Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

ŞÜPHECİLİK, KOMPLO TEORİLERİ VE BİLİMSEL OTORİTENİN EPİSTEMOLOJİSİ

Year 2022, Volume: 62 Issue: 2, 1593 - 1630, 20.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2022.62.2.33

Abstract

Bu makalede, içinde bulunduğumuz pandemi döneminde hayatî bir sorun haline gelen komplo teorilerinin gelişimi, şüphecilik ve bilimsel otorite etmeniyle bağlantılı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Komplo teorileri, bilimin insanî bir etkinlik olması nedeniyle kaçınılmaz olarak beliren epistemolojik boşluklara yerleşmektedir. Bu bağlamda, insanları komplo teorilerine inanmaya sevk eden düşünce yapısındaki şüphecilik ve otoritenin sorgulanması etmenlerini çözümlemek, özünde olumlu olan bu etmenlerin komplo teorilerinde nasıl dogmatik bir yola saptığını anlamak adına önemlidir. Makalede, ilgili problem sosyal epistemoloji açısından tartışılmaktadır. Bilimsel düşünceyi destekleyen yapıcı (metodolojik) şüphecilik yaklaşımı, bilginin olanaksızlığına değin varan genel skeptik yaklaşımdan ayrı olarak değerlendirilmelidir. Bilimin şüpheci epistemolojik temellere sahip olması, açık uçlu ve tarih boyunca değişime uğrayan bir etkinlik oluşuyla yakından bağlantılıdır. Öte yandan, komplo teorilerinin şüphecilikle ilişkisi farklı boyutlarıyla değerlendirilmektedir. Komplo teorisi olarak etiketlenen varsayımlara da yapıcı şüpheci bir tarzda yaklaşılmalıdır. Bu doğrultuda, birçok komplo teorisinin ardındaki bilimsel olmayan düşünüş tarzı ile varsayımın içeriğinden ayrı olarak hesaplaşılmalıdır. Makalede son olarak bilimsel otoritenin tanıklığının araçsal bir rolü olduğu ve bu nedenle devre dışı bırakılamayacağı vurgulanacak, bununla birlikte epistemik otorite etmenine eşlik eden felsefî problemler irdelenecektir. Modern bilimin doğuşuyla birlikte epistemik otoritede skolastik temelden kanıta dayalı temele bir dönüşüm gerçekleşmiştir. Bilimde kanıta dayalı yaklaşım, bireyi temele alır. Otoritenin rolü ise, bilimsel etkinliğin epistemik ağlar içerisinde, tek bir insanın sınırlarını hayli aşan bir yoğunlukta gerçekleştirilmesine bağlı olarak ortaya çıkar. Bu tür bir araçsal işlevi nedeniyle bilimde otoritenin rolü reddedilmemeli, fakat diğer yandan, ilk izlenimde olası görülmeyen açıklamalar kimden gelirse gelsin, bilimsel değerlendirme kapsamına alınmalıdır.

References

  • Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.
  • Cassam, Q. (2019). What are conspiracy theories? iai news. Erişim tarihi: 18.11.2021, https://iai.tv/articles/how-do-conspiracy-theories-come-about-auid-1235
  • deHaven-Smith, L. (2013). Conspiracy Theory in America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Eaglestone, R., Press, O. U. (2004). The Holocaust and the Postmodern. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Findl, J., Suárez, J. (2021). Descriptive understanding and prediction in COVID-19 modelling. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 43(4), 107.
  • Ginoux, J.-M., Gerini, C. (2013). Henri Poincaré. Singapur: World Scientific.
  • Goldberg, S. C. (2021). What epistemologists of testimony should learn from philosophers of science. Synthese, 199, 12541–12559.
  • Goldman, A., O’Connor, C. (2021). Social epistemology. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2002).
  • Hacking, I. (1975). The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Harambam, J. (2020, Haziran). Why we should not treat all conspiracy theories the same. The Conversation. Erişim tarihi: 14.11.2021, https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-not-treat-all-conspiracy-theories-the-same-140022
  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4. baskı). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Leman, P., Cinnirella, M. (2013). Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 378.
  • Leonard, N. (2021). Epistemological problems of testimony. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • McHenry, L., Khoshnood, M. (2014). Blood money: Bayer’s inventory of HIV-contaminated blood products and third world hemophiliacs. Accountability in Research, 21(6), 389–400.
  • Millson, J. (2020). Conspiracy theories. 1000 Word Philosophy. Erişim tarihi: 12.11.2021, https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2020/12/17/conspiracy-theories Napolitano, M. G., Reuter, K. (2021). What is a conspiracy theory? Erkenntnis, 1-28.
  • Neurath, O. (1983). Philosophical Papers 1913-1946. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
  • Sagan, C. (2003). Karanlık Bir Dünyada Bilimin Mum Işığı. Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları.
  • Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Funchion, J., Everett, C., … Murthi, M. (2020). Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(3), 1-12.

SCEPTICISM, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY

Year 2022, Volume: 62 Issue: 2, 1593 - 1630, 20.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2022.62.2.33

Abstract

In this paper, the development of conspiracy theories, which has become vital due to conditions of pandemic that we have been experiencing, is addressed in relation with scepticism and the notion of scientific authority. Conspiracy theories emerge within epistemological gaps that are inevitably appearing due to science being a human activity. In this context, analysing the factors of scepticism and questioning authorities that lead could lead people to believe in conspiracy theories is essential. In the paper, the relevant problem is discussed from the perspective of social epistemology. Constructive (methodological) scepticism which supports scientific thought should be distinguished from the general sceptic approach which could even render any kind of knowing impossible. Sceptical epistemological basis of science is closely connected with it being an open process that has changed through history. On the other hand, the relation between conspiracy theories and scepticism is considered in its multiple dimensions. The assumptions which are labelled as conspiracy theories should also be dealt with based on constructive scepticism. In this regard, the non-scientific way of thinking that lies behind many conspiracy theories is to be dealt with regardless of the contents of the main assumption. Lastly, the paper will emphasize that scientific authorities have an instrumental role and that therefore they cannot be bypassed. On this basis, philosophical problems of the notion of epistemic authority will be addressed. With the emergence of modern science, the foundations of epistemic authority have shifted from scholastic way of thinking toward evidence-based way of thinking. Evidence-based way of thinking in science relies on the individual. Whereas the role of epistemic authority in science is based on its network structure that creates a dense accumulation of knowledge, which transcends the limits of the individual. The role of epistemic authorities in science should not be disregarded because of its such instrumental function. Despite this, the explanations that seem to be unlikely to be vindicated should be taken into scientific consideration, regardless of who offer them.

References

  • Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(7604), 452–454.
  • Cassam, Q. (2019). What are conspiracy theories? iai news. Erişim tarihi: 18.11.2021, https://iai.tv/articles/how-do-conspiracy-theories-come-about-auid-1235
  • deHaven-Smith, L. (2013). Conspiracy Theory in America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Eaglestone, R., Press, O. U. (2004). The Holocaust and the Postmodern. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Findl, J., Suárez, J. (2021). Descriptive understanding and prediction in COVID-19 modelling. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 43(4), 107.
  • Ginoux, J.-M., Gerini, C. (2013). Henri Poincaré. Singapur: World Scientific.
  • Goldberg, S. C. (2021). What epistemologists of testimony should learn from philosophers of science. Synthese, 199, 12541–12559.
  • Goldman, A., O’Connor, C. (2021). Social epistemology. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2002).
  • Hacking, I. (1975). The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Harambam, J. (2020, Haziran). Why we should not treat all conspiracy theories the same. The Conversation. Erişim tarihi: 14.11.2021, https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-not-treat-all-conspiracy-theories-the-same-140022
  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4. baskı). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Leman, P., Cinnirella, M. (2013). Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 378.
  • Leonard, N. (2021). Epistemological problems of testimony. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • McHenry, L., Khoshnood, M. (2014). Blood money: Bayer’s inventory of HIV-contaminated blood products and third world hemophiliacs. Accountability in Research, 21(6), 389–400.
  • Millson, J. (2020). Conspiracy theories. 1000 Word Philosophy. Erişim tarihi: 12.11.2021, https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2020/12/17/conspiracy-theories Napolitano, M. G., Reuter, K. (2021). What is a conspiracy theory? Erkenntnis, 1-28.
  • Neurath, O. (1983). Philosophical Papers 1913-1946. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
  • Sagan, C. (2003). Karanlık Bir Dünyada Bilimin Mum Işığı. Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları.
  • Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Funchion, J., Everett, C., … Murthi, M. (2020). Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(3), 1-12.
There are 19 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Çağlar Karaca

Early Pub Date December 15, 2022
Publication Date December 20, 2022
Submission Date January 31, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 62 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Karaca, Ç. (2022). ŞÜPHECİLİK, KOMPLO TEORİLERİ VE BİLİMSEL OTORİTENİN EPİSTEMOLOJİSİ. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 62(2), 1593-1630. https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2022.62.2.33

Ankara University Journal of the Faculty of Languages and History-Geography

This journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License22455