Abstract
We offer a particularist defense of conspiratorial thinking. We explore the possibility that the presence of a certain kind of evidence—what we call “fortuitous data”—lends rational credence to conspiratorial thinking. In developing our argument, we introduce conspiracy theories and motivate our particularist approach (§1). We then introduce and define fortuitous data (§2). Lastly, we locate an instance of fortuitous data in one real world conspiracy, the Watergate scandal (§3).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clark, Steve.
2000 . Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing . Philosophy of the Social Sciences
32 :131 -50 .
2.
Coady, David.
2003 . Conspiracy theories and official stories . International Journal of Applied Philosophy
17 : 197 -209 .
3.
Keeley, Brian.
1999 . Of conspiracy theories . The Journal of Philosophy
3 :109 -26 .
4.
Leslie, John.
1989 . Universes . London : Routledge .
5.
Mandik, Pete.
2008 . Shit happens . Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology
4 :205 -18 .
6.
Pidgen, Charles.
2007 . Conspiracy theories and the conventional wisdom . Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology
4 :219 -32 .
7.
Tempest, Matthew.
2003 . Blair: Iraq oil claim is "conspiracy theory." Guardian . January 15.
8.
van Inwagen, Peter.
2002 . Metaphysics . 2 nd ed. Boulder, CO : Westview Press .
