Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Gaslighting, First- and Second-Order.Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky - 2021 - Hypatia 36 (1):207-227.
    In what sense do people doubt their understanding of reality when subject to gaslighting? I suggest that an answer to this question depends on the linguistic order at which a gaslighting exchange takes place. This marks a distinction between first-order and second-order gaslighting. The former occurs when there is disagreement over whether a shared concept applies to some aspect of the world, and where the use of words by a speaker is apt to cause hearers to doubt their interpretive abilities (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Objects or Others? Epistemic Agency and the Primary Harm of Testimonial Injustice.Aidan McGlynn - 2020 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 23 (5):831-845.
    This paper re-examines the debate between those who, with Miranda Fricker, diagnose the primary, non-contingent harm of testimonial injustice as a kind of epistemic objectification and those who contend it is better thought of as a kind of epistemic othering. Defenders of the othering account of the primary harm have often argued for it by presenting cases of testimonial injustice in which the testifier’s epistemic agency is affirmed rather than denied, even while their credibility is unjustly impugned. In previous work, (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Wrongful Ways to Raise the Epistemic Standard.Jumbly Grindrod - forthcoming - Episteme:1-15.
    This paper is concerned with identifying and accounting for cases where the epistemic standard is raised inappropriately. The first section is concerned with identifying a notion of a variable epistemic standard that is neutral regarding a range of theoretical issues. The second section argues that the possibility the epistemic standard could be raised in some epistemic inappropriate way warrants further investigation. The third section outlines and provides a partial explanation of such a case: one in which a climate change denier (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evidentialism and Moral Encroachment.Georgi Gardiner - 2018 - In McCain Kevin (ed.), Believing in Accordance with the Evidence. Springer Verlag.
    Moral encroachment holds that the epistemic justification of a belief can be affected by moral factors. If the belief might wrong a person or group more evidence is required to justify the belief. Moral encroachment thereby opposes evidentialism, and kindred views, which holds that epistemic justification is determined solely by factors pertaining to evidence and truth. In this essay I explain how beliefs such as ‘that woman is probably an administrative assistant’—based on the evidence that most women employees at the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Epistemic Injustice and Deepened Disagreement.T. J. Lagewaard - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies:1-22.
    Sometimes ordinary disagreements become deep as a result of epistemic injustice. The paper explores a hitherto unnoticed connection between two phenomena that have received ample attention in recent social epistemology: deep disagreement and epistemic injustice. When epistemic injustice comes into play in a regular disagreement, this can lead to higher-order disagreement about what counts as evidence concerning the original disagreement, which deepens the disagreement. After considering a common definition of deep disagreement, it is proposed that the depth of disagreements is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark