To verify the occurrence of a singular instance of testimonial injustice three facts must be established. The first is whether the hearer in fact has an identity prejudice of which she may or may not be aware; the second is whether that prejudice was in fact the cause of the unjustified credibility deficit; and the third is whether there was in fact a credibility deficit in the testimonial exchange. These three elements constitute the facts of the matter of testimonial injustice. (...) In this essay we argue that none of these facts can be established with any degree of confidence, and therefore that testimonial injustice is an undetectable phenomenon in singular instances. Our intention is not to undermine the idea of testimonial injustice, but rather to set limits to what can be justifiably asserted about it. According to our argument, although there are insufficient reasons to identify individual acts of testimonial injustice, it is possible to recognize recurrent patterns of epistemic responses to speakers who belong to specific social groups. General testimonial injustice can thus be characterized as a behavioral tendency of a prejudiced hearer. (shrink)

Resumen: Una de las formas más comunes y menos estudiadas de parcialidad judicial subjetiva es la disminución de la credibilidad otorgada a un testigo debido a un prejuicio identitario implícito del agente judicial. En la epistemología social, este fenómeno ha sido estudiado bajo la rúbrica de la injusticia testimonial. En este ensayo mostramos que para determinar la ocurrencia de un caso de injusticia testimonial en el derecho se deben cumplir tres condiciones que son imposibles de verificar empíricamente y que están (...) basadas en presupuestos psicológicos que han sido puestos en duda en años recientes. Sin la posibilidad de verificar estas condiciones, estamos frente a un tipo de parcialidad judicial indetectable. En su lugar, ofrecemos una nueva forma de entender la injusticia testimonial en el derecho como un fenómeno más general que describe una tendencia comportamental prejuiciosa recurrente por parte de un agente judicial. Entendida de este modo, la injusticia testimonial es completamente verificable. -/- Abstract: One of the most common and least studied forms of subjective judicial partiality is the credibility deficit suffered by a witness due to an implicit identity prejudice in a judicial agent. Social epistemologists have studied this form of partiality under the rubric, “testimonial injustice.” In this essay we argue that to verify the occurrence of a singular instance of testimonial injustice in law three facts must be established, none of which can be established with any degree of confidence. Furthermore, all of them are based on psychological suppositions that have been recently discredited. Without the possibility of establishing these facts, we end up with an undetectable form of subjective judicial partiality. In its place, we offer a new way of understanding testimonial injustice in law as a general phenomenon that describes a recurrent pattern of prejudiced behavior in a judicial agent. Under this characterization, testimonial injustice becomes empirically verifiable. (shrink)

According to theoretical work on epistemic injustice, baseless discrediting of the knowledge of people with marginalized social identities is a central driver of prejudice and discrimination. Discrediting of knowledge may sometimes be subtle, but it is pernicious, inducing chronic stress and coping strategies such as emotional avoidance. In this research, we sought to deepen the understanding of epistemic injustice’s impact by examining emotional responses to being discredited and assessing if marginalized social group membership predicts these responses. We conducted a novel (...) series of three experiments (Total N = 1690) in which participants (1) shared their factual knowledge about how a game worked or their personal feelings about the game; (2) received discrediting feedback (invalidating remarks), validating feedback (affirming remarks), or insulting feedback (general negative social evaluation); and then (3) reported their affect. In all three studies, on average, affective responses to discrediting feedback were less negative than to insulting feedback, and more negative than to validating feedback. Participants who shared their knowledge reported more negative affect after discrediting feedback than participants who shared their feelings. There were consistent individual differences, including a twice-replicated finding of reduced negative affect after receiving discrediting and insulting feedback for Black men compared to White men and women and Black women. Black men’s race-based traumatic symptom scores predicted their affective responses to discrediting and insulting feedback, suggesting that experience with discrimination contributed to the emotional processing of a key aspect of epistemic injustice: remarks conveying baseless discrediting of knowledge. (shrink)

This article shows a selection of Catullus’ homoerotic texts and their translations. Thus, we analyze and introduce part of the Catullus’ sexual source culture, which differs from the current homosexual target culture in order to make these texts and the knowledge therein contained available to the Latin American audience. Our aim is to produce these translations analyzing varied, complex, and vague lexical sources, the differences between the source and target cultures, and other factors that challenge the translator in the realization (...) of his work. (shrink)

Title: «The Questions of What and How in Giuseppina Grammatico». Abstract: This work is intended to be an analysis of Giuseppina Grammatico’s main question: What is a σύναψις? This question, which is part of her text called The Sýnapsis Silence-Word in the Fragments of Heraclitus (1999), has been visited and analyzed through three of the subtitles of that work: 1) What is a σύναψις? 2) The question of How, and 3) The question of What. All this, in order to analyze (...) what is the Grammatico’s understanding of Sýnapsis and how it acts in the connection between silence and word as part of the Logos. -/- Este trabajo consiste en un análisis de la pregunta de Giuseppina Grammatico: ¿Qué es una σύναψις? Esta interrogante, que surge en su texto La σύναψις silencio-palabra en Heráclito (1999), ha sido revisada y analizada a través de tres de los subtítulos de dicha obra: 1) ¿Qué es una σύναψις? 2) La pregunta por el cómo y 3) La pregunta por el qué. Lo anterior se realizará con el fin de analizar cuál es el entendimiento que Grammatico tiene de la sinapsis y cómo esta actúa en la conexión que se da entre el silencio y la palabra como elementos del Logos. (shrink)

Title: «Giuseppina Grammatico and Heraclitus’ fragments: Translation in the “σύναψις silence-word”». Abstract: This work is intended to be a first translatological approach of the synapsis in Giuseppina Grammatico’s exegesis called The Synapsis Silence-Word in the Fragments of Heraclitus. Thus, this reflection aims to analyze how in Heraclitus’ fragments visited and translated by Grammatico we can see not only a synapsis —observed by her—, but a union between the silence and the word in which it is produced a translation process. All (...) this, analyzed through the interpretive theory approach (Lederer, 2003; Seleskovitch, 1981; Delisle, 1988). (shrink)

Title: «Giuseppina Grammatico and Heraclitus’ fragments: Translation in the “σύναψις silence-word”». Abstract: This work is intended to be a first translatological approach of the synapsis in Giuseppina Grammatico’s exegesis called The Synapsis Silence-Word in the Fragments of Heraclitus. Thus, this reflection aims to analyze how in Heraclitus’ fragments visited and translated by Grammatico we can see not only a synapsis —observed by her—, but a union between the silence and the word in which it is produced a translation process. All (...) this, analyzed through the interpretive theory approach (Lederer, 2003; Seleskovitch, 1981; Delisle, 1988). (shrink)

Title in English: «The Questions of What and How in Giuseppina Grammatico». Abstract: This work is intended to be an analysis of Giuseppina Grammatico’s main question: What is a σύναψις? This question, which is part of her text called The Sýnapsis Silence-Word in the Fragments of Heraclitus (1999), has been visited and analyzed through three of the subtitles of that work: 1) What is a σύναψις? 2) The question of How, and 3) The question of What. All this, in order (...) to analyze what is the Grammatico’s understanding of Sýnapsis and how it acts in the connection between silence and word as part of the Logos. (shrink)

Corcoran’s 27 entries in the 1999 second edition of Robert Audi’s Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy [Cambridge: Cambridge UP]. -/- ancestral, axiomatic method, borderline case, categoricity, Church (Alonzo), conditional, convention T, converse (outer and inner), corresponding conditional, degenerate case, domain, De Morgan, ellipsis, laws of thought, limiting case, logical form, logical subject, material adequacy, mathematical analysis, omega, proof by recursion, recursive function theory, scheme, scope, Tarski (Alfred), tautology, universe of discourse. -/- The entire work is available online free at more than (...) one website. Paste the whole URL. http://archive.org/stream/RobertiAudi_The.Cambridge.Dictionary.of.Philosophy/Robert.Audi_The.Cambrid ge.Dictionary.of.Philosophy -/- The 2015 third edition will be available soon. Before you think of buying it read some reviews on Amazon and read reviews of its competition: For example, my review of the 2008 Oxford Companion to Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Logic,29:3,291-292. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340701300429 -/- Some of the entries have already been found to be flawed. For example, Tarski’s expression ‘materially adequate’ was misinterpreted in at least one article and it was misused in another where ‘materially correct’ should have been used. The discussion provides an opportunity to bring more flaws to light. -/- Acknowledgements: Each of these entries was presented at meetings of The Buffalo Logic Dictionary Project sponsored by The Buffalo Logic Colloquium. The members of the colloquium read drafts before the meetings and were generous with corrections, objections, and suggestions. Usually one 90-minute meeting was devoted to one entry although in some cases, for example, “axiomatic method”, took more than one meeting. Moreover, about half of the entries are rewrites of similarly named entries in the 1995 first edition. Besides the help received from people in Buffalo, help from elsewhere was received by email. We gratefully acknowledge the following: José Miguel Sagüillo, John Zeis, Stewart Shapiro, Davis Plache, Joseph Ernst, Richard Hull, Concha Martinez, Laura Arcila, James Gasser, Barry Smith, Randall Dipert, Stanley Ziewacz, Gerald Rising, Leonard Jacuzzo, George Boger, William Demopolous, David Hitchcock, John Dawson, Daniel Halpern, William Lawvere, John Kearns, Ky Herreid, Nicolas Goodman, William Parry, Charles Lambros, Harvey Friedman, George Weaver, Hughes Leblanc, James Munz, Herbert Bohnert, Robert Tragesser, David Levin, Sriram Nambiar, and others. -/- . (shrink)