Notes Epistemology (2) PDF

SESSION 2 Epistemology: It is the branch of philosophy concerned with nature, origin, and possibility of knowledge. Though the term epistemology is relatively modern (a couple centuries), the study of knowledge it at least as old as philosophy itself PLATO - Born in Athens or Aegina between...

SESSION 2 Epistemology: It is the branch of philosophy concerned with nature, origin, and possibility of knowledge. Though the term epistemology is relatively modern (a couple centuries), the study of knowledge it at least as old as philosophy itself PLATO - Born in Athens or Aegina between 428 BCE and 423 BCE - Death circa 348 BCE Death of Socrates: condemned and accused of corrupting children/ the youth The Socratic method 1. Establish an argument (definition, philosophical assertion) 2. Raise exception or contradiction 3. Reformulate the argument (to avoid contradiction brought up in 2) + repeat 2 and 3 for as many times as you wish/need Socrates: I know what you want to say, Meno. Do you realize what a debater’s argument you are bringing up, that a man cannot search either for what he knows or for what he does not know? He cannot search for what he knows since he knows it, there is no need to search nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for. Recollection (Anamnesis) Plato’s solution to this paradox of knowledge: Our soul knows everything before birth, then forgets— recollection; ANAMNESIS, remembering everything throughout life The Divided Line (The Republic) Highest level of knowledge, where one grasps the Forms or the ultimate truths that are unchanging and eternal. (INTELLIGIBLE) Abstract reasoning and mathematical thinking. It reflects an understanding of the world through concepts and theories, yet it still relies on empirical data. (INTELLIGIBLE) The world of physical objects and empirical experiences. Step up from imagination but still limited, as it concerns the tangible world that is subject to change. (VISIBLE) Lowest level; one deals with illusions and images, (shadows or reflections) which are far removed from reality. (VISIBLE) Allegory of the Cave Also in "The Republic" (Book VII), the Allegory of the Cave is a narrative that illustrates Plato’s views on enlightenment and the process of gaining knowledge. In this allegory, prisoners are chained inside a dark cave, only able to see shadows projected on the wall in front of them. These shadows represent the world of appearances. One prisoner escapes and discovers the outside world, realizing that the shadows were mere illusions and that true knowledge comes from understanding the actual forms that cast those shadows. The journey out of the cave symbolizes the philosopher's path from ignorance to knowledge and enlightenment. Recollection, the cave and the divided line: are interconnected facets of his broader theory of knowledge. They all emphasize the movement from sensory experience and illusion toward the higher, unchanging truths of the Forms. The forms - Objective - Transcendent - Perfect - Eternal - One and the many Plato’s theory of knowledge: - Is rationalist account - Ideas are innate- do not depend on the physical world The Perfect city (according to Plato) - City ruled by philosophers who have knowledge of the forms (who have a heart of gold because they can achieve knowledge) - Highest possible type knowledge- knowledge of the forms Plato’s Meno (reading) - Meno’s Paradox**: Meno presents the "paradox of inquiry"—how can one search for something when they don't know what it is? If they know it, there’s no need to search; if they don’t, how will they recognize it when they find it? - Socrates' Introduction of the Theory of Recollection**: Socrates argues against the paradox, suggesting that learning is a process of recollection, where the soul "remembers" knowledge it possessed before birth. SESSIONS 3&4: SKEPTICISM Skepticism: the theory that certain knowledge is impossible Skepticism: Ancient Greece  - Academic skepticism: knowledge is impossible because impressions are always fallible Indian skepticism: “The Sweets of Refutation” by Sriharsa- philosophical method doesn’t give us the certainty of knowledge The Scientific Revolution - Beginning of modernity: Copernicus changes the view with the Earth being round- the human being (Earth) is not the centre of the universe (the Earth circles the sun) Renee Descartes (1596-1650) : GLOBAL SKEPTICISM Global/radical skepticism: doubting absolutely everything - Father of cartesianism: Cartesianism represents a philosophical and intellectual approach in which ideas, data, and information are viewed from the perspective of dualism. In dualism, as developed by René Descartes, human thoughts and ideas are organized into two distinct and opposing categories. Meditations: - Dreams: how can we tell dreaming from being awake; how can we be certain that our reality is not merely a dream? Senses are deceiving - Evil demon: what if there’s an evil higher power manipulating our reality? - COGITO ERGO SUM; I think, therefore I am; I am certain that exist because the fact that I even doubt is proof of existence; I EXIST - The idea of a perfect and infinite being cannot come from an imperfect and finite being; GOD EXISTS- THEREFORE I AM NOT DECEIVED - The existence of god guarantees the veracity of distinct ideas, and the existence of an external world (that can be known through mathematical physics) - Two foundations for knowledge: I think, therefore I am and I’m a rational thinking being - Can we have any Substantive knowledge- metaphysics? Yes, through reasoning - Knowledge is not confirmed by experience and senses, but by pure reasoning and the sciences David Hume (1711-1776): LOCAL SKEPTICISM Local skepticism: Doubting certain things Hume is an empiricist: any possibility of knowledge starts with our senses- our experience: perceptions- impressions Two types of impressions - Original: directly from my experience - Secondary: based on something I have experienced but I’m not experiencing anymore Impressions= original impressions, which can be simple or complex (bottle- composed by multiple simple impressions- weight, color, size) Ideas= Secondary impressions, can be simple or complex (if I have experienced multiple simple impressions, then I can have a complex idea that I haven’t experienced) A Treatise of Human nature Why do we attribute a continued existence to objects, even when they arent present to the senses? And why do we suppose them to have an existence distinct from the mind and perception? Senses, reason or imagination? We need an interplay of the three, they need to interact - Reason: we need an object to think/reason about. What we use to make sense of thing and to understand them - Imagination: only faculty that can thrive without an object. You can think of a monster even if you haven’t experienced it. For Hume, we cannot have metaphysical knowledge; all knowledge derives from the senses. Coherence > Consistency > Continued and Distinc Existence Is there knowledge without certainty? - Plato: no - Descartes: we need certainty for knowledge- there is the certainty of my existence and the certainty of the existence of God gives us the certainty of the possibility of knowledge - Hume: Yes, I can have knowledge even if I don’t have certainty. I don’t need certainty to ground my perception of knowledge SESSIONS 5&6: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE SESSIONS 7&8: TRUTH, BELIEF, JUSTIFICATION - Important aspect on Craig: knowledge is social Our methodology: conceptual analysis 1) Analysis of different instances of knowledge 2) Simplified scenario that allows for conceptualization 3) Drafted common elements Through conceptual analysis, we have established that: 1) Knowledge is heterogenous and relational  2) Knowledge entails truth 3) Knowledge entails justification 4) Knowledge entails belief - Namely: we have distillated a complex notion into simpler components And we came up with this definition: Knowledge is justified true belief (K=JTB) - We need the three components (justified belief is NOT knowledge- a cult believes in praying every monday- doesn’t mean its knowledge) Plato: True opinions. For true opinion, as long as they remain, are a fine thing and all they do is good, but they are not willing to remain long, and they escape from a man’s mind, so that they are not worth much until one ties them down by (giving) an account of the reason why. And that, Meno, my friend is recollection, as we previously agreed. After they are tied, down, in the first place they become knowledge, and then they remain in place, That is why knowledge is prized higher than correct opinion, and knowledge differ from correct opinion in being tied down [by reason]” ( Plato, Meno, 98a) 1. Belief - Accepting a proposition as true “to say that someone has knowledge is to credit that person with a certain kind of success. But for it to be your success, then belief in the proposition in question is essential, since otherwise this success is not creditable to you at all” Pritchard, 2010. 2. Truth - A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality, and false otherwise ”To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, while to say of what is that is, and of what is not that it is not, is true?” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25) CAREFUL It is true for me > leads to confusion. This simply means I have accepted X as true, not that it is actually true. Yes, we have limits when it comes to knowing the truth: we are capable of mistakes, imperfect, and limited by our human conditions. This is not necessarily a problem: it fosters open-mindedness, intellectual humility, intellectual honesty, curiosity, etc. 3. Justification - Implies good reasons Good reasons do not have to be perfect, nor necessarily imply knowledge of why it is the case that p. I know that my computer doesn’t work, but I do not know it doesn’t work. Good reason: It does not switch on. Gettier Problems Gettier presented cases in which justified true belief does not amount to knowledge “What generates the problem for JTB , then, is that an accident of bad luck is cancelled out by an accident of good luck. The right goal is reached, but only by chance” (Zagzebski 1994, 208) - Gettier problems prompt epistemologists to think of knowledge as justified true belief plus something else that rules out the problem. The fourth condition, however, has remained elusive. Internalism vs externalism Internalism Internal > what is accessible from a first-person perspective (dreams, memories, senses, experiences, reasonings) What do internalists accept as the basis for justification? 1) Self-evident truths 2) Reliable testimonies 3) Facts (They don’t accept all internal states because they don’t accept memories etc) - If you can’t think of any supporting evidence, your belief can’t count as knowledge. - Knowledge is grounded on our experience and our own capacity to reason. Special emphasis on what the agent can do with the resources available from a first-person perspective: if you can’t see for yourself why you should believe something, you don’t actually know it. 1) Epistemic justification is tightly connected to blame 2) We don’t blame people for things that they cannot control. 3) We can control our (accessible) mental states Against Internalism Unsophisticated epistemic agents — children, dogs. 1) Young children know a lot of things 2) Internalism: If you know that p, then you must be able to - Believing that p on the basis of others’ beliefs - Being able to trace an argument or inference going from the justifying set to the justified belief 3) 1) and 2) are not present in children & dogs; Therefore, either young children don’t really know, or Internalism cannot accommodate children’s knowledge. What is common sense telling you? Can we find accessible internal justification for all our beliefs? Externalism - Knowledge is a relationship between a person and fact. - This relationship holds even if we cannot access to the reasons that support that fact insofar as the process is cognitively reliable - We do not need to have access to the belief-producing process Some external processes can justify agent’s beliefs because of their reliability in tracking the truth: Perceptual processes – perceiving Introspective processes – memory, etc. Reasoning and deliberative processes – inferring, etc. Interpersonal processes - testimony Against externalism A belief can be justified even if the process causing the belief is extremely unreliable Evil Demon-world - A process of belief-formation involving collecting evidence & inferring from that evidence in a fully rational way, revising when necessary, etc.) - An evil demon is always interfering in the belief-forming processes (in that context, external - processes are extremely unreliable) A belief can be caused by an extremely reliable process without being justified Clairvoyant-scenarios (Bonjour, p. 28) - Clairvoyant’s beliefs are produced by an extremely reliable process  - The clairvoyant cannot cite justification in support of her beliefs – and she can cite a lot of evidence against. - She is very irrational in forming her belief Internalism vs Externalism To be justified for believing that p = be able to cite other things you believe that would support p First-personal Narrative Interpersonal contexts (…) Internalists place a special emphasis on what you can do with resources that are available from the first-person perspective” (Nagel 20014,.154) To be justified for believing that p = believing something caused by the right process (reliable) Third-personal Not narrative (deception) Institutional contexts? – where checking abilities for knowing is essential? “According to externalist theories (…) your method or mechanism of belief formation, whatever it is, actually tracks the facts or is reliable in the sense of delivering a high proportion of true beliefs” (Nagel, 2014, 154) Is it possible that different accounts of justification coexist? SESSION 11&12: VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY (JAMES VS CLIFFORD) After midterm SESSION 16: REASON, COGNITION & KNOWLEDGE The Human Mind - The human mind is quite complex: Only a fraction of our mental activity is accessible to us. Our mind carries through processes, but these are not independent of our emotions and our social interactions. Mental activity is diverse: Remembering, reasoning, talking, listening, looking, walking, moving… How do these functions organize and interact? Cognition - A series of mental processes that relate to the acquisition, storage, manipulation, and retrieval of information and the action or process of acquiring knowledge and  understanding through thought, experience, and senses. It comprehends all the functions of the intellect such as perception, attention, thought, intelligence, formation of knowledge, (working) memory, judgment, evaluation, reasoning, computation, problem solving, decision making, comprehension, (production of) language, and imagination. - It braces most (if not all) our daily activities: from basic actions to sophisticated reasonings - Through cognition we acquire knowledge and understanding by means of experience and the senses. - Cognition is important in our social interactions: by learning from experience, we can infer things, we can read patterns, and in general, it is essential to our being in the world. - Think of any action you do daily and try to be aware of every bit of information that it takes - Yes, we take shortcuts, we interpret our reality and our daily interactions. And all this process participates of our reasoning Rationality It is the application of cognition subject to certain requirement among which stand out consistency and responsibility. Rationality is normative: it is the adjustment or consequence among our attitudes. It implies correct forms of reasoning - Enkrateia (autonomy, power over onself): if you think you should do something, then you should try to do it. - Consistency: If you believe that p and you believe that p implies q, then you believe q - Instrumental rationality: If you think that A is a means to achieve B and you think you should achieve B then you try A Reason Reason is considered a distinctive human faculty that allows us to move from X (premises, concrete, experience) to Y (abstracts, conclusions). We can draw conclusions from new or existing information. Through reason we are able to connect ideas, to move from one idea to another, to connect and understand sensory information, or conceptualize abstracts (causa-effect, truth-false, good-evil, etc.) Our capacity to act, make decisions, or even change ourselves is intrinsically related to reason insofar as through reason we reach, process, modify, or acquiree goals beliefs, attitudes, and traditions Rationality and Reason Reason is the basis for rationality.---The base of a rational action are good reasons. Rationality and knowledge imply achievement and success - Knowledge: implies a solid bond between cognition and truth (reliable information is not a matter of luck but the result of abilities and competences) - Rationality is a practical achievement that results from the correct management of the transitions between attitude and attitudes and actions. The Limits of rationality As human beings, we have seriously limited resources Time to access information Understanding of effective rules for the process of information Mutual dynamic constitution between cognitive and affective systems. Cognition, rationality, and reason are behind biases, erroneous arguments, bad decisions, wishful thinking, self-deception, denial, procrastination, group decision, etc. SESSIONS 11 & 12: VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY Virtue Epistemology A variety of approximations to epistemology that focus on the role of the epistemic agent forming beliefs (rather than justification of beliefs or the reliability of the sources). Virtue ethics - Virtue ethics focuses on the agent’s moral properties to assess the morality of actions. It is the agent’s moral properties that makes an action good. - An action is good if it is performed by a virtuous agent. - Ultimate goal: a good life; how can we live well? - Virtue epistemology focuses on intellectual virtues to evaluate knowledge. While virtue ethics focuses on moral virtues, virtue epistemology focuses on intellectual virtues Virtue epistemology What are epistemic virtues? Characteristics that promote fruitful pursuit of knowledge. Primarily, it focuses on the evaluation of intellectual agents and communities, insofar as both embody both intellectual virtues and vices. An excellent epistemic agent or community are, therefore, one to whom we can attribute to know because of their intellectual virtues. What are intellectual virtues? 1) Cognitive faculties that one can consider reliable, such as memory, vision, intuition, perception, etc. ( externalists* reliabilists*) (Sosa) 2) Character traits. “ (..) virtues that have as a component an emotion disposition that arises out of or depends upon the basic emotion of love of truth, or epistemic conscientiousness*” Ex: Friendly, open minded, trustworthy, rigorous (Zagzebski, 81) *the quality of using our ability to the best of our knowledge in order to get truth Ernesto Sosa—- Knowledge as performance- qualities of good performance (AAA) - Accurate belief: A belief is accurate if it is true - Adroit Belief: A belief is adroit if it is formed using reliable cognitive faculties (IV) Apt: If it is accurate and adroit, it is apt - Apt belief: the truth is attributable to the agent’s intellectual competence. Safe: When the belief is formed through reliable process and under circumstances that minimize the possibility of it being false or accidental. The outcome would remain true in other scenarios. Methodology for belief formation. Sensitive: It focuses on the connection between belief and truth. A belief is sensitive if one would not form it if the belief were not true. Sensitivity to truth. A belief can be safe and not sensitive. Only when they coincide we have an abt belief. Sosa distinguishes between 2 kinds of knowledge: - Animal knowledge: non- reflective knowledge. Apt beliefs formed on the basis of reliable cognitive faculties. (I perceive the table: animal = based on direct perception not needing a reflective process) - Reflective knowledge: The process entails a reflection on the reliability of the process to form apt beliefs. (Can see table is red based on perception, but through reflective knowledge I need to be able to know if it is red due to light or pain) Our ordinary perception is not only animal knowledge. It is also reflective. Conclusion A direct answer to the skeptics (with the traits seen before and 2 kinds of knowledge) - Skeptics assumes that it is based on my senses and can be tricked easily - Sosa is saying that my ordinary perception involves not only animal knowledge but it many cases reflective knowledge I can make safe assumptions (I am not a brain in a bat), it cannot necessarily be sensitive, but if it is sensitive (the safer the process the closer to sensitivity it is), the closer it is to an abt belief (AAA) - Sosa shifts focus to the agent = finds one of the best answers for skepticism and the Gettier problem K=JTB > Gettier problems > Knowledge based on false beliefs. Luck-based true beliefs are not knowledge because it lacks aptness: it is accurate, but it is not adroit How does it work at the community level? What is an intellectually virtuouss epistemic community? Most of what we know comes from other accounts (not from direct personal experience). To form an Apt belief we need: 1) Testimony must be truthful and reliable 2) Hearer must use its intellectual competence 3) The belief must be true because of the reliability of the cognitive faculties of both. Sosa provides a framework to show testimonial knowledge can be both reliable and apt. Both hearer and speaker have to employ their intellectual competence and their own intellectual virtues. What counts as intellectual virtues? What makes a testimony reliable? How would you be a reliable speaker? How would you be a reliable hearer? What intellectual virtues determine whether an individual or a community are epistemically virtuous? Zagzebski: Intellectual virtues as character traits - Virtues that have as a component an emotion disposition that arises our of our depends upon the basic emotions of love of truth or epistemic conscientiousness (quality of using our ability to the best of our knowledge in order to get truth) - Each virtue of epistemic conscientiousness is such that its passion reliably succeeds at bringing about true beliefs, through belief-forming acts motivated by the emotion characteristics of virtue “Epistemic autonomy is an incoherent ideal” 3 epistemic positions Epistemic egoism – one that by default does not trust anyone but themselves for the formation of beliefs (Descartes, Plato, Hume, Internalism – can accept some testimony) - Just don't trust anyone - Maybe at some point under concrete circumstances accept testimony money, but you trust yourself for formation of belief  - You tell me train is at 10.20, I don't trust it i have to check it myself Weak epistemic egoism – by default I just trust myself, but if testimony is provide in certain conditions that grant me that I can trust the testimony I can form beliefs based on that - You tell train is at 10.20, i don't trust you but I will trust the train website Epistemic universalism – unless anything shows I should behave differently I trust everyone, testimonial acs for forming beliefs - You tell me the train is at 10.20, I believe you All knowledge is testimonial The reason why we trust other we need to understand why we trust yourself (self-trust) - We all trust ourselves by default. We trust our faculties: sight, perception, memory, cognitive faculties. And when we are not sure, we double check again using the same or other of our faculties Ex: It smells burnt, I look for signals of fire. I am not sure about a memory, I look for pictures, or make an effort to remember more details to corroborate my memory - Our self trust is circular, there is nothing outside our system of calculites to form beliefs. I know I can trust myself because my perception usually works, but we also know it fails. I have as much evidence of my mistakes as I have of my successes. Its as trustable as it is untrustable Historically, philosophical tradition has fostered the ideal of autonomy: autonomously forming beliefs by yourself, but given the circularity of self-trust shouldn't it at least be the case that we trust in others whose trustworthiness is at least as ours, all other things being equal? - Defending that there are epistemic virtues that make others trustworthy would make no sense unless we believe that others are trustworthy - Intellectual virtues that we consider that justify out trusting others: we admire these traits more than we would if we though these only lead to truth Epistemic universalism – forming in changing beliefs that makes us better/more reliable Self trust myself and self-trust others = epistemic community - Community where epistemic virtue us possible - Knowledge as a good (stored, acquired...) in an epistemic universalist scenario we can exchange knowledge, we are not just confined to yourself = epistemic generosity - Knowledge as a good is that I can share my knowledge and still have the same (not like food, that you lose food if you share) The more you share knowledge the richer you will be. For that to be possible we need an epistemic community - In other 2 scenarios the problem is that what has been historically understood as an epistemic virtue (autonomy) is a vice because it does not allow us to interact with epistemic agents - Weak epistemic egoism – identifying in others the virus I think I good = also limits us and prevents the creation of an epistemic community that allows all to get richer Epistemic egalitarianism; If you have no belief at all on a matter and you have no information on the source of p; would you court as a fact that someone has belief on p believe it yourself? - How epistemic universalism is the crows for formation of beliefs closer to truth that allows for self-improvement and makes us a better epistemic agent - Descartes = we all have same faculties and all have the same possibilities to know = all equal intellectual speaking - Notion that we are all equal and all have same access to knowledge = Dare to Know - It is at the basis of democracy - In the context of epistemic universalism, a CONFLICT that arises from epistemic egalitarianism - 2 agents, 2 different beliefs; neither has sufficient evidence to maintain their beliefs, and neither has sufficient reason to change their beliefs, how do we solve this conflict? - If i have a belief about the best computer brand is apple v another thinks samsung = opposing beliefs = when this happens we don't necessarily change our belief (autonomous to think what I want) → coexistence of different beliefs - But when we encounter different beliefs we can change our beliefs, someone we admire and holds a different beliefs that sometimes leads us to question our beliefs - Conflict arises when it is a person open admires → self-trust could lead me to trust the admired person’s belief more than I trust myself - Admire others we are prone to change our beliefs = this is how we solve epistemic egalitarianism Emotion of admiration can lead us to form beliefs and trust others above/more than we trust ourselves - This is a condition of epistemic universalism = allows for distribution of knowledge - Puts us into dialogue/in contact with other sources for forming beliefs - Self-trust by default is not a virtue (we are just programed to do so), self-trust and trust in other based on assessment of intellectual virtue (admiration) is what allows us to form beliefs and change them - She us assuming and accepting as the basic essential source of knowledge is testimony - If we accept her position (one of the dominant) it means that knowledge is testimonial - Learn a language by accepting what others tell you Testimony is a basic source of knowledge – knowledge is testimonial Core idea and frame for rest of class → we depend on others’ testimonies for knowledge 1. Testimony is a source of knowledge on its own right: we process information and think differently depending on things we see and/or things we reason about a. Most of the things is through reason – evaluate, and sometimes we just take what is given to us through testimony b. If it were the case that it is a topic where you have non importation and no pre-judgement (very rare) and someone states something and claims to have knowledge of that fact, would that count that to help you form a belief 2. If my peer tells me that our friend foy a new job, I know that our friend got a new job 3. Understanding what others say it's sufficient for you to gain knowledge a. Most of the time we have no reason to distrust what other tells us b. Language → teaching wrong words to other students Knowledge from testimony does still have conditions - Testimony is a basic source of knowledge - Knowledge from testimonies still requires conditions = form saver beliefs, AAA beliefs - Then we can think of (it allows for) group knowledge, common knowledge = a shared common good - Wikipedia - Journals - In the pandemic everyone doing what they want, or just basing a choice on what 1 person says SESSIONS 15 & 16: EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONY Why is epistemology interested in testimony? To analyze the ways in which we share and distribute information: political practices, journalistic, educational, scientific… in which knowledge is implied. Study what difference does testimony introduce in matters of intentionalit and agency for those implied in the act of sharing. Study of the different positions of testimony and listener, and their asymmetries 3 blocks we’ll cover: - Epistemic Injustice - The problem of experts - The production of ignorance Testimony and knowledge Education Science Journalism There is a relation of dependence. Testimony and science Division of cognitive work entails a a continued dependence on experts Public policies demand a reliable system of experts The problem of experts is a political problem Testimony and social media The web is an immense system of circulation of information that presents a problem of veracity; how do we know what we are reading is true? It presents a first order problem of trust. Testimony in social governance Testimony is core to human rights. Veracity is presupposed to all acts that have juridical consequences. Veracity is presupposed in the political declaration of intentions. Veracity is presupposed in political argumentation. Dilemma - If we are too demanding of the required conditions to accept testimony, most foundational beliefs of our lives would have no foundation. - If we are too relaxed, we risk being colonized by alien epistemic interests. Solving the dilemma: We rarely evaluate in terms of reliability… Have you ever taken a plane? Trust is primarily social (rather than epistemic) Trust: a bond implicit in testimony - Normative conditions of trust could provide sufficient normative bases for justification of belief. - Trust always goes beyond inference—from reliability in others to the assignation of probabilities. Essential trust - When we ask a question to someone, we are implicitly considering this person as someone who could answer (epistemic) needs of others. - Trust comes from essential human faculties such as figuring out and representing other’s minds Dependency entails obligations Responsibility - If A and B have access to evidence regarding p, they do not depend on each other. - But if A needs B, then A is in a situation of epistemic poverty. - If B accepts A request to share knowledge ,then both are committed to sharing knowledge and because of it, they have mutual obligations - Awareness of the situation creates a responsibility in the subjects involved - Responsibility emerges as mutual understanding of the situation in which people are capable to respond to epistemic needs manifested by all. The Interpersonal View of Testimony (IVT) Interpersonal aspect of testimony is based on the recognition of the other’s epistemic perspective Trust represents the existence of relations of epistemic authority Adequate distribution of rights and duties in the particular situation of giving and asking testimony of that p. The Value of Testimony One can obtain testimony by means means (Abu Ghraib), therefore testimony is valuable if and only if the will of both agents is involved - Reliability is not enough, trust is also necessary - Epistemic authority confers special epistemic value to testimony What does it mean not to be recognized as testimony? Or to be taken as testimony when you are not? What is at stake in denying credibility to a testimony? Epistemic Injustice What is epistemic injustice? What kinds of harm is epistemic Injustice? Miranda Fricker, 2009 “A wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower” (Fricker, 1) An injustice related to knowledge: to the distribution of knowledge, to the recognition of someone as an epistemic agent, to the possibility of making sense of one’s experience, to the possibility of being recognized as a trustable testimony Fricker distinguishes two kind of injustice: 1. Testimonial Injustice 2. Hermeneutical Injustice: related to hermeneutics (the study of interpretation); making sense of human experience, beliefs and intentions. We don’t have an agent perpretrating the injustice but they are being a vehicle of a structural injustice Agential power: individual perpetrates the power; there is an agent doing it (can be intentional or not intentional) Structural power: power sustained and created through institutions/society (can we point at who began racism?- it is a structural power, from which vehicles carry it out) 1. Testimonial Injustice When the speaker suffers credibility deficit because of systematic identity prejudice, thus excluding the speaker from the very practice that constitutes the practical core of what it is to know - It occurs when there is an ethical stance, and it is systematic. - Identity prejudice (expressed in reliability markers) leads to certain groups to be discredited as reliable informants/resources of information: not trusted - This cuts through all social spheres (economic, educational, professional, sexual, legal, political, religious, etc.) Identity power and social imagination: Social power is directly related (and dependent) on shared social conception (socially imagined) of social identities of those implicated or participating in the particular operation of power. The influence of identity prejudice on assessing one's testimony is an operation of identity power: In short, testimonial injustice is discrediting someone’s testimony because of prejudice based on identity, preventing the speaker from participating in the social sphere (in conditions of equality). Their experience, their account of facts, etc. is not included and not taken into account Systematic vs incidental (Testimonial Injustice is systematic) - Incidental: does not affect the subject on any other sphere of their lives. - Systematic: it cuts through different social spheres (“it tracks the subject”): economic, educational, professional, sexual, legal, etc. It denies access to what endows us with the status of knowledge subjects: epistemic trust relations that operated in the cooperative practice of information sharing. 2. Hermeneutical Injustice Hermeneutics: the study of interpretation. The meaning of human experience, intentions, beliefs, and actions. The meaning of works of arts, historical testimony, among others. “the injustice of having some significant area of one’s social experience obscured from collective understanding owning to a structural identity prejudice in the collective hermeneutical resource” (Fricker, 155) Hermeneutical injustice is the result of a gap in collective resources to make sense of the world and our experience of it. That gap puts someone in a position of disadvantage and injustice in making sense of their social experience. Sexual harassment, postpartum depression, rape marriage, etc. In other words, hermeneutical injustice is when some part of our experience remains hidden from the collective understanding due to a structural identity bias in collective hermeneutical resources. Meaning when concepts to make sense of experience do not exist because that experience has not been taken into account in the constructions of hermeneutical resources to interpret the world. Hermeneutical injustice is structural and is part of a group’s susceptibility to different sorts of injustice: It is not perpetrated by an agent, rather, agents are vehicles. It is grounded on hermeneutical marginalization. Hermeneutical marginalization Incidental vs Systematic Hermeneutical injustice happens when the subject attempts to render an experience intelligible. Because of existing hermeneutical inequality (and thus hermeneutical marginalization) injustice emerges. Example: flirting — sexual harassment Hermeneutical injustice: structural discrimination, exclusion from the pooling of knowledge owing to structural identity prejudice in the collective hermeneutical resource, the exclusion is based on what the speaker is trying to say. Testimonial injustice: individual to individual, exclusion from the polling of knowledge owing to identity prejudice on the part of the hearer, the exclusion is in relation to the speaker. The two entail prejudicial exclusion from participation in the epistemic structure. In the spirit of Aristotelian Ethics, Fricker identifies the virtue that opposed the vice of epistemic injustice. - Reflexively examine our own position in relation to the speaker: - Sensitivity to word of others: critical openness to testimony - Sensitivity to the difficulties of one’s interlocutor in trying got render experience intelligible: to see if as an objective difficulty, not as a subjective failing SESSIONS 17&18: THE PROBLEM WITH EXPERTS Recap We have established that most of our knowledge is through testimony: we pervasively rely on others. Testimony: an act of testimony, when someone tells you something –through speech, gestures, or writing— and the context of what they are telling you plays a special role in what you get out of the exchange. (Raises the problem of veracity, is rooted in trust) Examples: school, parents, conference, doctor, friends, and, of course, experts The problem with experts is two-fold (the two are deeply related): 1) How do we know when to trust one expert over the other? Or what expert to trust? (Goldman, Anderson) 2) Public policies are based on deference (submission) to experts that is at odds with democracy’s distinctive features: inclusivity and equality (Christiano). 1) Responsibility: responsible public policies are justified by technical scientific reasoning. 2) Legitimacy: A legitimate public policy must be assessed by all the persons affected by the policy However, most citizens lack the capacity for assessing technically-based public policies. Deliberative democracy (limiting decision-makers to a smaller but more representative sample of the population that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue) is an inclusive and equitable process of accommodating people’s interests and goals: - Every member of the society can participate in the public process of deliberation > every interest must be taken into account. The process allows: - Discovering facts about people’s interests - Discussing policies for accommodating people’s interest. But to assess most policies we need experts’ knowledge. And often participation and equality are delegated to experts. - How can deference to experts be made compatible with deliberative democracy’s inclusivity and equality? The narrow problem of experts How do we know who to trust? Alvin Goldman, 2 experts/novice problem: Means for the novice to know what expert to trust: 1) Analyze arguments 2) Consensus 3) Where does the expert stand in relation to other experts (how many published papers they have; years of experience) 4) Biases (objectivity as the goal- take into account biases the expert may have) 5) Past track-records of the experts 1) Analyze arguments > performance vs content 2) Consensus > numbers don’t always matter (just bc everyone believes something doesnt mean its right- e.g. racism) 3) Where does the expert stand in relation to other experts > flawed system 4) Biases > biases 5) Past track-records > credentials problem Mercier argues that we are naturally equipped for ”epistemic vigilance” We are more likely “to follow the majority opinion when the majority is more numerous and closer to a consensus, when its members are competent, and when they have formed their opinions independently of each other” (76) Essentially, according to Mercier we: 1) Evaluate past performance 2) Evaluate competence 3) Collective intelligence: majority is statistically more likely to get it right But our epistemic vigilance has some limitations. - We can overestimate the reliability of sources because of wrong reasons: Admiration, ideology, misplaced trust or pull of the majority Yes, we are equipped to discern who knows best, but social context, biases and limitations can lead us astray But the problem cannot be traced to lack of information: We have access to information that is comprehensible to the layperson. How is it possible? If we have more information, shouldn’t we, as a society, be more aligned with scientific consensus? Don’t Look Up Movie Satirically, the movie exemplifies the consequences of the lack of democratic accountability together with lack of regard for scientific testimony. How can we explain the divergence? 1) Misleading media reports (revision of norms for media reporting) 2) Segregation: partisan affiliation - In person democratic discussions, informed by testimony from experts and regulated by norms of civility - Spokesperson of diverse background 3) Cultural cognition: accept or reject claims based on perceived congruence with ideals of good society (policy content can affirm values of diverse ideological groups) “The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy” (Dewey 1927) SESSION 18: THE PRODUCTION OF IGNORANCE What is ignorance? Ignorance is not simply a passive absence of knowledge, but an active misrepresentation or distortion of the reality, socially cultivated and politically powerful. It has real implications for justice and inequality. Post-truth - Strategic usage of indifference to truth, to contrasted data and facts as a political, economic, and social instrument - Post-truth is the industry of messages that trigger emotional reactions, which are independent of their relations with reality - Conspiracy theories, gossip, curses, rants… anything that grasps collective attention and diverts our intention to verify the truth of veracity of any claim Superstition and magic thought - False causal relation (If I wear my lucky jacket, I will pass the exam) - Insensibility to scientific theories - Trust in apparent signs - Insensibility to any evidence against it Prejudice - Prejudice is harmful stereotype - Prejudice is inevitable - The harm begins when prejudice produces discrimination and indifference to data Moral panic  - A reaction by a group of people based on the false and exaggerated perception that a group or cultural behavior (usually a minority) is dangerous and threatening for society. Example: trangenders, immigrants, homosexuals - Usually, by product of controversial arguments or social tensions. It might be the result of taboo as well Negationism - It is the negation of an uncomfortable truth - Rejection of a reality empirically verifiable. - It can be individual or group: sometimes a whole society denies a truth (because of the trauma of change) and prefers a comfortable life. Ex: the negation of the Holocaust. Ignorance can be intentionally produced - Tabaco companies against science - Denial that climate change is anthropogenic. There is an intentionality in it. It is a political project. Epistemology of Ignorance How do we study ignorance? We look at the same elements we looked at when studying knowledge: individual position, cognition, and societies structure (epistemic, political, etc.) Alcoff identifies three forms of ignorance: 1. Situational ignorance: who we are, where we are, what we’ve experienced may determine our judgement. Ignorance is derived from our situation as a knower. Therefore, knowers are not interchangeable. 2. Group ignorance: social and institutional structures that may prevent access to certain kinds of knowledge. Embedded in systems of education, media and politics. It omits information in ways that maintain the status quo. It affects what we know, but also how we Know. Example: text books (history texts books depending on the community) 3. Structural ignorance: specific knowing practices of the dominant group. Here knowledge is a substantive practice that differentiates the dominant group. It is a cognitive model. Charles Millss “White Ignorance” is a good example of structural ignorance. Ignorance as contextually dependent, group identity, cognitive model What’s the relation between Mill’s and Alcoff’s theories? White ignorance Charles Mills white ignorance is a good example of cultural ignorance.  - Does not apply to individuals, but to dominant structures and collective social practices. - It is a way of knowing and not-knowing that distorts perception of reality (and thus reinforces dominant structures) - White ignorance is good example of how social ignorance is produced and sustained Unconscious cognitive patterns that create blind spots, biases, and distortions in understanding race and history. This determines what we see as normal or natural, ignoring that it might be reinforcing systemc racism. Memory and forgetting selectively emphasizing or forgetting episodes in history that contributes to ignorance and blind spots. Social and cultural ignorance, therefore, have profound political and moral implications. It is not an accident. it is systemic and socially reinforced. How is ignorance produced and reproduced? Epistemic bubbles and Echo chambers 1. Epistemic bubbles: A social epistemic structure which has inadequate coverage through a process of exclusion by omission. It is relatively fragile. Ignorance can be fixed. Key characteristics: - Unintentional exclusion of information - Lack of awareness of different views - Mistrust is not deliberate 2. Echo Chambers: An echo chamber is a closed ecosystem that by means of repetition, amplification, and isolation solidify and amplify existing beliefs of its members. Unlike the epistemic bubble, it distrusts information from outside the echo chamber. Perversion of the epistemic mechanism: trust/distrust, trustworthiness, private language, counter explanation to undermines trustworthiness Key characteristics: - Homogeneity of opinion - Reinforcement of beliefs - Dismiss information - Social Isolation Crippled Epistemology Russel Hardin argues extremism is the result of crippled epistemology. Crippled epistemology: system of knowledge acquisition and processing that is incomplete, distorted and/or constrained. It leads to flawed reasoning and understanding. It is characterized by limited access to diverse information sources, reliance on self-reinforcing or biased knowledge, and an inability to critically evaluate evidence or consider alternative perspectives. - It has social consequences such as political polarization, intolerance, and conflict. - It puts as at a moral risk of committing harmful acts The Burden of Skepticism ”Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach in the schools. That's why you don’t find general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don't’ have the elementary intellectual tools to ask questions of those nominally in charge, especially in democracy?” Tension between skepticism and openness. - Only skepticism > peril of denying everything, conspiracy theories, etc. - Only openness > gullibility Balance between skepticism and openness: - Distinguishing good from bad ideas, good from bad arguments. - “ There is much wonder in science than in pseuscience” SESSION 19: THINK LIKE A THEORIST Think like a theorist: paying attention to conceptual clarity, developing and analyzing concepts, studying concepts we use to think and and speak, asking where the concepts come from, what they mean. In short, detecting conceptual ambiguity and clarifying it For the first time, we are coexisting with nonhuman systems that can produce information. Technology is part of our social world. Being recorded, tracked, or processed is so pervasive to our modern life, that we don’t even realize sometimes. Distinction between concept and conception - Concept: dictionary definition. Stable, can be shared. Though it can vary through time and across linguistic communities. - Conception: includes all the beliefs you would express suing that word. Personal and fleeting This is not to say that concepts are relative: we can still say when a concept is rightly used and not. There is a core element to it. Vagueness arises in the tension between concept and conception: - If a politician claims to be in favor of democracy, justice, and liberty, does it mean that their opponent is in favor of unfreedom, injustice and tyranny? Conceptual analysis is a tool to address vagueness.  - Vagueness might arise from concept/conception, from different historical and temporal contexts, or because we are facing new concepts created to designate new realities of which we need to make sense. Conceptual Analysis To role of the theorist is to clarify: 1) Understand what someone is saying 2) Understand the moral and ethical connotations of a concept. Types of conceptual analysis 1) Conceptual analysis: seeking clarity about the concepts used by investigating the ordinary concept of X. 2) Descriptive analysis: Attention to the intension and the extension of the word. What in the wolrd a word is used to refer or to apply to? 3) Analytical or ameliorative: trying to formulate a concept that best suits the point of having such a term. Dow Gril. The Logic of Misogyny by Kate Mann (A practical example) The logic of misogyny The text provides a practical example of how to perform conceptual analysis to build a case, point at contradictions, and defend a position. What steps can you identify in Manne’s text? 1) Identify a common term 2) Show the problems of common or taken for granted understanding of the term. 3) An example to illustrate the problems: Vista Killings. Argumentative analysis. 4) Provide analysis of the concept to support her argument. - Steps of the analysis - Methodology for the analysis 5) Conclusions 1. Identify a common term Misogyny: an apparent common term. Explaining the common understanding of it> narrow understanding of misogyny. 2. Explain the problems of common or taken for granted understanding of the term It precludes its political dimension 3. An example to illustrate the problems: Vista Killings Are the killings an act of misogyny? Analyze different reactions to it. 1) Yes, it is misogyny  2) No, it is not misogyny 2) No, it is misogyny Rodger desired women, not hated them. Rodger hated the men who were more successful than him, not women. Rodger did not take what he wanted (sexual satisfaction), so his act is not the result of real desire for women Rodger was mentally ill. It was not real hatred, just delusional. Rodger also expressed racist views, so his hatred is not just towards women. Rodger did not hate all women, just hot women. He loved other women Rodger also killed men. Actually, he killed more men than women 4. Provide analysis of the concept to support her argument. What is misogyny? 1. Conceptual approach: a priori 2. Descriptive approach: a posteriori 3. Analytical or ameliorative approach: formulate a concept that best suits the point of having such a term. a. What is the purpose of talking about x? b. Are the purposes legitimate or valid? c. Is there more than one purpose? If so, which one is the most important? d. Should we evaluate an existing concept or amalgamate different existing e. concepts?