Singapore Philosophy Group

ANNOUNCEMENT: For this particular event, the owner of Dong Qu has kindly agreed to host us. Do buy a drink or two as a token of appreciation!
Venue: 3rd floor (take lift) https://maps.app.goo.gl/Dwd4XAi9LbGNG2D26

Philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce says, “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth”. Investigation here refers to that conducted by the so-called 'method of science', which is distinguished by its ontological commitment to a mind-independent reality, exhibiting intelligible regularities over time, and resists us when our beliefs are false. He contrasts these with other methods for the fixation of belief (1):

• The method of tenacity: clinging stubbornly to belief and avoiding contrary information. Related to confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, echo chambers.
• The method of authority: belief is dictated by institutions or figures of power, enforced through social norms or coercion. Related to religion, propaganda, cults.
• The a priori method: beliefs are adopted based on what seems reasonable, coherent, harmonious, or elegant, without the need for empirical verification. Related to metaphysics, intellectual trends, conventional wisdom

In all these other methods, there is no similar allegiance to a mind-independent reality, which, though mediated by signs and experience, can correct and converge beliefs towards it over time. Crucially, this is achieved through empirical testing, fallibilistic openness to doubt, and communal verification by a community of inquiry.

Fragility of the community of inquiry

In practice, this convergence is not guaranteed. The community of inquiry appears fragile:

• Within science, phenomena like replication crisis, p-hacking, and data fabrication demonstrate the persistence of perverse incentives not aligned with truth-seeking
• The ability of politicians to severely cripple research funding demonstrates how scientific institutions are overcentralized and represent single points of failure
• Fallibilistic openness to doubt is exploited and weaponized by bad-faith actors to sow doubt in scientific explanations

Contrast this with the phenomenon of conspiracism, which, from a Peircean lens, is a form of the method of tenacity that resists correction by experience, relying instead on coherence within a closed system. It appears antifragile:

• Attempts to debunk and deplatform are interpreted as evidence of suppression, “hiding something”
• Redundancy: refuting individual aspects of the conspiracy theory is met with shifting claims e.g. shifting justifications for the delay of rapture in millenarian movements. Conspiracy theories are adaptive
• Brandolini’s law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Conspiracy theories benefit from asymmetric payoffs

This contrast presents us with some challenging ideas.

• Is it true that the community of inquiry/method of science is inherently fragile, and alternative belief modes antifragile?
• Epistemic inversion: what do we make of the phenomenon where the method of science can be easily made to look like the method of authority or tenacity, and conspiracy theories look like the method of science?
• If the method of science is the only method that will converge in the limit to reality, should it not have conferred selective advantages?
• Is the community of inquiry doomed to failure in its endeavour to shape belief in competition with alternative belief modes?
• Is there any way for us to shape the community of inquiry to make it more resilient? Are there any learnings from the antifragility of conspiracism?

Join us this Saturday to re-examine our beliefs on shaping belief and what an ideal community of inquiry should look like.

References.

1. Peirce, C.S. The fixation of belief. Available at: https://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html (Accessed: 29 June 2025).