De ideeënoorlog

References

1. Au, C.H., Ho, K.K.W. & Chiu, D.K.W. (2022) The Role of Online Misinformation and Fake News in Ideological Polarization: Barriers, Catalysts, and Implications, Information Systems Frontiers, 24, pp. 1331-1354.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Azzimonti, M. & Fernandes, M. (2022) Social media networks, fake news, and polarization, European Journal of Political Economy, 76, pp. 1-25.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bail, C.A. e.a. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), pp. 9216-9221.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Borella, C.A. & Rossinelli, D. (2017) Fake News, Immigration, and Opinion Polarization, SocioEconomic Challenges, 1(4), pp. 59-72.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bschir, K. & Lohse, S. (2022) Pandemics, policy, and pluralism: A Feyerabend-inspired perspective on COVID-19, Synthese, 200(441), pp. 1-26.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Ceccarelli, L. (2011) Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), pp. 195-228.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Chalmers, A. (2013) What Is This Thing Called Science. Maidenhead: Open University Press (vierde druk), hoofdstuk 10.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Interview met Kellyanne Conway, voormalig Counselor to the President, NBC “Meet the Press”, 22januari2017.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dahms, H.J. (2022) Alternative Facts, Fake News, Pseudoscience – New Challenges for a Scientific World-View. An Essay, in: C.Damböck & A.T.Tuboly (red.), The Socio-Ethical Dimension of Knowledge The Mission of Logical Empiricism. Cham: Springer Nature, pp. 195-216.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Davies Hirschfeld, J. & Rosenberg, M. (2017) With False Claims, Trump Attacks Media on Turnout and Intelligence Rift, The New York Times.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Dekker, P. (2022) Politieke polarisatie is in Nederland geen overheersende trend, Sociale Vraagstukken.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dreigingsbeeld Terrorisme Nederland 57, NCTV,november2022, § 1.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Farrell, R.P. (2003) Feyerabend and Scientific Values. Tightrope-Walking Rationality. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Feyerabend, P.K. (1964a) Problems of Microphysics, in: P.K.Feyerabend, S.Gattei & J.Agassi (2016), Physics and Philosophy: Volume 4: Philosophical Papers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-187.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Feyerabend, P.K. (1964b) Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments in the Logic of Factual Support, in: M.Bunge (red.), Critical Approaches to Science and Philosophy. New York: The Free Press, pp. 280-308.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Feyerabend, P.K. (1968) Outline of a pluralistic theory of knowledge and action, in: S.Anderson (red.), Planning for diversity and choice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Feyerabend, P.K. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Londen: New Left Books (eerste druk).
    [Google Scholar]
18. Feyerabend, P.K. (1978) Science in a Free Society. Londen: New Left Books.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Feyerabend, P.K. (1981 [1965]) Reply to criticism. Comments on Smart, Sellars and Putnam, in: P.K.Feyerabend, Realism, rationalism and scientific method. Philosophical papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 104-131.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Oorspronkelijk uitgegeven in R.S.Cohen & M.W.Wartofsky (red.), Proceedings of the Boston colloquium for the philosophy of science 1962-1964: In honor of Philipp Frank, New York: Humanities Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Feyerabend, P.K. (1987) Farewell to Reason. Londen: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Feyerabend, P.K. (1988) Against Method. Londen: Verso (tweede druk).
    [Google Scholar]
23. Feyerabend, P.K. (1993) Against Method. Londen: Verso (derde druk).
    [Google Scholar]
24. Feyerabend, P.K. (1999) Conquest of abundance. A tale of abstraction versus the richness of Being. B.Terpstra (red.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Fox, R.L. (1991) The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. New York, NY: Viking Press.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Fuller, S. (2018) What Can Philosophy Teach Us About the Post-truth Condition, in: M.A.Peters e.a. (red.), Post-Truth, Fake News. Viral Modernity & Higher Education. Singapore: Springer Nature, pp. 13-26.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Harambam, J. (2017) De/politisering van de Waarheid. Complottheorieën, alternatieve feiten en nepnieuws in het tijdperk van de postwaarheid, Tijdschrift Sociologie, 13(1), pp. 73-92.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Harteveld, E. (2021a) Polarisatie in Nederland: hoe verdeeld zijn we?, UvA Blog.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Harteveld, E. (2021b) Polarisatie tijdens de pandemie: is corona een splijtzwam?, Stuk Rood Vlees.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Harteveld, E. (2022) Polarisatie in Nederland: hoe verdeeld zijn we?, UvA Blog.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kessler, G. (2017) Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size, The Washington Post.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kidd, I.J. (2016a) Why did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science, Social Epistemology, 30(4), pp. 464-482.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kidd, I.J. (2016b) How Should Feyerabend have Defended Astrology? A Reply to Pigliucci, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 5(6), pp. 11-17.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Lee, T. (2019) The global rise of “fake news” and the threat to democratic elections in the USA, Public Administration and Policy: an Asia-Pacific Journal, 22(1), pp. 15-24.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lohse, S. & Bschir, K. (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic: a case for epistemic pluralism in public health policy, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 42(4), pp. 1-5.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Lugg, A. (1977) Feyerabend’s rationalism, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(4), pp. 755-775.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Mackor, A.R. (2023) Epistemische bedreigingen van de rechtsstaat, Ars Aequi, 2023(3), pp. 194-197.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Makarechi, K. (2017) Trump Spokesman’s Lecture On Media Accuracy Is Peppered With Lies, Vanity Fair.
    [Google Scholar]
39. McIntyre, L. (2018) Post-Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, hoofdstuk 1.
    [Google Scholar]
40. O’Conner, C. & Weatherall, J.O. (2018) Scientific polarization, European Journal for Philosophy of Science8, pp. 855-875.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E.M. (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Londen: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Pigliucci, M. (2016) Was Feyerabend Right in Defending Astrology? A Commentary on Kidd, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 5(5), pp. 1-6.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Preston, J. (1997) Feyerabend. Philosophy, Science and Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Van Prooijen, J.W., Spadaro, G. & Wang, H. (2022) Suspicion of Institutions: How Distrust and Conspiracy Theories Deteriorate Social Relationships, Current Opinion in Psychology2022, 43, pp. 65-69.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Ramanujan, K. (2021) More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change, Cornell Chronicle.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Rekker, R. (2021) The nature and origins of political polarization over science, Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), pp. 1-16.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Rekker, R. & Harteveld, E. (2022) Understanding factual belief polarization: the role of trust, political sophistication, and affective polarization, Acta Politica.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Ribeiro e.a., M.H. (2017) “Everything I Disagree With is #FakeNews”: Correlating Political Polarization and Spread of Misinformation, arXiv:1706.05924v2.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Den Ridder, J. e.a. (2022) Burgerperspectieven. Bericht 1, 2022, (rapport Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau).
    [Google Scholar]
50. Shaw, J. (2017a) Was Feyerabend an anarchist? The structure(s) of ‘anything goes’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 64, pp. 11-21.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Shaw, J. (2017b) Feyerabend and the Cranks: On Demarcation, Epistemic Virtues, and Astrology, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 6(3), pp. 74-88.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Shaw, J. (2021a) Feyerabend and manufactured disagreement: reflections on expertise, consensus, and science policy, Synthese, 198(25), pp. 6053-6084.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Shaw, J. (2021b) Feyerabend’s well-ordered science: how an anarchist distributes funds, Synthese, 198(1), § 6.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Statement by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 21januari2017, geraadpleegd via: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-sean-spicer/.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Suhay, E., Bello-Pardo, E. & Maurer, B. (2018) The Polarizing Effects of Online Partisan Criticism: Evidence from Two Experiments, International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), pp. 95-115.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Tambolo, L. (2015) A tale of three theories: Feyerabend and Popper on progress and the aim of science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 51, pp. 33-41.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Wihbey, J.P., Kopec, M. & Sandler, R. (2021) Informational Quality Labeling On Social Media: In Defense Of A Social Epistemology Strategy, YJoLT Special Issue: ‘Social Media Governance’, 23, pp. 153-203.
    [Google Scholar]