Switch to: References

Citations of:

Epistemic Bunkers

Social Epistemology 37 (2):197-207 (2023)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Online Echo Chambers, Online Epistemic Bubbles, and Open-Mindedness.Cody Turner - 2023 - Episteme 21:1-26.
    This article is an exercise in the virtue epistemology of the internet, an area of applied virtue epistemology that investigates how online environments impact the development of intellectual virtues, and how intellectual virtues manifest within online environments. I examine online echo chambers and epistemic bubbles (Nguyen 2020, Episteme 17(2), 141–61), exploring the conceptual relationship between these online environments and the virtue of open-mindedness (Battaly 2018b, Episteme 15(3), 261–82). The article answers two key individual-level, virtue epistemic questions: (Q1) How does immersion (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Feminist Epistemology and Social Epistemology: Another Uneasy Alliance.Michael D. Doan - 2024 - Apa Studies on Feminism and Philosophy 23 (2):11-19.
    In this paper I explore Phyllis Rooney’s 2003 chapter, “Feminist Epistemology and Naturalized Epistemology: An Uneasy Alliance,” taking guidance from her critique of naturalized epistemology in pursuing my own analysis of another uneasy alliance: that between feminist epistemology and social epistemology. Investigating some of the background assumptions at work in prominent conceptions of social epistemology, I consider recent analyses of "epistemic bubbles" to ask how closely such analyses are aligned with ongoing research in feminist epistemology. I argue that critical feminist (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A hermeneutical back-and-forth between different approaches to agency.Caroline Stankozi - 2023 - Spontaneous Generations 11 (1):1-13.
    Agency can be approached from the human case (anthropogenically) or coming from life in general, with organisms like bacteria in mind (biogenically). Each perspective is biased: the former approach tends to set the bar for agency very high, while the latter invites very liberal attributions of agency. Such a polarisation is epistemically flawed. As a rectification, this paper calls for a hermeneutical back-and-forth between opposite approaches to agency – reducing excessive restrictiveness or permissiveness and combining the unique explanatory strengths of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark