In this paper, we argue that, although neglected so far, there is a strong link between generics and testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice is a form of epistemic injustice that “occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word”. Generics are sentences that express generalizations about a category or about its members without specifying what proportion of the category members possess the predicated property. We argue that generics are especially suited to cause testimonial (...) injustice for three reasons. First, generics elicit an “inferential asymmetry” :1452–1482, 2010). That is, generics are accepted even if only a few individuals possess the predicated property but are, nonetheless, taken to refer to almost all the members of the category. This peculiar combination makes generics particularly apt to cause testimonial injustice. High resistance to counter-evidence is a crucial feature of prejudice, the cause of testimonial injustice, and the more highly predictive a generalization the more it will be employed in concrete situations, leading to instances of testimonial injustice. Second, generics seem to play a key role in leading people to develop essentialist beliefs : 273–301, 2010; Rhodes et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: 13526–13531, 2012). Subjects holding such beliefs treat categories as warranting strong generaliations over their members. Therefore, they will be more likely to rely on prejudice while dealing with the category members. Finally, generics are outstandingly common in everyday speech. Hence, their noxious effects are amplified by their diffusion and should not be underestimated. (shrink)

The sentences that contain empty definite descriptions are sometimes perceived to be truth-valueless and sometimes perceived to be false. Strawson offered an account of this phenomenon. However, his proposal is empirically inadequate, as shown by von Fintel. von Fintel proposes an alternative account based on a mechanism of belief revision. In this paper, I argue that sentences with multiple failing presuppositions pose a problem for von Fintel’s account. Furthermore, I discuss two variants of von Fintel’s theory proposed by Elbourne to (...) see whether they fare any better than the original. The second variant yields an incorrect prediction for the cases at hand. However, the first variant can account for the problematic examples if the false presuppositions are processed in turn. I will propose a revision of this variant that enforces distinct applications of the mechanism for each presupposition. (shrink)