Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Gaslighting, Implicit Bias, and Higher-Order Evidence
Elise Woodard
Department of Philosophy University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
January 10, 2019 Eastern APA, NYC Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Drugs • Hypoxia Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading!
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Drugs • Hypoxia Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading!
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties
Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) • Drugs • Hypoxia Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading!
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties
Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Hypoxia Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading!
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties
Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Drugs Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading!
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties
Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Drugs • Hypoxia • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading!
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties
Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Drugs • Hypoxia Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Higher-Order Evidence: Definition and Examples
Higher-Order Evidence (HOE) Evidence that bears on the reliability of our faculties
Contrast First-Order Evidence (Lighting Ex.) Examples of HOE: • Implicit Bias • Drugs • Hypoxia Intuitive Diagnosis: An agent ought to adjust her credence in her first-order judgment in each of these cases. • Especially plausible if the HOE was non-misleading! I Internalism: No
I Externalism: Yes Theses about rationality, rather than justification.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Misleading vs. Non-misleading HOE
Question Is there a difference in the doxastic attitudes one should (or is permitted to) take in cases of misleading, as opposed to non-misleading, HOE? I Externalism: Yes Theses about rationality, rather than justification.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Misleading vs. Non-misleading HOE
Question Is there a difference in the doxastic attitudes one should (or is permitted to) take in cases of misleading, as opposed to non-misleading, HOE?
I Internalism: No Theses about rationality, rather than justification.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Misleading vs. Non-misleading HOE
Question Is there a difference in the doxastic attitudes one should (or is permitted to) take in cases of misleading, as opposed to non-misleading, HOE?
I Internalism: No
I Externalism: Yes Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Misleading vs. Non-misleading HOE
Question Is there a difference in the doxastic attitudes one should (or is permitted to) take in cases of misleading, as opposed to non-misleading, HOE?
I Internalism: No
I Externalism: Yes Theses about rationality, rather than justification. Externalism about Rationality is just the denial of Internalism about Rationality.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Lasonen-Aarnio: ‘Internalism about Rationality’ Posits “some connection between one’s internal perspective concerning what is rational—that is, one’s (rational) opinions about what is rational—and what is in fact rational” (2015, 148.) Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Lasonen-Aarnio: ‘Internalism about Rationality’ Posits “some connection between one’s internal perspective concerning what is rational—that is, one’s (rational) opinions about what is rational—and what is in fact rational” (2015, 148.)
Externalism about Rationality is just the denial of Internalism about Rationality. My Aim: Defend Normative Externalism • However, I will call it Evaluative Externalism for two reasons: 1. Avoid committing myself to the particular details of Weatherson’s proposal. 2. ‘Normativity-Based Objections to Normative Externalism’ sounds oxymoronic. My Aim (rephrased): Defend Evaluative Externalism (EE). • Argue against Evaluative Internalism (EI)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Weatherson: ‘Normative Externalism’ “the normative status of a doxastic attitude is independent of one’s beliefs and evidence about the normative status of that very attitude” (ms) • However, I will call it Evaluative Externalism for two reasons: 1. Avoid committing myself to the particular details of Weatherson’s proposal. 2. ‘Normativity-Based Objections to Normative Externalism’ sounds oxymoronic. My Aim (rephrased): Defend Evaluative Externalism (EE). • Argue against Evaluative Internalism (EI)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Weatherson: ‘Normative Externalism’ “the normative status of a doxastic attitude is independent of one’s beliefs and evidence about the normative status of that very attitude” (ms)
My Aim: Defend Normative Externalism 1. Avoid committing myself to the particular details of Weatherson’s proposal. 2. ‘Normativity-Based Objections to Normative Externalism’ sounds oxymoronic. My Aim (rephrased): Defend Evaluative Externalism (EE). • Argue against Evaluative Internalism (EI)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Weatherson: ‘Normative Externalism’ “the normative status of a doxastic attitude is independent of one’s beliefs and evidence about the normative status of that very attitude” (ms)
My Aim: Defend Normative Externalism • However, I will call it Evaluative Externalism for two reasons: 2. ‘Normativity-Based Objections to Normative Externalism’ sounds oxymoronic. My Aim (rephrased): Defend Evaluative Externalism (EE). • Argue against Evaluative Internalism (EI)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Weatherson: ‘Normative Externalism’ “the normative status of a doxastic attitude is independent of one’s beliefs and evidence about the normative status of that very attitude” (ms)
My Aim: Defend Normative Externalism • However, I will call it Evaluative Externalism for two reasons: 1. Avoid committing myself to the particular details of Weatherson’s proposal. My Aim (rephrased): Defend Evaluative Externalism (EE). • Argue against Evaluative Internalism (EI)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Weatherson: ‘Normative Externalism’ “the normative status of a doxastic attitude is independent of one’s beliefs and evidence about the normative status of that very attitude” (ms)
My Aim: Defend Normative Externalism • However, I will call it Evaluative Externalism for two reasons: 1. Avoid committing myself to the particular details of Weatherson’s proposal. 2. ‘Normativity-Based Objections to Normative Externalism’ sounds oxymoronic. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Terminology: Background
Weatherson: ‘Normative Externalism’ “the normative status of a doxastic attitude is independent of one’s beliefs and evidence about the normative status of that very attitude” (ms)
My Aim: Defend Normative Externalism • However, I will call it Evaluative Externalism for two reasons: 1. Avoid committing myself to the particular details of Weatherson’s proposal. 2. ‘Normativity-Based Objections to Normative Externalism’ sounds oxymoronic. My Aim (rephrased): Defend Evaluative Externalism (EE). • Argue against Evaluative Internalism (EI) Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions 2. Drug [misleading HOE] 3. Gaslighting [misleading HOE] Observations: • EI and EE give the same verdict in 1. • They differ regarding 2 and 3. • 2 intuitively motivates EI. • 3 intuitively motivates EE.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases: Overview
1. Implicit Bias [non-misleading HOE] 3. Gaslighting [misleading HOE] Observations: • EI and EE give the same verdict in 1. • They differ regarding 2 and 3. • 2 intuitively motivates EI. • 3 intuitively motivates EE.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases: Overview
1. Implicit Bias [non-misleading HOE] 2. Drug [misleading HOE] Observations: • EI and EE give the same verdict in 1. • They differ regarding 2 and 3. • 2 intuitively motivates EI. • 3 intuitively motivates EE.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases: Overview
1. Implicit Bias [non-misleading HOE] 2. Drug [misleading HOE] 3. Gaslighting [misleading HOE] • They differ regarding 2 and 3. • 2 intuitively motivates EI. • 3 intuitively motivates EE.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases: Overview
1. Implicit Bias [non-misleading HOE] 2. Drug [misleading HOE] 3. Gaslighting [misleading HOE] Observations: • EI and EE give the same verdict in 1. • 2 intuitively motivates EI. • 3 intuitively motivates EE.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases: Overview
1. Implicit Bias [non-misleading HOE] 2. Drug [misleading HOE] 3. Gaslighting [misleading HOE] Observations: • EI and EE give the same verdict in 1. • They differ regarding 2 and 3. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases: Overview
1. Implicit Bias [non-misleading HOE] 2. Drug [misleading HOE] 3. Gaslighting [misleading HOE] Observations: • EI and EE give the same verdict in 1. • They differ regarding 2 and 3. • 2 intuitively motivates EI. • 3 intuitively motivates EE. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Case 1: Implicit Bias
John & Katie Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Case 2: Drug
Jill CW: Sexual Harassment
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Gaslighting
Gaslighting Occurs when an individual is manipulated into questioning her own perception, memory, or sanity. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Gaslighting
Gaslighting Occurs when an individual is manipulated into questioning her own perception, memory, or sanity.
CW: Sexual Harassment Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Case 3: Gaslighting
Jane & Joe 2. Traditional vs. ‘Radical’ cases (Drug vs. Gaslighting)
Radical Cases Involve epistemic agents responding to evidence in contexts of bad ideology, i.e. surrounded by “structures of thought and practice whose function it is to obscure the truth in order to sustain systems of oppression” (Srinivasan, ms)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Asymmetries
1. Non-misleading vs. Misleading HOE (Bias vs. Drug/Gaslighting) Radical Cases Involve epistemic agents responding to evidence in contexts of bad ideology, i.e. surrounded by “structures of thought and practice whose function it is to obscure the truth in order to sustain systems of oppression” (Srinivasan, ms)
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Asymmetries
1. Non-misleading vs. Misleading HOE (Bias vs. Drug/Gaslighting) 2. Traditional vs. ‘Radical’ cases (Drug vs. Gaslighting) Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Asymmetries
1. Non-misleading vs. Misleading HOE (Bias vs. Drug/Gaslighting) 2. Traditional vs. ‘Radical’ cases (Drug vs. Gaslighting)
Radical Cases Involve epistemic agents responding to evidence in contexts of bad ideology, i.e. surrounded by “structures of thought and practice whose function it is to obscure the truth in order to sustain systems of oppression” (Srinivasan, ms) • However, whether it’s reasonable depends on whether it’s systematically misleading (as in Gaslighting) or not (as in Drug, plausibly). • Some sort of Epistemic Affirmative Action should be at play in our ascriptions of rationality and knowledge.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Theses
• Whether it’s rational to take into account HOE depends on whether it’s misleading. (EE) • Some sort of Epistemic Affirmative Action should be at play in our ascriptions of rationality and knowledge.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Theses
• Whether it’s rational to take into account HOE depends on whether it’s misleading. (EE) • However, whether it’s reasonable depends on whether it’s systematically misleading (as in Gaslighting) or not (as in Drug, plausibly). Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Theses
• Whether it’s rational to take into account HOE depends on whether it’s misleading. (EE) • However, whether it’s reasonable depends on whether it’s systematically misleading (as in Gaslighting) or not (as in Drug, plausibly). • Some sort of Epistemic Affirmative Action should be at play in our ascriptions of rationality and knowledge. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary Interlude: Epistemic Justification Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Definitions
Justification Internalism Whether S’s belief that p is justified depends entirely on whether S has introspective access to certain facts relevant to her justification.
Justification Externalism Denies that introspective access to the relevant facts is a necessary condition for justification. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Cases
Traditional Cases: 1 Brain-in-a-vat 2 Clairvoyant
⇒ Intuitively Motivate Internalism (about Justification)
Radical Analogues: 1 Domestic Violence 2 Climate
⇒ Intuitively Motivate Externalism (about Justification) Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions Blameworthiness Objection Externalism divorces our notions of justification and rationality from those of blameworthiness and responsibility. Yet, intuitively, these notions are closely related.
Action-Guidingness Objection Externalism fails to offer action-guiding norms. That is, it fails to offer norms that agents like us can operationalize.
Both objections are highly related: in virtue of failing to offer any action-guiding norms, externalism severs the connection between violation of these norms and blameworthiness.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Normativity-Based Objections
Objection: Externalism (of both varieties) offers an insufficiently normative epistemology. Action-Guidingness Objection Externalism fails to offer action-guiding norms. That is, it fails to offer norms that agents like us can operationalize.
Both objections are highly related: in virtue of failing to offer any action-guiding norms, externalism severs the connection between violation of these norms and blameworthiness.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Normativity-Based Objections
Objection: Externalism (of both varieties) offers an insufficiently normative epistemology. Blameworthiness Objection Externalism divorces our notions of justification and rationality from those of blameworthiness and responsibility. Yet, intuitively, these notions are closely related. Both objections are highly related: in virtue of failing to offer any action-guiding norms, externalism severs the connection between violation of these norms and blameworthiness.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Normativity-Based Objections
Objection: Externalism (of both varieties) offers an insufficiently normative epistemology. Blameworthiness Objection Externalism divorces our notions of justification and rationality from those of blameworthiness and responsibility. Yet, intuitively, these notions are closely related.
Action-Guidingness Objection Externalism fails to offer action-guiding norms. That is, it fails to offer norms that agents like us can operationalize. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Normativity-Based Objections
Objection: Externalism (of both varieties) offers an insufficiently normative epistemology. Blameworthiness Objection Externalism divorces our notions of justification and rationality from those of blameworthiness and responsibility. Yet, intuitively, these notions are closely related.
Action-Guidingness Objection Externalism fails to offer action-guiding norms. That is, it fails to offer norms that agents like us can operationalize.
Both objections are highly related: in virtue of failing to offer any action-guiding norms, externalism severs the connection between violation of these norms and blameworthiness. • But we don’t praise people for accidentally succeeding at φ-ing, and we don’t blame people for failing to φ despite their best efforts. • Rather, we praise them only if they also intended to φ , and we blame them for failing to φ when knowing that they ought to φ. • In epistemology, we praise people for forming beliefs in accordance with evidence available to them, and we blame people for failing to believe in accordance with this evidence. • Thus, there is one dimension of epistemic assessment at which Jane is failing, namely that of responding to all of her evidence. • Intuitively, failing to believe in accordance with available evidence violates an epistemic norm and renders her blameworthy.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Blameworthiness and Gaslighting
Example (Blameworthiness Objection) • There is one dimension of epistemic assessment that Jane is scoring high marks on: namely, success. • Rather, we praise them only if they also intended to φ , and we blame them for failing to φ when knowing that they ought to φ. • In epistemology, we praise people for forming beliefs in accordance with evidence available to them, and we blame people for failing to believe in accordance with this evidence. • Thus, there is one dimension of epistemic assessment at which Jane is failing, namely that of responding to all of her evidence. • Intuitively, failing to believe in accordance with available evidence violates an epistemic norm and renders her blameworthy.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Blameworthiness and Gaslighting
Example (Blameworthiness Objection) • There is one dimension of epistemic assessment that Jane is scoring high marks on: namely, success. • But we don’t praise people for accidentally succeeding at φ-ing, and we don’t blame people for failing to φ despite their best efforts. • In epistemology, we praise people for forming beliefs in accordance with evidence available to them, and we blame people for failing to believe in accordance with this evidence. • Thus, there is one dimension of epistemic assessment at which Jane is failing, namely that of responding to all of her evidence. • Intuitively, failing to believe in accordance with available evidence violates an epistemic norm and renders her blameworthy.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Blameworthiness and Gaslighting
Example (Blameworthiness Objection) • There is one dimension of epistemic assessment that Jane is scoring high marks on: namely, success. • But we don’t praise people for accidentally succeeding at φ-ing, and we don’t blame people for failing to φ despite their best efforts. • Rather, we praise them only if they also intended to φ , and we blame them for failing to φ when knowing that they ought to φ. • Thus, there is one dimension of epistemic assessment at which Jane is failing, namely that of responding to all of her evidence. • Intuitively, failing to believe in accordance with available evidence violates an epistemic norm and renders her blameworthy.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Blameworthiness and Gaslighting
Example (Blameworthiness Objection) • There is one dimension of epistemic assessment that Jane is scoring high marks on: namely, success. • But we don’t praise people for accidentally succeeding at φ-ing, and we don’t blame people for failing to φ despite their best efforts. • Rather, we praise them only if they also intended to φ , and we blame them for failing to φ when knowing that they ought to φ. • In epistemology, we praise people for forming beliefs in accordance with evidence available to them, and we blame people for failing to believe in accordance with this evidence. • Intuitively, failing to believe in accordance with available evidence violates an epistemic norm and renders her blameworthy.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Blameworthiness and Gaslighting
Example (Blameworthiness Objection) • There is one dimension of epistemic assessment that Jane is scoring high marks on: namely, success. • But we don’t praise people for accidentally succeeding at φ-ing, and we don’t blame people for failing to φ despite their best efforts. • Rather, we praise them only if they also intended to φ , and we blame them for failing to φ when knowing that they ought to φ. • In epistemology, we praise people for forming beliefs in accordance with evidence available to them, and we blame people for failing to believe in accordance with this evidence. • Thus, there is one dimension of epistemic assessment at which Jane is failing, namely that of responding to all of her evidence. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Blameworthiness and Gaslighting
Example (Blameworthiness Objection) • There is one dimension of epistemic assessment that Jane is scoring high marks on: namely, success. • But we don’t praise people for accidentally succeeding at φ-ing, and we don’t blame people for failing to φ despite their best efforts. • Rather, we praise them only if they also intended to φ , and we blame them for failing to φ when knowing that they ought to φ. • In epistemology, we praise people for forming beliefs in accordance with evidence available to them, and we blame people for failing to believe in accordance with this evidence. • Thus, there is one dimension of epistemic assessment at which Jane is failing, namely that of responding to all of her evidence. • Intuitively, failing to believe in accordance with available evidence violates an epistemic norm and renders her blameworthy. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Responses to the Blameworthiness Objection
• Deny the presupposition that Jane is blameworthy. • To blame Jane is to be an epistemic fetishist: to care more about an agent getting things ‘right’ by her own lights, under that description, rather than in fact getting things right. Amended Objection: Externalism fails to make room for epistemic virtue. Possible Response: Defend Naivism about Virtue. Naivism about Virtue “it is not characteristic of a fully [epistemically] virtuous person that she grasps explicitly why her action is right and can explain the reasons why it is right” (Hills, 2015, 11) Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Evaluative Externalism and Action-Guidance
Example (Action-Guidingness Objection) • Claim: John should conciliate, while Jane should stick to her guns. • Internalist: Even if this judgment is correct, the externalist cannot capture the subjective- or action-guiding force of this ‘should.’ • The internalist requests norms by which agents can be in a position to know whether to concede or stick to their guns; the externalist seems to provide none. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Epistemic Affirmative Action (EAA)
NormD : For the Epistemically Disadvantaged If you are epistemically disadvantaged across the relevant dimension D in context C, you should stick to your guns when presented with higher-order defeaters from members of an epistemically advantaged group. In a slogan, you should presuppose externalism.
NormA: For the Epistemically Advantaged If you are epistemically advantaged across D in context C, and you receive higher-order defeaters from members of an epistemically disadvantaged group, then you should defer to that evidence. That is, you should either decrease your credence in that proposition or drop it entirely. In a slogan, you should presuppose internalism. • Maybe this isn’t a problem? Just shows that EAA is not ideally action-guiding. • Offers individualistic solution to social problem.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Objections to EAA
• Doesn’t solve action-guiding worry: difficult to know your own epistemic social position. • Offers individualistic solution to social problem.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Objections to EAA
• Doesn’t solve action-guiding worry: difficult to know your own epistemic social position. • Maybe this isn’t a problem? Just shows that EAA is not ideally action-guiding. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Objections to EAA
• Doesn’t solve action-guiding worry: difficult to know your own epistemic social position. • Maybe this isn’t a problem? Just shows that EAA is not ideally action-guiding. • Offers individualistic solution to social problem. • For externalists, they’re structural goods. • “Externalism is a normative epistemology that evaluates the epistemic goodness or badness of situations not in terms of how things stand from the individual perspective, but in terms of how things stand between the world and the individual.” (Srinivasan, ms, 23). If this is correct, then shouldn’t the externalist be more concerned with action-guidance of institutions and communities than of (primarily) individuals?
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Interlude: What is the Normative?
Srinivasan (ms): • For internalists, epistemic goods such as justification and rationality are individual goods. If this is correct, then shouldn’t the externalist be more concerned with action-guidance of institutions and communities than of (primarily) individuals?
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Interlude: What is the Normative?
Srinivasan (ms): • For internalists, epistemic goods such as justification and rationality are individual goods. • For externalists, they’re structural goods. • “Externalism is a normative epistemology that evaluates the epistemic goodness or badness of situations not in terms of how things stand from the individual perspective, but in terms of how things stand between the world and the individual.” (Srinivasan, ms, 23). Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Interlude: What is the Normative?
Srinivasan (ms): • For internalists, epistemic goods such as justification and rationality are individual goods. • For externalists, they’re structural goods. • “Externalism is a normative epistemology that evaluates the epistemic goodness or badness of situations not in terms of how things stand from the individual perspective, but in terms of how things stand between the world and the individual.” (Srinivasan, ms, 23). If this is correct, then shouldn’t the externalist be more concerned with action-guidance of institutions and communities than of (primarily) individuals? Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Epistemic Affirmative Action for Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions (EAAKRA)
Shift focus to ascribers’ of rationality and knowledge and what they should do. (In other words, burden is on bystanders, not agents affected.) Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Outline
1. Introduction Higher-Order Evidence Misleading vs. Non-Misleading HOE 2. Cases 3. Interlude Internalism vs. Externalism 4. Normativity-Based Objections to Externalism Blameworthiness Objection Responses Action-Guidingness Objection 5. Epistemic Affirmative Action Objections What Is the Normative? Knowledge- and Rationality-Attributions 6. Internalist Intuitions Lasonen-Aarnio on Success vs. Competence Succeeding to φ vs. Exercising a competence to φ
• Competence = Disposition to succeed at φ-ing
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Capturing Internalist Intuitions
Aim: Apply Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence to capture internalist intuition about Drug. • Competence = Disposition to succeed at φ-ing
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Capturing Internalist Intuitions
Aim: Apply Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence to capture internalist intuition about Drug. Lasonen-Aarnio on Success vs. Competence Succeeding to φ vs. Exercising a competence to φ Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Capturing Internalist Intuitions
Aim: Apply Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence to capture internalist intuition about Drug. Lasonen-Aarnio on Success vs. Competence Succeeding to φ vs. Exercising a competence to φ
• Competence = Disposition to succeed at φ-ing • Captures intuitive distinction between Drug and Gaslighting. • Captures intuitive distinction between Gaslighting and amended Implicit Bias case, where John’s first order judgment is right
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Success vs. Competence at Work
Jane exercises an epistemic competence to “track core structural features of normative reality” in ignoring the misleading HOE, since it’s systematically misleading. Jill (in Drug) does not—she’s lucky if she got it right! • Captures intuitive distinction between Gaslighting and amended Implicit Bias case, where John’s first order judgment is right
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Success vs. Competence at Work
Jane exercises an epistemic competence to “track core structural features of normative reality” in ignoring the misleading HOE, since it’s systematically misleading. Jill (in Drug) does not—she’s lucky if she got it right! • Captures intuitive distinction between Drug and Gaslighting. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Success vs. Competence at Work
Jane exercises an epistemic competence to “track core structural features of normative reality” in ignoring the misleading HOE, since it’s systematically misleading. Jill (in Drug) does not—she’s lucky if she got it right! • Captures intuitive distinction between Drug and Gaslighting. • Captures intuitive distinction between Gaslighting and amended Implicit Bias case, where John’s first order judgment is right • Self-fulfilling ideological beliefs • Epistemic Injustice • Possibly: To distinguish between cases of Gaslighting and variants of Drug where the evidence is systematically misleading.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Why Do We Still Need Affirmative Action?
Doesn’t the distinction between systematically misleading and ‘one-off’ cases of misleading HOE do all the work? • Epistemic Injustice • Possibly: To distinguish between cases of Gaslighting and variants of Drug where the evidence is systematically misleading.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Why Do We Still Need Affirmative Action?
Doesn’t the distinction between systematically misleading and ‘one-off’ cases of misleading HOE do all the work? • Self-fulfilling ideological beliefs • Possibly: To distinguish between cases of Gaslighting and variants of Drug where the evidence is systematically misleading.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Why Do We Still Need Affirmative Action?
Doesn’t the distinction between systematically misleading and ‘one-off’ cases of misleading HOE do all the work? • Self-fulfilling ideological beliefs • Epistemic Injustice Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Why Do We Still Need Affirmative Action?
Doesn’t the distinction between systematically misleading and ‘one-off’ cases of misleading HOE do all the work? • Self-fulfilling ideological beliefs • Epistemic Injustice • Possibly: To distinguish between cases of Gaslighting and variants of Drug where the evidence is systematically misleading. • I responded to worries about Evaluative Externalism being insufficiently normative. • We can capture internalist intuitions by appealing to Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence, and thus between systematically and unsystematically misleading HOE. • EAAKRA helps respond to additional worries and can serve as an antidote to Epistemic Injustice.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Summary
• ‘Radical’ Cases of Misleading HOE, such as gaslighting, motivate Evaluative Externalism. • We can capture internalist intuitions by appealing to Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence, and thus between systematically and unsystematically misleading HOE. • EAAKRA helps respond to additional worries and can serve as an antidote to Epistemic Injustice.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Summary
• ‘Radical’ Cases of Misleading HOE, such as gaslighting, motivate Evaluative Externalism. • I responded to worries about Evaluative Externalism being insufficiently normative. • EAAKRA helps respond to additional worries and can serve as an antidote to Epistemic Injustice.
Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Summary
• ‘Radical’ Cases of Misleading HOE, such as gaslighting, motivate Evaluative Externalism. • I responded to worries about Evaluative Externalism being insufficiently normative. • We can capture internalist intuitions by appealing to Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence, and thus between systematically and unsystematically misleading HOE. Introduction Cases Interlude Normativity Objections Epistemic Affirmative Action Internalist Intuitions Summary
Summary
• ‘Radical’ Cases of Misleading HOE, such as gaslighting, motivate Evaluative Externalism. • I responded to worries about Evaluative Externalism being insufficiently normative. • We can capture internalist intuitions by appealing to Lasonen-Aarnio’s distinction between success and competence, and thus between systematically and unsystematically misleading HOE. • EAAKRA helps respond to additional worries and can serve as an antidote to Epistemic Injustice.