Suchergebnisse
Filter
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Normative judgements about the epistemic lives of people like us: Endre Begby: Prejudice: a study in non-ideal epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022, 240 pp, £30 HB
In: Metascience: an international review journal for the history, philosophy and social studies of science, Band 32, Heft 1, S. 91-94
ISSN: 1467-9981
Stereotyping Patients
In: Journal of social philosophy, Band 50, Heft 1, S. 69-90
ISSN: 1467-9833
A defence of epistemic responsibility: why laziness and ignorance are bad after all
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 191, Heft 14, S. 3297-3309
ISSN: 1573-0964
Knowing your past: Trauma, stress, and mnemonic epistemic injustice
In: Journal of social philosophy
ISSN: 1467-9833
Epistemic agency and the generalisation of fear
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 202, Heft 1
ISSN: 1573-0964
AbstractFear generalisation is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when fear that is elicited in response to a frightening stimulus spreads to similar or related stimuli. The practical harms of pathological fear generalisation related to trauma are well-documented, but little or no attention has been given so far to its epistemic harms. This paper fills this gap in the literature. It shows how the psychological phenomenon, when it becomes pathological, substantially curbs the epistemic agency of those who experience the fear that generalizes, limiting their ability to respond to evidence, and substantially limiting their epistemic horizons. It is argued that when these epistemic harms are caused by wrongful actions and decisions of individuals or institutions, because the fear is elicited in response to a traumatic experience inflicted by them, the harms should be considered epistemic wrongs. The epistemic wrongs are closely akin to agential epistemic injustice, a variety of distributive epistemic injustice, and sometimes also involve epistemic exclusion. The paper thereby identifies a previously underexplored psychological mechanism that can be a vehicle through which both individuals and institutions can epistemically wrong others. The argument has implications for how both epistemic wrongs and epistemic injustice should be conceived, suggesting that both can occur without being caused by primarily epistemic flaws or errors, or a bad epistemic character. Finally, it highlights the advantage of taking a victim-centred approach to understanding epistemic harm.