
So, while Conspiracy Theories are flawed ways of achieving knowledge as defined by philosophers, what they do is attempt to find meaning. Knowledge is complex, nuanced and context related and limited to the lens we see through because the world itself is subjective. So then how can we know anything? Peter Unger (1971) in his piece of work; Defence of Scepticism claims that we can know nothing as. 1, Knowing entails certainty. 2, hardly anything is certain.
Conversations surrounding knowledge are vital to ascertain how our own belief systems, and truths held may impact how we gather facts and establish theories, as our genesis and architecture of knowledge has limitations. With the growth of the digital age, access to theories across the globe at the click of the button, and the ability to form alliances through social media, the growth of deep fakes and photoshop, conspiracy theories are not going anywhere.
Aoife Drury is an Accredited Psychosexual and Relationship Therapist. Aoife is a Psychotherapy Doctoral candidate at Dublin City University. She runs her private practice online, and works for companies, apps and magazines supporting them with sexual health and relationship information.
Reference
Gettier, Edmund L., (1963)‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ Analysis, 23, (6), 121–123.
Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social-functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: The intuitive politician, theologian, and prosecutor. Psychological Review, 109, 451–472.
Unger, Peter (1971). A defense of skepticism. Philosophical Review 80 (2):198-219.
Commenti