Levy Neil
Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109 Australia.
Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 1PT UK.
Synthese. 2022;200(5):356. doi: 10.1007/s11229-022-03793-w. Epub 2022 Aug 20.
Philosophical tradition and conspiracy theorists converge in suggesting that ordinary people ought to do their own research, rather than accept the word of others. In this paper, I argue that it's no accident that conspiracy theorists value lay research on expert topics: such research is likely to undermine knowledge, via its effects on truth and justification. Accepting expert testimony is a far more reliable route to truth. Nevertheless, lay research has a range of benefits; in particular, it is likely to lead to greater understanding, even when it does not lead to knowledge. I argue that we can reap most of the genuine benefits of lay research while minimizing the risks by engaging in exploratory, rather than truth-directed, inquiry. To engage in exploratory inquiry is to engage dogmatically, expecting to be unable to confirm the expert view or to disconfirm rivals.
哲学传统和阴谋论者都认为普通人应该自己进行研究,而不是接受他人的观点。在本文中,我认为阴谋论者重视对专家话题的外行研究并非偶然:这种研究很可能通过其对真理和正当性的影响来破坏知识。接受专家证词是通向真理的可靠得多的途径。然而,外行研究有一系列好处;特别是,它很可能带来更深入的理解,即使它不会带来知识。我认为,我们可以通过进行探索性而非以真理为导向的探究,在将风险降至最低的同时收获外行研究的大部分真正益处。进行探索性探究就是教条式地参与,预期无法证实专家观点或证伪对手观点。