DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemic Justice and Epistemic Participation Kate C.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epistemic Justice and Epistemic Participation Kate C.S Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations Arts & Sciences Spring 5-15-2019 Epistemic Justice and Epistemic Participation Kate C.S. Schmidt Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds Part of the Epistemology Commons, and the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Schmidt, Kate C.S., "Epistemic Justice and Epistemic Participation" (2019). Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1787. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/1787 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts & Sciences at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu. Washington University in St. Louis Department of Philosophy Program in Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology Dissertation Examination Committee: Julia Driver, Chair Anne Margaret Baxley Miranda Fricker Ron Mallon Kit Wellman Epistemic Justice and Epistemic Participation by Kathryn C.S. Schmidt A dissertation presented to The Graduate School of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2019 Saint Louis, Missouri ©2019, Kathryn C.S. Schmidt Table of Contents Acknowledgments :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: v Abstract :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: vi Preface ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ix 1 What's Unjust about \Testimonial Injustice"? :::::::::::::::: 1 1.0.1 Introduction . 1 1.0.2 Criteria . 3 1.1 The Phenomenon of Interest . 5 1.1.1 The Cases . 5 1.1.2 The Disagreement . 6 1.2 Epistemic Injustice as Distributive Injustice . 8 1.2.1 Assessing a Distributive Account . 11 1.2.2 Misrepresenting Credibility . 12 1.3 Epistemic Oppression as Restricted Epistemic Capacity . 16 1.3.1 Epistemic Oppression . 17 1.3.2 Epistemic Marginalization . 19 1.3.3 Fricker's Framework and Epistemic Marginalization . 21 1.3.4 Assessing this Approach . 23 1.3.5 Pursuing Justice . 26 1.3.6 New Insights . 28 1.4 Conclusion . 29 2 Credibility and Epistemic Standing: Two Failures of Respect in Epistemic Injustice :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 30 2.1 Epistemic Injustice and Disrespect . 31 2.2 Two Kinds of Respect . 34 2.2.1 Credibility and Epistemic Appraisal . 36 2.3 Epistemic Standing . 37 2.3.1 Epistemic Standing and Recognition Respect . 40 2.4 The Target of Disrespect . 42 2.5 Implications . 44 2.5.1 Feeling Out of the Loop . 44 2.5.2 The Scope of Epistemic Injustice . 45 ii 2.6 Conclusion . 45 3 Knowledge and Participation: Giving a Participatory Account of Epis- temic Injustice :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 47 3.1 Two Accounts of Epistemic Injustice . 48 3.1.1 Testimonial Account . 50 3.1.2 Non-Testimonial Account . 51 3.2 A Participatory Account of Epistemic Injustice . 54 3.2.1 Respecting The Capacity to Participate . 55 3.2.2 Failures of Epistemic Appraisal . 57 3.2.3 Failures of Epistemic Recognition . 58 3.2.4 Failures of Epistemic Access . 60 3.2.5 A Broader Account . 62 3.3 Assessing the Participatory Account . 63 3.3.1 Explaining New Cases of Epistemic Injustice . 64 3.3.2 A Potential Problem . 65 3.3.3 A Unified Account? . 68 3.4 Conclusion . 70 4 Inclusion: Addressing Epistemic Injustice with a Group Virtue ::::: 72 4.0.1 Introduction . 72 4.1 Inclusion and Epistemic Justice . 74 4.1.1 Worries about Individual Virtues . 78 4.2 Understanding Inclusion . 80 4.2.1 Definitional Inclusion: Inclusion vs Exclusion . 82 4.2.2 Functional Inclusion . 84 4.2.3 Aspirational Inclusion: Epistemic Flourishing . 87 4.3 Inclusion as a Group Virtue . 90 4.3.1 Inclusive Features of Groups . 92 4.3.2 Inclusion and Epistemic Injustice . 94 4.4 Cultivating the Virtue of Inclusion . 95 4.5 Conclusion . 99 5 The Pain of Being Overlooked: A Case Study on Fibromyalgia and Inter- sectional Epistemic Justice :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 100 5.0.1 Introduction . 100 5.1 A Fibromyalgia Diagnosis . 103 5.1.1 Facing The Unknown: Diagnosis and Invalidation . 105 5.1.2 Existing Theories of Epistemic Injustice . 109 5.1.3 Improving on Previous Analysis . 109 5.2 Epistemic Vulnerability . 111 5.2.1 Illness and Discrimination . 111 iii 5.2.2 Varied Epistemic Vulnerabilities . 112 5.3 Intersectional Epistemic Justice . 119 5.3.1 Intersectional Feminism . 119 5.3.2 Intersectional Commitments in the Epistemic Domain . 121 5.3.3 Seeking Solutions . 129 5.4 Conclusion . 131 References . 133 iv Acknowledgments I have immense gratitude for the many people who have supported my academic research. I am indebted to the Washington University in St. Louis philosophy department for providing the financial support that made this project possible. Thank you to my advisor Julia Driver, and my committee, for lending your time and expertise. I am also indebted to my colleagues for helping me to develop my work, especially to Cameron Evans, Jordan Shaw, and Chris- tiane Merritt. Thanks also to Gillian Russell, Fay Edwards, Charlie Kurth, Lizzie Scheckter, Julia Staffel, and Brian Talbot for their support and encouragement. I am grateful to Jeff Kasser and Elizabeth Tropman for supporting my philosophy interests while at Colorado State University. I especially want to thank my husband Mike Schmidt, and my close academic colleagues Caroline Stone and Katie Rapier, for going on this journey with me. I am thankful to my extended family for their love, support, and inspiration. Thank you also to Kevin Brich and Elyse Thorpe for supporting me. Kathryn C.S. Schmidt Washington University in Saint Louis May 2019 v ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Epistemic Justice and Epistemic Participation by Kathryn C.S. Schmidt Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology Washington University in St. Louis, May 2019 Professor Julia Driver, Chair I advance a new theory of epistemic injustice, with important implications for pursuing epistemic justice. This project develops a positive account of epistemic justice, broadens the scope of the phenomenon, and motivates new interventions. This dissertations works towards a better understanding of what it means to be an epistemic subject and to be treated as such. I argue that epistemic injustice can be understood through a lens of participation in inquiry, rather than using the received view that focuses on testimony. On my account, victims are marginalized when disrespected and devalued as potential participants in inquiry due to prejudice. This account broadens the domain of epistemic injustice, incorporating dif- ferent instances of epistemic exclusion that do not involve testimony. This participatory account can better explain the core features of epistemic injustice and identifies mechanisms in subtypes of epistemic injustice. Preventing and remedying epistemic injustice requires creating inclusive communities that respect and foster participation in inquiry. I argue that the virtuous elements of inclusion are embodied in groups rather than individuals, and can vi successfully address the wrong of epistemic injustice. Successfully fostering inclusion will require an intersectional approach in order to address varied forms of epistemic injustice. My dissertation is a collection of five inter-related articles expanding the notion of epistemic injustice. In the first chapter, the article \What's unjust about testimonial injustice?" ex- plores underlying notions of \justice" within the phenomenon of epistemic injustice. I argue that different philosophers rely upon different notions of justice (specifically David Coady and Miranda Fricker). In contrast to both of their views, I argue that epistemic injustice should be understood as a form of oppression. Next, I argue that there are at least two dif- ferent ways to disrespect victims of epistemic injustice: by denying them recognition respect (their epistemic standing) or appraisal respect (their credibility). The article \Credibility and Recognition: Two Failures of Respect in Epistemic Injustice" makes up the second chapter. Chapter three, \Knowledge and Participation: Giving a Participatory Account of Epistemic Injustice" argues that epistemic subjects are wronged when de-valued as potential participants (by denying access, recognition, or appraisal). This participatory framework is better able to analyze the category of epistemic injustice compared to other approaches. I propose cultivating the virtue of inclusion (as a virtue of social groups) in the next chapter: \Inclusion: Addressing Epistemic Injustice with a Group Virtue". Inclusion (rather than open-mindedness, testimonial injustice, or trust) is the virtue that is best able to prevent and remedy instances of epistemic injustice. Using a case study of patients with fibromyalgia, I show that different types of epistemic injustice impact and reinforce one another. Those who experience epistemic injustice encounter it while also ex- periencing other overlapping oppressions. As a result, I argue we must pursue intersectional vii epistemic justice. The fifth and final chapter addresses this topic, in: \The Pain of Being Overlooked: A Case Study on Fibromyalgia and Intersectional Epistemic Justice". The existing literature on epistemic injustice has been overly narrow in focus, missing signif- icant instances of epistemic wrongs. My project can help both ethicists and epistemologists formulate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dissertation Anthology 2019-20
    DissertatioN ANthology A CollectioN of Philosophy StudeNt DissertatioNs The UNiversity of Liverpool DepartmeNt of Philosophy 2019-20 Authors, Editors aNd Supervisors Authors StepheN Arkley Mia ReNshaw Ashley BoNNell ANNa Ross Joe BoylaNd Sarah Sharp Georgie Campbell JustiNe SolaNo Lucy Chambers Eddie Southcombe ANNa NuNez de Croker George Wood Harry DaymaN Sam WoottoN Marcus Desai Abi HamiltoN Alice GoodwiN Josh Hibbert Josef Grover Jemima HuNt LiNtoN NewtoN Editors Alice GoodwiN Dr Rachael WisemaN Supervisors Chris Bartley JaN JobliNg Rob Booth Ilias Markolefas Barry DaiNtoN RobiN McKeNNa Rebecca DavNall StepheN McLeod Richard GaskiN Thomas Schramme DaNiel Hill Vid SimoNiti PriNtiNg paid for by PhilSoc Table of CoNteNts Editor’s INtroductioN v DissertatioN ANthology vi SelliNg Harm or SelliNg Self: Is harm iNhereNt or coNtiNgeNt to the sex iNdustry? StepheN Arkley 1 BecomiNg EcosyNchroNus: A PromisiNg SolutioN to the CurreNt State of the ENviroNmeNt Ashley BoNNell 4 Self-Respect, Self-Authorship aNd the MeaNs of ProductioN: A Critique of Market Democracy Joe BoylaNd 7 CaN FemiNist EmpaNcipatory Speech be DiscrimiNatory? Georgie Campbell 10 A Critical ANalysis of SimoNe de Beauvoir’s Theory of WomeN’s OtherNess iN The SecoNd Sex Lucy Chambers 13 Why the NoN-ExisteNce of Extra-Terrestrial INtelligeNce is the most CohereNt ANswer to Fermi's Paradox Harry DaymaN 16 Does the Utility of PlaNtiNga’s Free Will DefeNce Need to be recoNsidered iN a way which reflects beliefs about the Diseases of the MiNd? Marcus Desai 19 AN ANswer to the Paradox
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples and Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, and Human Rights
    Washington Law Review Volume 87 Number 4 12-1-2012 Indigenous Peoples and Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, and Human Rights Rebecca Tsosie Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Rebecca Tsosie, Indigenous Peoples and Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, and Human Rights, 87 Wash. L. Rev. 1133 (2012). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol87/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact cnyberg@uw.edu. 07 - Tsosie Article.docx (Do Not Delete) 12/7/2012 7:38 PM INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE: SCIENCE, ETHICS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS Rebecca Tsosie Abstract: This Article explores the use of science as a tool of public policy and examines how science policy impacts indigenous peoples in the areas of environmental protection, public health, and repatriation. Professor Tsosie draws on Miranda Fricker’s account of “epistemic injustice” to show how indigenous peoples have been harmed by the domestic legal system and the policies that guide the implementation of the law in those three arenas. Professor Tsosie argues that the theme of “discovery,” which is pivotal to scientific inquiry, has governed the violation of indigenous peoples’ human rights since the colonial era. Today, science policy is overtly “neutral,” but it may still be utilized to the disadvantage of indigenous peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Religion
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION VOLUME 6 NUMBER 4 WINTER 2014 ARTICLES C.A.J. COADY Communal and Institutional Trust: Authority in Religion and Politics 1 John COTTINGHAM Authority and Trust: Reflections on Linda Zagzebski’s Epistemic Authority 25 Duncan PRITCHARD & Shane RYAN Zagzebski on Rationality 39 Trent DOUGHERTY Zagzebski, Authority, and Faith 47 Arnon KEREN Zagzebski on Authority and Preemption in the Domain of Belief 61 Jacek WOJTYSIAK Zagzebski on Models of Revelation 77 Charity ANDERSON Epistemic Authority and Conscientious Belief 91 Benjamin MCMYLER Epistemic Authority, Preemption, and Normative Power 101 John SCHWENKLER Tradition as Transmission: A Partial Defense 121 Matthew A. BENTON Believing on Authority 133 Damian LESZCZYŃSKI Inconsistency, Uncertainty and Epistemic Authority 145 Joshue OROZCO & Nathan L. KING Conscientious Self-reflection to the Rescue? 155 Linda ZAGZEBSKI Epistemic Authority and Its Critics 169 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES Paolo Diego Bubbio & Philip Andrew Quadrio (eds). The Relationship of Philosophy to Religion Today Reviewed by Mark Manolopoulos 189 Justin Barrett. Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief Reviewed by Aku Visala 193 Charles Taliaferro, Dialogues about God Reviewed by Ulrich Schmidt 199 Fraser Watts (ed.). Creation: Law and Probability Reviewed by Graham Wood 205 COMMUNAL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST: AUTHORITY IN RELIGION AND POLITICS C.A.J. COADY University of Melbourne Linda Zagzebski’s book on epistemic authority is an impressive and stimulating treatment of an important topic.1 I admire the way she manages to combine imagination, originality and argumentative control. Her work has the further considerable merit of bringing analytic thinking and abstract theory to bear upon areas of concrete human concern, such as the attitudes one should have towards moral and religious authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth, Testimony, and Epistemic Injustice in International Criminal Law
    Emiliano J. Buis (editors) Emiliano J. Morten Bergsmo and Publication Series No. 35 (2019): Editors of this volume: Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law: Morten Bergsmo is Director of the Cen- Foundational Concepts tre for International Law Research and Policy Morten Bergsmo and Emiliano J. Buis (editors) (CILRAP). Emiliano J. Buis is Professor at the Facul- This second volume in the series ‘Philosophical Foundations of International Crimi- tad de Derecho and the Facultad de Filosofía nal Law’ zooms in on some of the foundational concepts or principles of the disci- y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, and pline of international criminal law, with a view to exploring their Hinterland beyond holds several teaching and research positions the traditional doctrinal discourse. It contains eight chapters on concepts such as at other academic institutions in Argentina. sovereignty, global criminal justice, international criminal responsibility for individu- als, punishment, impunity and truth. Among the authors in this book are Christoph The Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher Concepts Foundational of International Criminal Law: Philosophical Foundations (TOAEP) furthers the objective of excellence Burchard, Christopher B. Mahony, Milinda Banerjee, CHAO Yi, Javier Dondé-Matute, in research, scholarship and education by pub- Barrie Sander, Max Pensky and Shannon E. Fyfe. lishing worldwide in print and through the Internet. As a non-profit publisher, it is firmly The first volume in the series – Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal committed to open access publishing. Law: Correlating Thinkers – correlates the writings of leading philosophers with inter- national criminal law, including chapters on Plato, Cicero, Ulpian, Aquinas, Grotius, TOAEP is named after late Professor Torkel Opsahl (1931–1993), a leading interna- Hobbes, Locke, Vattel, Kant, Bentham, Hegel, Durkheim, Gandhi, Kelsen, Wittgenstein, tional and constitutional law expert in Europe Lemkin, Arendt and Foucault.
    [Show full text]
  • “It Ignores Lived Experience”
    What’s Wrong with “You Say You’re Happy, but ... ” Reasoning? Jason Marsh St. Olaf College In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Disability Edited by David T. Wasserman and Adam Cureton, 2019. Disability-positive philosophers often note a troubling tendency to dismiss what disabled people say about their well-being.1 Here is an example from Elizabeth Barnes: It’s fair to say that most people today think it’s ‘common sense’ that being disabled is less good than being non-disabled ... But most people in the 1950’s thought that it was ‘common sense’ that being gay was less good than being straight. And Europeans in the 1200’s probably would have thought that it was ‘common sense’ that being female was less good than being male ... In her groundbreaking book Epistemic Injustice, Miranda Fricker characterizes ways in which prejudice can cause uniquely epistemic types of harm. One of the main such forms of harm she highlights is testimonial injustice. In cases of testimonial injustice, a speaker is not believed or given due credence (where others would be) specifically because they are a member of a group that is the subject of stigma. (Barnes 2016, 134–135) In effect, Barnes argues that failing to believe physically2 disabled persons when they make positive claims about their well-being often is to commit epistemic injustice. Similarly, Sara Goering notes a “troubling tendency in much mainstream bioethics to discount the views of disabled people” (Goering 2008, 126). According to both authors, then, there is something deeply wrong with common forms of “you say you’re happy, but ..
    [Show full text]
  • “Knower” As an Ethical Concept: from Epistemic Agency to Mutual Recognition
    Feminist Philosophy Quarterly Volume 4 | Issue 4 Article 2 2018 “Knower” as an Ethical Concept: From Epistemic Agency to Mutual Recognition Matthew Congdon Vanderbilt University matthew.congdon@vanderbilt.edu Recommended Citation Congdon, Matthew. 2018. “‘Knower’ as an Ethical Concept: From Epistemic Agency to Mutual Recognition.” Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4 (4). Article 2. Congdon – “Knower” as an Ethical Concept: From Epistemic Agency to Mutual Recognition “Knower” as an Ethical Concept: From Epistemic Agency to Mutual Recognition1 Matthew Congdon Abstract Recent discussions in critical social epistemology have raised the idea that the concept “knower” is not only an epistemological concept but an ethical concept as well. Though this idea plays a central role in these discussions, the theoretical underpinnings of the claim have not received extended scrutiny. This paper explores the idea that “knower” is an irreducibly ethical concept in an effort to defend its use as a critical concept. In section 1, I begin with the claim that “knower” is an irreducibly normative and social concept, drawing from some ideas in Wilfrid Sellars. In section 2, I argue that one’s being a knower involves demands for various sorts of ethically laden recognition. I develop this thought by arguing that Axel Honneth’s threefold typology of recognition—love, respect, and esteem—finds clear expression within the context of socio-epistemic practice. I conclude in section 3 by arguing that Miranda Fricker’s proposed “analogy” between epistemic and moral perception should be modified to indicate a closer relationship than mere analogy. Keywords: ethics, social epistemology, feminist epistemology, recognition, epistemic injustice What is a “knower”? There is a strand of ancient thought for which this is an essentially ethical question.
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Epistemic Exemplars
    1 Negative Epistemic Exemplars to appear in Sherman & Gouen (eds.), Overcoming Epistemic Injustice: Social and Psychological Perspectives . Rowman & Littlefield. Emily Sullivan, Delft University of Technology Mark Alfano, Delft University of Technology & Australian Catholic University Abstract In this chapter, we address the roles that exemplars might play in a comprehensive response to epistemic injustice. Fricker defines epistemic injustices as harms people suffer specifically in their capacity as (potential) knowers. We focus on testimonial epistemic injustice, which occurs when someone’s assertoric speech acts are systematically met with either too little or too much credence by a biased audience. Fricker recommends a virtue­theoretic response: people who do not suffer from biases should try to maintain their disposition towards naive testimonial justice, and those who find themselves already biased should cultivate corrective testimonial justice by systematically adjusting their credence in testimony up or down depending on whether they are hearing from someone whom they may be biased against or in favor of. We doubt that the prominent admiration­emulation model of exemplarism will be much use in this connection, so we propose two ways of learning from negative exemplars to better conduct one’s epistemic affairs. In the admiration­emulation model, both the identification of what a virtue is and the cultivation of virtues identified thusly proceed through the admiration of virtuous exemplars. We show that this model has serious flaws and argue for two alternatives: the envy­agonism model and the ambivalence­avoidance model. Keywords epistemic virtue, epistemic exemplar, admiration, envy, ambivalence, epistemic injustice Word count: 6285 (6500 maximum) 2 Introduction In this chapter, we address the roles that exemplars might play in a comprehensive response to epistemic injustice.1 Fricker (2007) defines epistemic injustices as harms people suffer specifically in their capacity as (potential) knowers.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Place of Feminist Epistemology in Philosophy of Education
    education sciences Article Knowledge for a Common World? On the Place of Feminist Epistemology in Philosophy of Education Claudia Schumann Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm S-106 91, Sweden; claudia.schumann@edu.su.se; Tel.: +46-816-2000 Academic Editor: Andrew Stables Received: 7 January 2016; Accepted: 3 March 2016; Published: 9 March 2016 Abstract: The paper discusses the place of feminist epistemology in philosophy of education. Against frequently raised criticisms, the paper argues that the issues raised by feminist standpoint theory lead neither to a reduction of questions of knowledge to questions of power or politics nor to the endorsement of relativism. Within the on-going discussion in feminist epistemology, we can find lines of argument which provide the grounds for a far more radical critique of the traditional, narrow notion of objectivity, revealing it as inherently flawed and inconsistent and allowing for the defense of a re-worked, broader, more accurate understanding of objectivity. This is also in the interest of developing a strong basis for a feminist critique of problematically biased and repressive epistemological practices which can further be extended to shed light on the way in which knowledge has become distorted through the repression of other non-dominant epistemic standpoints. Thus, requiring a thorough re-thinking of our conceptions of objectivity and rationality, feminist epistemologies need to be carefully considered in order to improve our understanding of what knowledge for a common world implies in the pluralistic and diverse societies of post-traditional modernity in the 21st century. Keywords: feminist epistemology; situated knowledge; objectivity; relativism 1.
    [Show full text]
  • REP Knowledge
    Knowledge, Concept of Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Michael Hannon University of Nottingham Keywords: knowledge; ignorance; justification; scepticism Article Summary The word ‘know’ is exceptional for a number of reasons. It is one of the 10 most commonly used verbs in English, alongside basic verbs like ‘be,’ ‘do,’ ‘say,’ ‘have,’ and ‘go.’ It is also the most frequently used term in epistemic evaluation: we speak of ‘knowing’ far more often than we speak of ‘justification,’ ‘reliability,’ ‘understanding,’ ‘wisdom,’ and other intellectual traits or epistemic properties. Perhaps most strikingly, the word ‘know’ allegedly has a meaning-equivalent in every human language. Unlike almost every other word in English, linguists have identified ‘know’ as one of a very small number of words that are culturally universal (Goddard 2010). These facts suggest that knowledge is deeply important to human life. Knowledge has also held a central place in epistemology. Indeed, the word ‘epistemology’ comes from the Greek word epistêmê, which is often translated as ‘knowledge.’ This is not to say that epistemologists are only interested in knowledge. They also investigate epistemic virtues like open- mindedness and intellectual humility, as well as properties of belief like being rational and justified (among many other things). Still, the enterprise of epistemology has largely been an investigation into the nature, significance, sources, and extent of human knowledge. But what is knowledge? Why do we value it? How is it acquired? And how much of it do we have? In the late 20th century, one of the central questions asked by epistemologists was: When does a true belief count as knowledge? It was widely assumed that knowledge is a form of true belief plus some additional requirement(s), such as justification or reliability.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Injustice and Security
    MASARYK UNIVERSITY Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Political Science Epistemic Injustice and Security Master Thesis David Rypel Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Dufek, Ph.D. UČO: 415064 Field of Study: Security and Strategic Studies Matriculation Year: 2015 Brno, 2018 Declaration of Originality and Compliance of Academic Ethics I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work. I have identified all material in this text which is not my own work through appropriate referencing and acknowledgement. Where I have quoted from the work of others, I have included the source in the references. Signed: Date: May 30, 2018 Acknowledgements I would like to thank: - Pavel Dufek, supervisor of my thesis, that he trusted me that the topic I selected makes sense. - Debbie Lisle for kindly opening the abyss of critical security studies for me. Without her introduction to margins of international relations, I would have taken the path which led to this thesis much later or never at all. - My parents who allowed me to focus on my studies rather than survival without ever questioning what I do. (I think they do not know that I wrote a bachelor thesis on morality of terrorism.) - My partner for being around and helping me with the list of figures in this thesis. - EU taxpayers and Masaryk University scholarship policy which allowed me to spend almost two years of my studies abroad. Abstract This thesis is concerned with potential benefits of application of the theory of epistemic injustice on cases pertinent to security studies. Its goal was twofold: First, to present the theory of epistemic injustice in the way that will be easily understandable for readers with no background in epistemology.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory
    Feminist Philosophy Quarterly Volume 4 | Issue 4 Introduction 2018 Introduction: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory Paul Giladi Manchester Metropolitan University paul.giladi@gmail.com Nicola MicMillan Lancaster University n.mcmillan@lancaster.ac.uk Recommended Citation Giladi, Paul, and Nicola McMillan. 2018. “Introduction: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory.” Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4 (4). Introduction. Giladi and McMillan – Introduction: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory Introduction: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory Paul Giladi and Nicola McMillan First, we would like to thank the editors of Feminist Philosophy Quarterly for allowing us to guest edit a special issue of this exciting journal. The papers comprising this special issue, along with Miranda Fricker’s afterword, were born of an effort by us to start a much-needed conversation between two immensely rich and relevant philosophical traditions: critical social epistemology and recognition theory. We are proud that Feminist Philosophy Quarterly is the venue for the first ever sustained collaboration of research on epistemic injustice and recognition theory. And our coedited volume, titled Epistemic Injustice and the Philosophy of Recognition, is scheduled to appear in print in 2021 with Routledge. It will be the first book on the subject. An important development in contemporary Anglo-American feminist epistemology has been the concept of epistemic injustice, which, as articulated for example by Miranda Fricker, has emerged out of and reinvigorated a rich line of work in feminist epistemology on epistemic exclusion, silencing, subordination, and motivated ignorance, including work by Linda Alcoff, Kristie Dotson, Ishani Maitra, José Medina, and Charles Mills. Another important development in social philosophy, especially in the Continental tradition, has been the philosophy of recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • The GDPR and Humanistic Personalized
    Beyond Our Behavior: The GDPR and Humanistic Personalized Recommendation Travis Greene & Galit Shmueli travis.greene@iss.nthu.edu.tw,galit.shmueli@iss.nthu.edu.tw Institute of Service Science, National Tsing Hua University Hsinchu, Taiwan ABSTRACT longer acceptable given the potential effects RS can have on the Personalization should take the human person seriously. This re- person. We thus propose humanistic personalization (HP) as a novel quires a deeper understanding of how recommender systems can guide for thinking about and designing personalized RS. The HP shape both our self-understanding and identity. We unpack key paradigm of mutual, dialogic participation obliges RS designers to European humanistic and philosophical ideas underlying the Gen- promote and respect the unique capacities of persons to create and eral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and propose a new par- modify personal narratives over time. adigm of humanistic personalization. Humanistic personalization Our paper builds on but differs from recent work on RS value- responds to the IEEE’s call for Ethically Aligned Design (EAD) and alignment [99], self-actualization [65], qualitative evaluation met- is based on fundamental human capacities and values. Humanistic rics [76], and the epistemic and ethical problems of over-reliance personalization focuses on narrative accuracy: the subjective fit be- on behavioral data [35]. tween a person’s self-narrative and both the input (personal data) Most notably, we use the General Data Protection Regulation and output of a recommender system. In doing so, we re-frame the (GDPR) as the basis for ethical and legal norms instead of adding to distinction between implicit and explicit data collection as one of the current morass of competing principles, guidelines, and frame- nonconscious (“organismic”) behavior and conscious (“reflective”) works for Ethical AI/ML (see e.g., [79]).
    [Show full text]