Conspiracism undermines rather than expresses democratic skepticism about experts

Evidence

There are good reasons, then, for democratic citizens to withhold deference, to raise questions about experts, and to hold them accountable for their judgments. This is wholesome skepticism. Conspiracism is not skepticism. In its indiscriminate denial of standing to knowledge-producing institutions, it undercuts the basis for criticism: a commitment to evidence, impartial analysis, and ongoing research. And conspiracism undercuts the habits of doubt that empower us to question and test how we know what we think we know. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 269

Knowledge-producing institutions are essential to democracy; so is skepticism. Experts should not be deferred to simply because of their bona fides—their degrees or their status. Nor should the authority of knowledge-producing institutions such as the free press, the scientific community, or dataand analysis-oriented governmental agencies be accepted without question. Experts are sometimes wrong, science incomplete, and facts, theories, and explanations inaccurate—even absent corruption and bad intentions. Orthodox approaches can stifle new and better ones, and the normative assumptions and judgments behind expert claims can be hidden. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 267

Categorization

• DEFINE: Draws the distinction between ‘wholesome skepticism’ and conspiracism — a load-bearing conceptual contrast for the whole book.
• XREF: The sound skeptical stance toward institutional authority parallels arguments about legitimate distrust in Epistemic injustice / Oreskes work on why trust in science isn’t blind. — connects to: Right-wing denialists weaponized academic leftist skepticism of experts — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 289; Conspiracists falsely portray themselves as skeptical critical thinkers — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 265; Real expert failures and corruption give democratic skepticism legitimate motivation — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 268 (+3 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 269; Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 267

Broader Connections

• Conspiracists falsely portray themselves as skeptical critical thinkers #corroborates (0.88) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 265
• Real expert failures and corruption give democratic skepticism legitimate motivation #qualifies (0.82) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 268
• Countering conspiracism requires wisdom, not just factual honesty #expands (0.75) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 393