Conspiracies are Justified: The Isolation Objection

Its hard to tell what is good knowledge but we can just look at the JTB account of knowledge, for it to be knowledge it has to have truth, a belief and, some other thing called justification. Now that last one is a bit hard to pin down cause there is so many ways you can explain with for example classical epistemological will talk about foundationalism but as we will see that has its issues. But what is better? What can justify the truth better than the basic justified beliefs found in foundationalism. What if there is no basic beliefs but rather justification comes from the structure and interconnection of beliefs.

Coherentism posits that beliefs are justified through their coherence with other beliefs, forming a unified web. We define it as “a belief or set of beliefs is justified, or justifiably held, just in case the belief coheres with a set of beliefs, the set forms a coherent system or some variation on these themes.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2023 Edition) Unlike foundationalism, which relies on self-evident or basic truths as the basis for justification, coherentism avoids the impracticality of tracing beliefs back to basic, foundational truths. The strength of coherentism lies in the consistency and relevance of beliefs within the coherent system, ensuring that new beliefs do not contradict existing justified beliefs.

For instance, in foundationalism, beliefs must ultimately rest on indubitable foundations, like the axioms in mathematics. This approach often leads to the problem of infinite regress, where each belief requires further justification. We can look at this like how the most annoying and curious kid might ask “but why” ad-nausium till you should get to a point where it cannot be doubted and is inherently justified and the kid finally knows the full chain of why(jusification). Coherentism circumvents this by holding that a belief is justified if it fits well within an interlocking web of mutually supportive beliefs. This web, ideally, should be comprehensive and internally consistent, without isolated segments that are insulated from the rest.

The isolation objection challenges coherentism by pointing out that a set of beliefs can be internally coherent yet completely disconnected from reality. It suggests that a belief system can be internally consistent but still fail to provide true or reliable knowledge if it is isolated from empirical evidence and real-world considerations. For example, flat earth theorists maintain a coherent belief system that explains the world according to their views, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Within their framework, each belief supports the others, forming a coherent whole. However, this internal coherence does not equate to truth, as their belief system is isolated from empirical evidence that contradicts their views, such as satellite images and physics-based explanations of planetary shapes.

Similarly, consider the case of conspiracy theorists who believe in elaborate, interconnected plots. Their beliefs form a coherent narrative where each piece of information fits neatly with the others, reinforcing their worldview. Yet, these beliefs are often detached from reality, ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. This demonstrates that coherence alone does not guarantee truth or a reliable connection to the external world.

This isolation can create a vicious cycle where coherent but erroneous beliefs become more entrenched. Epistemic bubbles form when individuals are selectively exposed to information that reinforces their existing beliefs, leading to a modified informational landscape shaped by like-minded sources. For example, social media algorithms often promote content that aligns with users’ past behaviors, creating an environment where users predominantly encounter information that supports their pre-existing views this is called external selection which is selection by this external party (the algorithm). The other way that an epistemic agent has this selective exposure is self-selection where for example a person may already hold strong political beliefs and so they primarily follow news outlets that primarily release content that aligns with this set of beliefs which is called self-selection. This selective exposure can lead to reinforced, yet possibly incorrect, beliefs that are coherent within their limited informational scope.

Echo chambers represent a more aggressive form of epistemic isolation. In an echo chamber, members actively discredit and exclude dissenting voices, thereby intensifying their insular belief system. For instance, in certain political or ideological groups, dissenting opinions are not just ignored but vilified. Members of these groups are encouraged to distrust information from outside sources, creating an environment where only the internal, coherent belief system is considered valid. This leads to a scenario where any belief that does not fit the existing web of beliefs is unjustified and rejected, further isolating the belief system from reality.

The isolation objection, as illustrated by epistemic bubbles and echo chambers, leads to the formation of problematic worldviews that are internally coherent but fundamentally disconnected from reality. These isolated belief systems can have significant social and individual consequences, as they distort understanding and impede rational discourse.

For example, consider a person confronted with news of a new super flu and the rapid development of a vaccine. Initially skeptical about the vaccine’s efficacy, they search online and find a community analyzing early clinical trial data. This community consists of individuals who share their skepticism, forming an epistemic bubble. The information within this bubble is convincing and aligns with their initial beliefs, leading them to immerse further and become active members.

As they engage more with the group, the law of group polarization takes effect: discussions within the bubble reinforce and intensify members' beliefs due to motivated reasoning and a lack of critical assessment. Over time, the group’s views become more extreme, and members increasingly distrust external sources, resulting in an echo chamber. In this state, any contradictory information from outside the community is automatically discredited, further entrenching the group’s coherent but isolated belief system. This cycle demonstrates how epistemic bubbles and echo chambers can lead to deeply problematic and disconnected worldviews.

As this effect happens all around the sphere of public discourse especially with the rise of more algorithmic discovery of communities and media, which creates more external selection into epistemic bubbles and the cycle begins where bubbles are becoming more polarized and making it more likely for it to turn into an echo chamber and disconnect these agents from the real world.

Now this sounds so bad right? All of these issues stemming from coherentism but surely these few issues completely remove the value of the core principles because like any theory of justification it has its flaws and outliers that pose it in a bad light. One way that we can maintain the ideas of coherentism is by making sure that the view incorporates mechanism to ensure a connection with reality using empirical data plus openness to critical discussion as well as emphasizing epistemic virtues.

The way to include empirical evidence is by making sure its not isolated from the empirical world by conciously including scientific data and observable/repeatable facts into the belief system . For example, in the case above with anti-vaxccination, promote the inclusion of peer-reviewed scientific studies and empirical data on efficacy. Another is encoraging open discourse and critical evaluation of beliefs. So not to fall into echo chambers where beliefs are distrusted but always evaluate and consider beliefs based on their merits and not put pride in the way of the truth. So for instance create platforms for open discussion between opposing agents so it can diversify the beliefs within each epistemic bubble. The last to maintain coherentism is promoting intellectual virtues such as being open-minded, plus intellectual humility, and the willingness to change the structure of the web of beliefs when there is a new evidence and beliefs.

With that in mind its still hard to fully find a rock solid theory that covers all the gaps that can be poked even with these safeguards because there is no empirical nature in the justification like foundationalism. But still with all the problems that have been posed, coherence with a bit of all the ideas above to ensure compliance with reality.

In conclusion, while coherentism offers a compelling framework for justifying beliefs through consistency within a web, it faces significant challenges like the isolation objection. Epistemic bubbles and echo chambers illustrate how coherent but isolated belief systems can lead to problematic worldviews that are detached from reality. These phenomena underscore the need for coherentist systems to incorporate mechanisms that ensure engagement with external evidence and critical perspectives. But still, coherence can be still useful and has merit with a more intuned with external epistemic/scientific evidence as well as including values of intellectual virtues can create a better framework that integrates the web of coherent beliefs with epistemic data like that of foundationalism. So we can learn from this and analyse our own epistemological groups that you may be apart of where they might be leaning into being a bubble or even an echo chamber but again using some epirical evidence can remove some harmful beliefs that may not be grounded in reality and then hold some intellectual virtues to make sure that you maintain a connection to reality and not fall into the trap of echo chambers and epistemic bubbles.

“Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2023 Edition).” 2021. March 9, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/justep-coherence.