Tilburg University Epistemic Justice Geuskens, Machteld
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tilburg University Epistemic Justice Geuskens, Machteld Publication date: 2018 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Geuskens, M. (2018). Epistemic Justice: A Principled Approach to Knowledge Generation and Distribution. [s.n.]. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. sep. 2021 Epistemic Justice A Principled Approach to Knowledge Generation and Distribution Machteld Geuskens Epistemic Justice A Principled Approach to Knowledge Generation and Distribution Cover image: Vasily Kandinsky Circles in a Circle 1923 Oil on canvas 38 7/8 x 37 5/8 inches (98.7 x 95.6 cm) Framed: 44 1/8 x 43 1/8 x 2 1/2 inches (112.1 x 109.5 x 6.4 cm) Credit line: Philadelphia Museum of Art, The Louise and Walter Arensberg Collection, 1950-134-104 ISBN: 978-94-92679-68-0 Cover design and layout by: Proefschriftenprinten.nl – The Netherlands Printed by: Print Service Ede - Ede, The Netherlands © Machteld Geuskens, 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form orby any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor(s). Epistemic Justice A Principled Approach to Knowledge Generation and Distribution Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan Tilburg University op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. E.H.L. Aarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de Portrettenzaal van de Universiteit op dinsdag 11 december 2018 om 16.00 uur door Machteld Clara Maria Geuskens geboren te Leuven, België. Promotor: Prof. dr. Alan P. Thomas Copromotor: Dr. Filip A.I. Buekens De overige leden van de promotiecommissie: Dr. Paul Faulkner Dr. Lisa Herzog Dr. Philip J. Nickel Prof. dr. Linda Radzik The research for this PhD thesis has been funded by the NWO programme Promoties in de Geesteswetenschappen. Table of Contents Introduction 13 Chapter I – Knowledge, its Definition and its Sociality 19 1. Introduction 19 2. Is Knowledge Social? 22 3. Current Theories of Knowledge and Their Aim 23 4. The Knowledge First Approach 28 5. Knowledge First and the Social Role of Knowledge 33 6. Knowledge First and the Practice of Knowledge 40 Conclusion 42 Chapter II – A Genealogy for Knowledge 45 1. Introduction 45 2. The Genealogical Method 46 3. Craig’s Genealogy for Knowledge 51 4. Informants and Sources of Information 55 5. Criticism of Craig’s Genealogical Method 58 6. Situating the Objection: The Genealogy versus JTB 62 Conclusion 65 Chapter III – Knowledge, Truth, Epistemic Justice 67 1. Introduction 67 2. Ethics as a Requirement for Knowledge: Williams’s Genealogy 68 3. Assumptions of Williams’s Genealogy and its Plausibility 72 4. The Politics of Knowledge: Fricker’s ‘Epistemic Injustice’ 73 5. Epistemic Justice as the Alignment of Truth and Trust 75 6. Ethics versus Metaphysics 81 Conclusion 87 Chapter IV – Testimony and Epistemic Individualism 89 1. Introduction 89 2. The Puzzle of Testimony 90 3. The Assumption of Internalism 93 4. The Assurance View as a Second Personal Account of Testimony 95 5. Faulkner’s Critique of Second Personal Normativity 101 6. Faulkner’s Solution 102 7. Assessing Faulkner’s Hybrid Account 107 Conclusion 109 Chapter V – Testimony as a Source of Knowledge 111 1. Introduction 111 2. What is a Generative Account of Testimony? 111 3. What Speaks in favor of a Generative Account of Testimony? 117 4. The Generative Account vs. Faulkner’s Hybrid Trust Theory 119 5. Williams’s Genealogy of Truthfulness (As Needed for Knowledge) 123 6. Consequences of a Generative Account of Testimony 124 Conclusion 132 Chapter VI – A Theory of Epistemic Justice Centered on Epistemic Power 133 1. Introduction 133 2. Fricker’s Cases of Epistemic Injustice 134 3. Social Power on Fricker’s Conception 136 4. Epistemic Justice: Discriminatory and Distributive 137 5. Skepticism regarding ‘Epistemic Injustice’ 140 6. Epistemic Wrongs and Epistemic Injustices 143 7. What Makes Wronging Epistemic? 144 8. Epistemic Power as Central to Epistemic Justice 147 9. An Ideal-Theoretical Pluralist Framework 150 Conclusion 152 Chapter VII – Epistemic Justice: Ethical Norms 153 1. Introduction 153 2. Moral-Epistemic Norms that are Grounded in Epistemic Justice 154 3. Knowledge Sharing as a Norm of Epistemic Justice 159 4. Limits to the Default Norm of Knowledge Sharing 162 5. Need-Based Knowledge Sharing? 166 6. Instituting Trust: Inclusivity and Solidarity 169 7. The Epistemic Responsibility of Knowledge Recipients 173 8. Limits to the Default Norms 175 Conclusion 178 Chapter VIII – Towards a Society Well Ordered by Epistemic Justice 179 1. Introduction 179 2. Conditions for Epistemic Justice 181 3. The Criteria for Epistemic Authority 182 4. Longino’s Work on Criteria in Science 184 5. Structural Requirements for an Epistemic Community 189 6. Tempered Equality of Epistemic Authority 192 7. A Critical Theory Test for Knowledge and Authority 195 8. Towards an Epistemically Just Society 201 9. Epistemic Justice in Politics: Representation 203 Conclusion 206 Conclusion 209 List of Works Cited 216 Preface This thesis started when Alan Thomas emailed me to ask if I would be interested in pursuing a PhD, alerting me to an opportunity to obtain PhD funding from NWO. When I showed interest in doing so, we decided to “cook up a proposal”, starting from my intuitions and convictions: a thesis in philosophy tends to be quite personal. My strong conviction was (and still is) that knowledge should be shared much more widely than people often realise; that there is no point in keeping people in the dark for no reason, and, moreover, that doing so – granted that there really is no good reason – is both harmful for the person who is kept in the dark and an injustice. It is harmful in the sense that it can cause anxiety, frustration, or – when the epistemic neglect happens over a longer period – it can mean that the person comes to have less self-confidence or lowered self-esteem. It is an injustice, because there is no need to inflict that harm. More positively put, my strong conviction is that sharing knowledge is empowering: that giving others knowledge that they may lack, even when unsolicited, is often more than a way of being helpful and kind. It is a form of inclusion, furthering trust in their abilities and trust in the nature of social relations. For, sharing knowledge is a way of entrusting others, of allowing others to be(come) one’s equals, as it enables them to contribute their views too, and/or to better understand situations. Having these intuitions and convictions is one thing; arguing for them in an academic context is quite another. Serendipitously, I received an emailed newsletter from Birkbeck College, mentioning a book entitled Epistemic Injustice by Miranda Fricker. That title struck me as so highly relevant – which indeed it became – that I could not help but work it into the proposal, wondering why its author had (apparently) not made the questions surrounding knowledge sharing more central to it. At the time, my dear friend Naomi Goulder who knew this literature strongly supported my idea that there was a lacuna. The proposal was written and the grant obtained. Here I would like to thank all of you who helped me, encouraged me, and accompanied me in the process of writing this thesis. Alan, I feel incredibly lucky that you have been my supervisor. You were able to guide me in a process that was quite creative and daring. While I was keen to read Fricker’s work, you pointed me to the works that I should study to start with. The breadth of your interests meant that you did not worry about my search for a fundamental guiding principle (i.e. epistemic justice) that could readily be applied to (a very wide range of) societal issues and discussions. Even as my topic related to anything and everything, however, and even as in philosophy every detail appears to matter, you managed to keep me from going astray, often using one-liners such as the time when you said it would be too time consuming “to go down every rabbit hole”. More fundamentally, you managed to keep me positive and inspired, throughout. Every meeting would end with a plan for action. I think it was your ability to inspire trust and reinforce positive commitment that helped to get this thesis materialised, from beginning to end. What helped, too, is your understanding that life is more than philosophy. Eating a cupcake was definitely the right way to spend time in York. So, I probably wrote more words here than I should have, but I hope we will continue to be in touch for a long time to come. Filip, thank you for taking on the role of co-supervisor and always being inspired to talk about philosophical works, and interested to hear what I was working on.