Nos textos escritos por Foucault durante os anos 60, a problemática antropológica amparava-se, dentre outros fatores, no argumento segundo o qual a modernidade se constitui a partir de uma “finitude constituinte” a substituir um “infinito originário”. A questão do infinito teria, portanto, duas funções: a descrição da epistémê clássica e a própria comparação desta com a epistémê moderna. Entretanto, em As Palavras e as Coisas o capítulo que abre as considerações sobre o período clássico não considera, em suas linhas maiores, (...) a questão do infinito. O argumento gira em torno da “representação”. Nesse contexto, o presente artigo tenta articular as questões do “infinito” e da “representação”, considerando os escritos foucaultianos e a literatura secundária. //////////////////////// -/- En considérant les textes de Foucault écrits pendant les années 60, le problème anthropologique impliquait, parmi d’autres facteurs, l’argument selon lequel la « modernité » serait constituée par une «finitude constituante» qui a remplacée « l’infini originaire » classique. Donc, la question de l’infini aurait au moins deux fonctions: la description de sa propre fonction classique et la comparaison de cette epistémê avec l’epistémê moderne. Par contre, dans l’argumentation de “Les Mots et les Choses”, le chapitre qui ouvre les considérations relatives à la période classique ne tient pas compte, dans ses grosses lignes, de la question de l’infini. L’argument tourne autour de la question de la «représentation». Dans ce contexte, cet article essaie d’articuler les questions de l’infini» et de la «représentation», en considérant les écrits de Foucault et la littérature secondaire. //////////////////////// -/- In the philosophical texts written by Michel Foucault in the decade of 1960, the so called anthropological problem was based, among other subjects, on the argument that the modernity is composed by a “constitutive finitude” that replaced the “originary infinity” of the classical age. Therefore, the question about “infinite” has in this period two functions: the description of the classical episteme itself and its comparison with the modern episteme. However, when one consider The Order of Things (one of the more important texts on this subject), the chapter that opens the argumentation about the classical age does not focuses, in its major lines, the question about the infinite. The argument revolves around the concept of “representation”. In considering this context, this article attempts to articulate the issues of “infinity” and representation”, considering Foucault’s writings and secondary literature. (shrink)

A semiótica ontológica de Peirce retomou o sentido de práxis racional de Aristóteles em seu sentido compartilhado da função de mediação do Interpretante lógico. O artigo está dividido em três partes. A primeira delineia a conceitualização de Ivo Assad Ibri da semiose de Peirce com relação à diferença entre o Interpretante emocional e o lógico, em especial com relação ao primeiro nos modos “degenerados” de fixação de crença e conduta; a segunda parte explica a conceitualização inicial de Peirce daquela doutrina (...) em seu tratamento do “Homem-signo” em “Some Consequences of Four Incapacities” ; a terceira parte apresenta a Ética a Nicômaco de Aristóteles como a origem clássica da trajetória principal da semiose de Peirce, ao correlacionar o conceito de teleologia de desenvolvimento de Peirce com o conceito paralelo de caráter disposicional ativo de Aristóteles energizado pela média ética como o interpretante pragmatista da conduta. (shrink)

Este artículo expone la caracterización que hace Foucault de la época clásica, donde aborda el surgimiento de la modernidad desde un punto de vista arqueológico. Dos corpus serán explorados: el célebre libro Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines, de 1966, y La question anthropologique, manuscrito inédito y recientemente publicado de un curso dictado en 1955 que revela aspectos de la analítica que Foucault está construyendo, dando cuenta, ya en 1950, de una posición que mantendrá como hipótesis (...) analítica en sus textos de 1960, realizando los mismos cortes epocales y ubicando al hombre como figura epistémica moderna. Ahora bien, el análisis de la época clásica en ambos corpus hace énfasis en un problema diferente: si la episteme de la representación ocupa el centro del análisis en Les mots…, en el curso de 1955, la misma época es visitada en relación con el problema de la imaginación, situando en Malebranche un referente principal. En este estudio presentaremos ambas derivas poniendo en valor sus énfasis particulares tanto como la potencia que habilita su cruce. (shrink)

O artigo apresenta o resultado da pesquisa que abordou a investigação sobre as rupturas epistemológicas e o discurso sobre Deus na obra As palavras e as coisas , de Michel Foucault. Intitulada como "Deus, as palavras e as coisas", a pesquisa parcialmente apresentada aqui pretende ser uma colaboração para a análise do que se tem identificado como fenômeno do neo-ateísmo, um tema de grande relevância para a Filosofia da Religião nos dias atuais. Para compreendê-lo, apresentam-se, seguindo a perspectiva foucaultiana, os (...) distintos matizes epistemológicos que sustentam a concepção sobre Deus. Em seus três momentos, o texto apresenta a episteme renascentista e o discurso de Deus, a episteme clássica e a idéia sobre Deus e, por fim, a episteme moderna, a morte de Deus e a morte do homem. Acredita-se que aquilo que se decide na contemporaneidade não seja necessariamente o acabamento do tempo da morte de Deus e a consequente morte do homem, fruto do modo moderno de compreender e tematizar o divino, o infinito, o absoluto ou o verdadeiro, mas uma clara disputa entre variadas perspectivas epistemológicas em suas concretizações científica, política, cultural e religiosa. Palavras-chaves: Michel Foucault, Filosofia da Religião, Epistemologia, Deus, Ateísmo.The article presents the results of research that investigate on epistemological ruptures and speaking about God in The Order of Things writhed by Michel Foucault. Entitled as "God, words and things," this research partially presented here is intended as collaboration for the analysis of what has been identified as phenomenon of neo-atheism, a topic very important for the Philosophy of Religion today. To understand it, we present, following the Foucaultian perspective, the different epistemological nuances underpinning conception of God. In her three moments, the text presents the Renaissance episteme and the God's discourse, the classical episteme and the idea of God and, finally, the modern episteme , the death of God and man's death. It is believed that what is decided in the contemporary is not necessarily the finish time of the death of God and the consequent man's death, the fruit of modern way of understanding and themes on the divine, the infinite, the absolute or true, but a clear dispute between different epistemological perspectives in their political, cultural and religious diversity achievements. Key words: Michel Foucault; Philosophy of Religion;Epistemology; God; Atheism. (shrink)

Foucault inscreve a fenomenologia num movimento de desconstrução da racionalidade. Esse registro será arqueologicamente operado em As Palavras e as Coisas como signo de uma subversão radical vinda a lume pela “modernidade” em franca oposição à “idade clássica” da cultura no Ocidente, tendo como pano de fundo algo que se revela aquém do cogito: o “impensado”. O que emerge, aqui, é a dimensão mais profunda da razão e da epistémê, ou seja, a camada subterrânea pela qual o acontecimento e a (...) historicidade operam sob a superfície do saber. É essa nova figura que entra em cena, por exemplo, via diferentes discursos como a “alienação”, o “inconsciente” ou o “irrefletido”. No tocante à tradição fenomenológica, a admissão da Lebenswelt, do Dasein, do cogito pré-reflexivo ou da Carne, o “impensado” transfigura a região privilegiada pela qual o pensamento sempre retorna. Ora, se é patente que Foucault circunscreve essa operação como uma posição de princípio a ser superada, não deixa, contudo, de ser plausível o quanto ele parece selar uma espécie de “aliança à distância” com o espírito fenomenológico. O “retorno às coisas mesmas”, em termos foucaultianos, investe-se de outro estatuto, liberando a história de todo pressuposto teleológico, num regresso ao coração do presente. É esse agenciamento que permite, sob certos aspectos, situar a obra de Foucault próxima a de Merleau-Ponty, à maneira de uma reflexão marginal, “transgressora”, abrindo, pois, uma zona de sombra, “impensada”, em sua infraestrutura última. Tal é a “paragem” interpretativa a ser, aqui, perseguida. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In “Die Verneinung”, Frege discusses two types of negation, a semantic one and a pragmatic one. Semantic negation consists in the application of the logical function denoted by ‘it is false that p’ to a thought, and pragmatic negation in the act of asserting or judging a thought as false. According to the standard interpretation, Frege does not acknowledge pragmatic negation, because it is logically redundant. He therefore rejects the classical dualistic view that both truth and falsity are qualities (...) of judgement and adopts instead the monistic view that to judge is always to recognize a thought as true. My aim in this paper is to show that this interpretation cannot be sustained. Though Frege does not endorse the classical view, he defends a dualistic conception that is characterized by the claim that judging is a binary operation that contains both the act of recognizing a thought as true and the act of rejecting the opposite thought as false. To make this interpretation plausible, Frege’s dualistic remarks on negation in three posthumous writings, which have received little attention so far, are analyzed in detail and their background is reconstructed. It is argued that Frege acknowledges negative judgements to account for the epistemic role of the act of judgement in the acquisition of knowledge. RESUMO Frege discute dois tipos de negação em “Die Verneinung” : uma semântica e uma pragmática. Negação semântica consiste na aplicação da função lógica denotada por ‘é falso que p’ para um pensamento, e negação pragmática no ato de afirmar ou julgar um pensamento como falso. De acordo com a interpretação padrão, Frege não reconhece a negação pragmática, porque ela é logicamente redundante. Assim, ele rejeita a visão dualística clássica de que tanto verdade quanto falsidade são qualidades de julgamento e, em vez disso, adota a visão monística de que julgar é sempre reconhecer um pensamento como verdade. Meu objetivo neste artigo é mostrar que tal interpretação não pode ser sustentada. Apesar de Frege não endossar a visão clássica, ele defende um conceito dualista que é caracterizado pela afirmação de que julgar é uma operação binária que contém tanto o ato de reconhecer um pensamento como verdade, quanto o ato de rejeitar o pensamento oposto como falso. Para tornar essa interpretação plausível, Frege faz observações dualísticas sobre a negação em três escritos póstumos, que têm recebido pouca atenção até o presente, são analisadas em detalhe e seu background é reconstruído. Argumenta-se que Frege reconhece o julgamento negativo para explicar o papel epistêmico do ato de julgar na aquisição de conhecimento. (shrink)

Este trabalho examina a questão do olhar na obra de arte a partir da fenomenologia. Investiga, a princípio, os pressupostos que, desde Platão, tornaram a imagem um elemento filosófico por excelência. A abordagem se separa da filosofia platônica e da noção de olhar como epistême e leva a discussão para o âmbito da fenomenologia de Merleau-Ponty, que pensa e compreende a realidade pelo olhar num duplo significado, que vê a si mesmo e também é visto por ele. A obra de (...) arte, nesse âmbito, não é apenas um objeto que revela algo a ser contemplado, mas entrevê e cria o próprio mundo no qual o homem ganha sentido. O artigo se divide em três tópicos: o primeiro trata brevemente da importância do olhar na mitologia grega; o segundo, expõe a concepção clássica do olhar na filosofia e o terceiro, discute a possibilidade de um olhar fenomenológico evocado pela arte. (shrink)

Visando contribuir com o debate sobre a qualidade da pesquisa educacional e de procurar critérios epistemológicos que favoreçam essa qualidade, retomamos algumas bases históricas e filosóficas sobre as diversas formas do conhecimento. O artigo apresenta justificativas sobre a importância da literatura clássica para compreender a problemática atual da produção do conhecimento. De acordo com a filosofia clássica grega, os critérios que diferenciam os saberes, tais como, o opinativo, a razão mítica, a episteme e a filosofia, hoje continuam válidos para (...) abordar os principais conflitos da pesquisa em educação, compreender os desafios da formação do pesquisador e definir a qualidade dessa pesquisa. (shrink)

Em 1963, Derrida criticatrês páginas da A história da loucura naidade clássica (1961) de Foucault. Trata-se da interpretação de Foucault deuma passagem da Primeira Meditação deDescartes. Segundo Derrida, a leitura de Foucault está mergulhada no que eledenomina metafísica da presença. Istoé, apesar de se tratarem apenas de três páginas, para Derrida, Foucault não étão radical em sua obra ao pensar na noção de episteme, não vendo certa continuidade na tradição filosófica noque concerne ao seu fundamento: a presença viva. O (...) que isto significa; comoFoucault busca responder a este tipo de crítica; e, em que medida podemospensar que Foucault ainda estaria preso às amarras da filosofia da presença é oque buscamos investigar nesse texto. (shrink)

Despite the recent backlash against epistemic consequentialism, an explicit systematic alternative has yet to emerge. This paper articulates and defends a novel alternative, Epistemic Kantianism, which rests on a requirement of respect for the truth. §1 tackles some preliminaries concerning the proper formulation of the epistemic consequentialism / non-consequentialism divide, explains where Epistemic Kantianism falls in the dialectical landscape, and shows how it can capture what seems attractive about epistemic consequentialism while yielding predictions that are harder for the latter to (...) secure in a principled way. §2 presents Epistemic Kantianism. §3 argues that it is uniquely poised to satisfy the desiderata set out in §1 on an ideal theory of epistemic justification. §4 gives three further arguments, suggesting that it (i) best explains the objective normative significance of the subject's perspective in epistemology, (ii) follows from the kind of axiology needed to solve the swamping problem together with modest assumptions about the relation between the evaluative and the deontic, and (iii) illuminates certain asymmetries in epistemic value and obligation. §5 takes stock and reassesses the score in the debate. (shrink)

The normative force of evidence can seem puzzling. It seems that having conclusive evidence for a proposition does not, by itself, make it true that one ought to believe the proposition. But spelling out the condition that evidence must meet in order to provide us with genuine normative reasons for belief seems to lead us into a dilemma: the condition either fails to explain the normative significance of epistemic reasons or it renders the content of epistemic norms practical. The first (...) aim of this paper is to spell out this challenge for the normativity of evidence. I argue that the challenge rests on a plausible assumption about the conceptual connection between normative reasons and blameworthiness. The second aim of the paper is to show how we can meet the challenge by spelling out a concept of epistemic blameworthiness. Drawing on recent accounts of doxastic responsibility and epistemic blame, I suggest that the normativity of evidence is revealed in our practice of suspending epistemic trust in response to impaired epistemic relationships. Recognizing suspension of trust as a form of epistemic blame allows us to make sense of a purely epistemic kind of normativity the existence of which has recently been called into doubt by certain versions of pragmatism and instrumentalism. (shrink)

William James famously tells us that there are two main goals for rational believers: believing truth and avoiding error. I argues that epistemic consequentialism—in particular its embodiment in epistemic utility theory—seems to be well positioned to explain how epistemic agents might permissibly weight these goals differently and adopt different credences as a result. After all, practical versions of consequentialism render it permissible for agents with different goals to act differently in the same situation. -/- Nevertheless, I argue that epistemic consequentialism (...) doesn’t allow for this kind of permissivism and goes on to argue that this reveals a deep disanalogy between decision theory and the formally similar epistemic utility theory. This raises the question whether epistemic utility theory is a genuinely consequentialist theory at all. (shrink)

Epistemic exploitation occurs when privileged persons compel marginalized persons to educate them about the nature of their oppression. I argue that epistemic exploitation is marked by unrecognized, uncompensated, emotionally taxing, coerced epistemic labor. The coercive and exploitative aspects of the phenomenon are exemplified by the unpaid nature of the educational labor and its associated opportunity costs, the double bind that marginalized persons must navigate when faced with the demand to educate, and the need for additional labor created by the default (...) skepticism of the privileged. I explore the connections between epistemic exploitation and the two varieties of epistemic injustice that Fricker (2007) identifies, testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. I situate epistemic exploitation within Dotson’s (2012; 2014) framework of epistemic oppression, and I address the role that epistemic exploitation plays in maintaining active ignorance and upholding dominant epistemic frameworks. (shrink)

Epistemic akrasia arises when one holds a belief even though one judges it to be irrational or unjustified. While there is some debate about whether epistemic akrasia is possible, this paper will assume for the sake of argument that it is in order to consider whether it can be rational. The paper will show that it can. More precisely, cases can arise in which both the belief one judges to be irrational and one’s judgment of it are epistemically rational in (...) the sense that both are supported by sufficient evidence. (shrink)

This paper provides a critical overview of recent work on epistemic blame. The paper identifies key features of the concept of epistemic blame and discusses two ways of motivating the importance of this concept. Four different approaches to the nature of epistemic blame are examined. Central issues surrounding the ethics and value of epistemic blame are identified and briefly explored. In addition to providing an overview of the state of the art of this growing but controversial field, the paper highlights (...) areas where future work is needed. (shrink)

Lisa Bortolotti argues that some irrational beliefs are epistemically innocent and deliver significant epistemic benefits that could not be easily attained otherwise. While the benefits of the irrational belief may not outweigh the costs, epistemic innocence helps to clarify the epistemic and psychological effects of irrational beliefs on agency.

Epistemic modal operators give rise to something very like, but also very unlike, Moore's paradox. I set out the puzzling phenomena, explain why a standard relational semantics for these operators cannot handle them, and recommend an alternative semantics. A pragmatics appropriate to the semantics is developed and interactions between the semantics, the pragmatics, and the definition of consequence are investigated. The semantics is then extended to probability operators. Some problems and prospects for probabilistic representations of content and context are explored.

I discuss a large number of emotions that are relevant to performance at epistemic tasks. My central concern is the possibility that it is not the emotions that are most relevant to success of these tasks but associated virtues. I present cases in which it does seem to be the emotions rather than the virtues that are doing the work. I end of the paper by mentioning the connections between desirable and undesirable epistemic emotions.

Why are mistaken beliefs about Covid-19 so prevalent? Political identity, education and other demographic variables explain only a part of individual differences in the susceptibility to Covid-19 misinformation. This paper focuses on another explanation: epistemic vice. Epistemic vices are character traits that interfere with acquiring, maintaining, and transmitting knowledge. If the basic assumption of vice epistemology is right, then people with epistemic vices such as indifference to the truth or rigidity in their belief structures will tend to be more susceptible (...) to believing Covid-19 misinformation. We carried out an observational study (US sample, n = 998) in which we measured the level of epistemic vice of participants using a novel Epistemic Vice Scale. We also asked participants questions eliciting the extent to which they subscribe to myths and misinformation about Covid-19. We find overwhelming evidence to the effect that epistemic vice is associated with susceptibility to Covid-19 misinformation. In fact, the association turns out to be stronger than with political identity, educational attainment, scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test, personality, dogmatism, and need for closure. We conclude that this offers evidence in favor of the empirical presuppositions of vice epistemology. (shrink)

Ao mesmo tempo que o malogro da assim chamada teoria clássica dos conceitos - de acordo com a qual definições são a maneira apropriada de caracterizar conceitos - é um consenso, a filosofia metafísica da religião parece ainda lidar com o conceito de Deus de forma predominantemente definicional. Podemos então nos perguntar: Seria esse malogro suficiente para inviabilizar uma caracterização definicional do conceito de Deus? Meu propósito central neste artigo é responder essa pergunta. Adoto uma ênfase representacional. Em outras palavras, (...) desejo analisar até que ponto os problemas mais importantes levantados contra a teoria clássica dos conceitos afetam uma abordagem definicional-representacional do conceito de Deus. Como resultado desse esforço, mostro que as críticas à teoria clássica que ameaçam tal abordagem dependem da pluralidade característica ao contexto inter-religioso, que por si só cria outros problemas. (shrink)

An important issue in epistemology concerns the source of epistemic normativity. Epistemic consequentialism maintains that epistemic norms are genuine norms in virtue of the way in which they are conducive to epistemic value, whatever epistemic value may be. So, for example, the epistemic consequentialist might say that it is a norm that beliefs should be consistent, in that holding consistent beliefs is the best way to achieve the epistemic value of accuracy. Thus epistemic consequentialism is structurally similar to the family (...) of consequentialist views in ethics. Recently, philosophers from both formal epistemology and traditional epistemology have shown interest in such a view. In formal epistemology, there has been particular interest in thinking of epistemology as a kind of decision theory where instead of maximizing expected utility one maximizes expected epistemic utility. In traditional epistemology, there has been particular interest in various forms of reliabilism about justification and whether such views are analogous to—and so face similar problems to—versions of consequentialism in ethics. This volume presents some of the most recent work on these topics as well as others related to epistemic consequentialism, by authors that are sympathetic to the view and those who are critical of it. (shrink)

In Epistemic injustice, Miranda Fricker makes a tremendous contribution to theorizing the intersection of social epistemology with theories of justice. Theories of justice often take as their object of assessment either interpersonal transactions (specific exchanges between persons) or particular institutions. They may also take a more comprehensive perspective in assessing systems of institutions. This systemic perspective may enable control of the cumulative effects of millions of individual transactions that cannot be controlled at the individual or institutional levels. This is true (...) not only with respect to the overall distribution of such goods as income and wealth, but also with respect to the goods of testimonial and hermeneutical justice. Cognitive biases that may be difficult for even epistemically virtuous individuals to correct on their own may be more susceptible to correction if we focus on the principles that should govern our systems of testimonial gathering and assessment. Hence, while Fricker’s focus on individual epistemic virtue is important, we also need to consider what epistemic justice as a virtue of social systems would require. My paper will indicate some directions forward on this front, focusing on the need for integration of diverse institutions and persons engaged in inquiry. (shrink)

In disagreements about trivial matters, it often seems appropriate for disputing parties to adopt a ‘middle ground’ view about the disputed matter. But in disputes about more substantial controversies (e.g. in ethics, religion, or politics) this sort of doxastic conduct can seem viciously acquiescent. How should we distinguish between the two kinds of cases, and thereby account for our divergent intuitions about how we ought to respond to them? One possibility is to say that ceding ground in a trivial dispute (...) is appropriate because the disputing parties are usually epistemic peers within the relevant domain, whereas in a more substantial disagreement the disputing parties rarely, if ever, qualify as epistemic peers, and so ‘sticking to one’s guns’ is usually the appropriate doxastic response. My aim in this paper is to explain why this way of drawing the desired distinction is ultimately problematic, even if it seems promising at first blush. (shrink)

In this paper I offer a theory of what makes certain influences on visual experiences by prior mental states (including desires, beliefs, moods, and fears) reduce the justificatory force of those experiences. The main idea is that experiences, like beliefs, can have rationally assessable etiologies, and when those etiologies are irrational, the experiences are epistemically downgraded.

This paper argues that the current discourse on epistemic injustice in social epistemology itself perpetuates epistemic injustice, namely hermeneutic injustice with regards to class and classism. The main reason is that debates on epistemic injustice have foremost focussed on issues related to gender, race, and disability while mostly ignoring class issues. I suggest that this is due to (largely unwarranted) fears about looming class reductionism. More importantly, this is omission is not innocuous, but problematic insofar as it has an unlikely (...) ally in neoliberal propaganda which features as one main goal stifling class consciousness. While this “allyship” is unwitting, this presents grounds for the discourse of epistemic injustice to consider re-centring class issues and classism. (shrink)

My starting point is what I call the Normative Authority Conception of justification, where S is justified in their belief that p at t (to some degree n) if and only if their believing that p at t is not ruled out by epistemic norms that have normative authority over S at t. With this in mind, this paper develops an account of doxastic justification by first developing an account of the normative authority of epistemic norms. Drawing from work in (...) political philosophy, I argue that (a) the cognitive and evaluative commitments and concerns behind our actual practices of holding each other and ourselves accountable for our beliefs reveal which epistemic norms we have consented to be under, and that (b) it is because we have consented to be under the authority of these norms – by actually holding ourselves and others accountable to them – that they in turn have normative authority over us. By connecting the authority of epistemic norms to the authority we have over ourselves in this way, the resulting account of doxastic justification (i) explains why it can be appropriate to criticize, resent, or sanction someone for having unjustified beliefs, (ii) avoids the phenomena of normative alienation and normative parochialism, and (iii) respects the social and collective nature of epistemic justification. (shrink)

Crispin Wright maintains that the architecture of perceptual justification is such that we can acquire justification for our perceptual beliefs only if we have antecedent justification for ruling out any sceptical alternative. Wright contends that this principle doesn’t elicit scepticism, for we are non-evidentially entitled to accept the negation of any sceptical alternative. Sebastiano Moruzzi has challenged Wright’s contention by arguing that since our non-evidential entitlements don’t remove the epistemic risk of our perceptual beliefs, they don’t actually enable us to (...) acquire justification for these beliefs. In this paper I show that Wright’s responses to Moruzzi are ineffective and that Moruzzi’s argument is validated by probabilistic reasoning. I also suggest that Wright cannot answer Moruzzi’s challenge without weakening the support available for his conception of the architecture of perceptual justification. (shrink)

This chapter examines how epistemic norms could be social norms, with a reliance on work on the philosophy and social science of social norms from Bicchieri (on the one hand) and Brennan, Eriksson, Goodin and Southwood (on the other hand). We explain how the social ontology of social norms can help explain the rationality of epistemic cooperation, and how one might begin to model epistemic games.

This paper argues that the current discourse on epistemic injustice in social epistemology itself perpetuates epistemic injustice, namely hermeneutic injustice with regards to class and classism. The main reason is that debates on epistemic injustice have foremost focussed on issues related to gender, race, and disability while mostly ignoring class issues. I suggest that this is due to (largely unwarranted) fears about looming class reductionism. More importantly, this is omission is not innocuous, but problematic insofar as it has an unlikely (...) ally in neoliberal propaganda which features as one main goal stifling class consciousness. While this “allyship” is unwitting, this presents grounds for the discourse of epistemic injustice to consider re-centring class issues and classism. (shrink)

The Federalist, justifying the Electoral College to elect the president, claimed that a small group of more informed individuals would make a better decision than the general mass. But the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that the more independent, better-than-random voters there are, the more likely it will be that the majority among them will be correct. The question thus arises as to how much better, on average, members of the smaller group would have to be to compensate for the (...) epistemic costs of making decisions on the basis of that many fewer votes. This question is explored in the contexts of referendum democracy, delegate-style representative democracy, and trustee-style representative democracy. (shrink)

Introduction As the title indicates, the chief focus of this book is epistemic justification. But just what is epistemic justification and what is its place ...

The philosophical significance of attitudinal autonomy—viz., the autonomy of attitudes such as beliefs—is widely discussed in the literature on moral responsibility and free will. Within this literature, a key debate centres around the following question: is the kind of attitudinal autonomy that’s relevant to moral responsibility at a given time determined entirely by a subject’s present mental structure at that time? Internalists say ‘yes’, externalists say ’no’. In this essay, I motivate a kind of distinctly epistemic attitudinal autonomy, attitudinal autonomy (...) that is relevant to knowledge. I argue that regardless of whether we are externalists or internalists about the kind of attitudinal autonomy that is relevant for moral responsibility, we should be externalists about the kind of autonomy that a belief must have to qualify as knowledge. (shrink)

Epistemic trespassers judge matters outside their field of expertise. Trespassing is ubiquitous in this age of interdisciplinary research and recognizing this will require us to be more intellectually modest.