Epistemic Injustice Greek Summary

Epistemic Injustice Greek Summary
In her "Epistemic Injustice," Chapter 1, Fricker (2009), argues that "there is a distinctively epistemic kind of injustice", which she describes as an
injustice that deals specifically with knowledge, hence the name "epistemic injustice". The word epistemic comes from the Greek epistД“mikГіs,
equivalent to epistбё—m(Д“) knowledge + –ikos –ic, meaning of, or relating to knowledge ("Epistemic | Define Epistemic at Dictionary.Com" n.d.). I
note that knowledge is, or should be, an important aspect of everyone's life. This is because there is a distinctive difference between saying, I
believe in contrast to I know, mostly because there tends to be more credibility in the latter than in the former. The concept of knowledge itself
allows us to identify reliable sources. The main reason why scientists embrace skepticism is because the use of sources, and peer review can have an
impact on scientific research. Another example is how a professor might require citing, because "one needs to provide evidence supporting any
attributions of belief to the author" (Chelstrom 2018, 3). I make this distinction because to know something is to be treated as a reliable source of
information about it and this relates to testimonial injustice. In her book, Fricker discusses... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the case of Tom, for example, he suffered for a crime he didn't commit, and although that is an injustice, it is not necessarily a "distinctively
epistemic kind of injustice" (Fricker 2009, 1). Fricker might respond by saying that there is indeed a difference. When a person experiences a
testimonial injustice, he/she is being treated as an untrustworthy source of information, and thus, as if he/she can't truly know things. Since, epistemic
is having to do with knowledge, and the person is obstructed in his/her claims to recognition as a subject of knowledge, it's a "distinctively epistemic
kind of injustice" (Fricker 2009,
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Why do we trust the testimonial account of others?
Why do we trust the testimonial account of others?
Firstly, I briefly wish to outline the parameters of trust and testimony that Zagzebski refers to in her book Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust,
Authority, and Autonomy in Belief and then outline the reasons she also rejects the reductionist account, before examining the ways in which she
suggests are reasons as to why we trust the testimonial account of others.
For Zagzebski, there is an important distinction between asserting that something is the case, and telling you that something is the case. The latter
invokes the doctrine of trust, and involves an implicit contract between speaker and hearer– an interpersonal contract between speaker and hearer so
when I tell you that P, I... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Extreme epistemic egoism: What Zagzebski calls extreme epistemic egoism holds that the fact that someone else has a belief is never a reason for her to
believe it, not even when conjoined with evidence that the other person is reliable.
b. Strong epistemic egoism: it holds that one has no obligation to count what another person believes as relevant to her own beliefs, but she may do
so if she sees that given what she believes about them, they are likely to serve her desire for the truth.
c. Weak epistemic egoism: It holds that when one has evidence that someone else's belief reliably serves one's desire for the truth in some domain, one
is not only rationally permitted, one is rationally require d to take their beliefs into account for forming one's own belief.
Zagzebski argues that the demands of consistency push the epistemic egoist into weaker and weaker forms of egoism forcing her eventually to
reject egoism. The extreme epistemic egoist trusts only her own powers and previous beliefs as a means to getting further true beliefs and
knowledge. But, by using her own powers (perception, inference etc.) she can find out that other people are reliable source of knowledge. So, by
using her own powers she sees that she is permitted to trust the powers and beliefs of many people and she begins to

Can Epistemic Predicates Be Applied?
Can epistemic predicates be applied literally to groups?
In this essay I will argue that we have reason to believe we can apply epistemic predicates literally to groups. By arguing for a reformulation of the
knowledge–belief relationship to allow for the possibility of acceptance–based knowledge instead of belief–based knowledge, I will show how it is a
possible to create a more flexible, informative typology of epistemic agents which will allow us to apply epistemic predicates literally to groups
without bringing the debate too far into the realms of group psychology.
One pitfall that writers such as Tollefsen (2004) and Geirsson (2004) often fall into is not detangling fully the distinction between group 'knowledge'
and group 'belief'. These writers commonly treat epistemology as predicated upon psychology, and psychology upon more basic metaphysical
distinctions. Some elements of this relationship certainly hold; the link between ontological distinctions and psychological ones seems conceptually
necessary. An argument about whether groups can literally believe something is meaningless if groups cannot be said to have any distinct existence in
the ontological sense from its members. This is not my concern: it is the relation between psychology and epistemology that I wish to question.
There are two positions commonly taken in social epistemology: that groups can have beliefs and thus knowledge (Tollefsen, 2004), or that groups
cannot have beliefs and thus cannot

Essay about Blindsight and Qualities of Visual Perception
Blindsight and Qualities of Visual Perception
ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to defend a broad concept of visual perception, according to which it is a sufficient condition for visual
perception that subjects receive visual information in a way which enables them to give reliably correct answers about the objects presented to them.
According to this view, blindsight, non–epistemic seeing, and conscious visual experience count as proper types of visual perception. This leads to two
consequences concerning the role of the phenomenal qualities of visual experiences. First, phenomenal qualities are not necessary in order to see
something, because in the case of blindsight, subjects can see objects without experiences phenomenal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Concerning the role of the phenomenal qualities for seeing particularly the following two questions are of importance:
(1) The first question is dealing with the causal or functional role of phenomenal qualities: Under the assumption that seeing is based on cortical
information–processing, the question arises, whether the phenomenal qualities of visual perceptions have a function with regard to this processing, in
the sense that the intentional content of visual perceptions depends not only on their intentional, but also on their phenomenal qualities. Is it true, as
among other authors Frank Jackson and Steven Pinker claim, that phenomenal qualities are only epiphenomena, not having any function for
information–processing? (1)
(2) The second question concerns the status of phenomenal qualities: Are the phenomenal qualities of visual perceptions non–intentional qualities, or
do they belong to a certain type of intentional qualities? In other words, are phenomenal and intentional contents essentially different, or are the
so–called phenomenal contents of visual perceptions really part of their intentional contents?
In order to come to a decision concerning these two questions, several authors, among them Peter Carruthers, Daniel Dennett, Colin McGinn, Nicholas
Humphrey and Robert VanGulick, refer to an empirical phenomenon called "blindsight". (2)

Why Is An Excused Act Morally Wrong
In war every combatant, just or unjust, poses a certain type of threat. On the two opposite ends of the spectrum a combatant poses either a culpable
threat or an excused threat. If a combatant poses a culpable threat he poses a threat of wrongful harm to others and he is not justified, premised, nor
excused in his actions (McMahan 159). If a combatant poses an excused threat, he poses a justified threat of harm and is therefore fully excused for his
actions. In addition to the legality of a combatant's actions, just war theory concerns itself with the morality of a combatant's actions. This is an
important fact to recognize because, often times, terms will have a slightly different moral definition than the tradition legal definition with which
average persons are familiar. Before proceeding any further, it is of vast important to understand the terms excuse and permission as a justwar theorists
understands them to mean. For the interest of this paper, when a combatant performs a wrongful act, whether it be moral or legally wrong, but the
combatant is not blameworthy, he is excused. (McMahan 110). Just war theorists believe a combatant is premised to complete an action if the act is
not morally wrong, and cannot warrant a justifiable complaint. The important take away to remember is the victim of an excused act would have a
justifiable reason ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An excused action is still morally wrong. This is the key problem of failing to realize the difference between permission and excuse in relation to the
moral equality of combatants. People who fail to realize the difference of these terms are lead to believe unjust combatants are acting in accordance
with moral law when they are excuses. Whereas in reality, unjust combatants are not to blame for their actions if they are excused, but their actions are
still morally wrong because just combatants are liable to attack, when they are acting in accordance with the principles of jus in

Curious By Ian Leslie: A Brief Analysis
In Curious by Ian Leslie, Leslie discusses how the term "search" has changed meaning over time. He entertains the idea that search engines have made
people demand information at their fingertips with no patience for searching for the answers. Using the idea of general curiosity, diversive curiosity,
and epistemic curiosity, the impact of the internet on the way individuals find answers to questions can be examined. The quotation found on pages 55
through 56 of Curious alludes to the idea that the internet is degrading individual's curiosity by producing information too quick and providing fewer
obstacles for answering difficult questions. When a large amount of questions can be answered by simply typing half of a question into a search
engine, such as Google or Yahoo, individuals become irritated and lose curiosity when a question is unable to be answered in such an easy way. These
characteristics make the name "search engine" not fitting to what actually happens anymore. Search engines take ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
When individuals have to look further to find answers, they find more information that they did not know before. Without a background knowledge of
a topic, it can be difficult to understand new information. Terminology used in materials that provide deeper context on a topic can affect one's
comprehension of a text or other medium of information. A low comprehension level can lead one to lose interest in a topic and decrease their
curiosity. The access to materials that contain said information that is unknown to an individual is also needed to foster curiosity. Knowing where to
find more information reassures individuals that there is more to know about a topic, but when the material is difficult to sort through to find answers,
people lose interest in the topic. Curiosity also struggles to exist when a person feels they know everything there is to know about a

What Is Epistemic Privilege?
Generalizing from broad features leads to problems in determining whether a study1 has epistemic privilege due to the lack of context recognition
and ability for characteristics specific to one study applying to another. Bearing this in mind, I argue that experiments do not have epistemic privilege
over simulations in the general sense, but rather epistemic privilege must be judged using context. Epistemic privilege is when a study, in this case
experiments or simulations, elicits enhanced inferences about the natural world or produces more dependable scientific knowledge (Parke. 2014).
Needless to say, it is sought after and beneficial in scientific processes. As there are two avenues to explore, to avoid confusion I will briefly outline my

Examples Of Hermeneutical Injustice
In this paper, I would like to argue that people with medical condition the is still misunderstood and largely undiagnosed does experience hermeneutical
injustice, rather than a mere circumstantial epistemic bad luck as categorized by Miranda Fricker (2007). The argument provided by Fricker for
differentiating hermeneutical injustice and circumstantial epistemic bad luck is invalid most of the time. This is because those patients continually
experience unequal hermeneutical participation and background social conditions that maintained the relevant hermeneutical gap. Before presenting
my arguments, I would first examine Fricker's view on hermeneutical injustice and the poignant case of circumstantial epistemic bad luck. Next, the
unequal social... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Even if questions about his feelings were being asked, questions that are opposing to the doctor's judgements are barely asked. Patients are usually
hermeneutically marginalized in a way that their views are often being excluded from epistemic consideration. This may be attributed by the difference
in social position of doctors and patients. Doctors usually hold greater social power than patients due to their profession. The power can be exercised
unconsciously to marginalize the hermeneutical participation of the relatively powerless patient groups. In the case of diseases that are highly
infectious and fatal, the usual response is avoiding contact with those patients instead of searching and learning more information about that disease.
Hence, the medical condition remains misunderstood. Salient negative resources are more likely to be left in the hermeneutical pool because those
are the ones which are noticeable to the dominant group. True resources that captures the patients' medical situation and experience can be ignored.
Hence, there is a prejudicial exclusion from the pooling of knowledge, which is the primary harm of hermeneutical injustice identified by Fricker.
Consider the following case: there is a disease that has similar symptoms as being physically abused, in which bruises and bone fracture are the
common and frequent symptom. Patients with such disease visited several large hospitals, but all medical staffs conclude that the patient has been
physically abused and refuse to agree that they are symptoms of a disease or investigate further. The medical staffs have used the usual interpretation
of treating the presence of bruises and bone fracture as a physical abuse in preference of accepting the very unlikely but true interpretation held by the
patients. Those who are living or had close contact with the patients with such disease may be accused of physically

Can Empirical Knowledge Have A Foundation?
Philosophy Essay: "Can Empirical Knowledge Have A Foundation?"
Written By
Charlotte Brown
Epistemological Foundationalism essentially claims that some empirical beliefs carry justification that does not require, or depend, on the justification
of other empirical beliefs. In this essay, I intend to introduce the reading, "Can Empirical knowledge Have A foundation?" Written by Laurence
Bonjour, to give a detailed summary of his arguments – as well as those who object to his – and ultimately to assert my belief that there is currently no
example of an empirical belief that of which can be justified in an epistemic sense without avoiding reference to other empirical beliefs, which would
then have to be justified themselves, not solving the regress problem.
Bonjour begins his paper by examining what he believes to be the main tenant of epistemic foundationalism – which he says is, "The claim that certain
empirical beliefs possess a certain degree of epistemic justification, or warrant which does not depend, inferentially or otherwise, on the justification of
other empirical beliefs – but is somehow immediate or intrinsic." (CITE) He then explains that foundationalism is still a viable argument because
although it has been the target of a fair amount of criticism, the fact of the matter is that it's central thesis has not been accurately attacked, and thus it
still remains strong. The biggest argument for foundationalism is that of the regression argument, which then becomes

The Epistemic Closure Principle By Edmund Gettier
Alexander Jerde Phil 312 10/20/2014
The Epistemic Closure Principle The Epistemic closure principle explains that knowledge can be gained by the logically implied inferences between
a predicate, based on past experience, and a conclusion. By definition epistemic closure purports that we are justified in believing that our logical
inferences are true. Therefore, we can conclude that our past experience (predicate) is a reason to believe a proposition. This principle has been used
as the basis of various forms of skeptical arguments against the traditional analysis and inductive/deductive reasoning. Such an example was presented
by Edmund Gettier, whose arguments question if we are justified in believing our beliefs as knowledge. Also, Hume questioned if we can really trust
inductive/deductive reasoning. In the following I will argue that even though, Gettier's arguments hold some truth, we are still caused to conclude that
the epistemic closure is a logical necessity and true. The epistemic closure principle states that knowledge can be gained by acceptance of predicates
logically implied relationship with their conclusions. Epistemic closure entails that, deductive and logical reasoning are sound principles of reaching
knowledge. Also that, a conclusion (proposition) can be known then by understanding that a necessary logical or deductive inference between a
predicate and a conclusion exist. Epistemic closure also entails that we are justified

Epistemic Reasoning In Blaise Collins The Wager
The undermining of pascal's wager by the fine–tuning data
In the year 1654 at age 31, Blaise Pascal, the renowned mathematician physicist had religious experience that caused him to reorient his life towards
writing a defense for the Christian faith. One of his most famous works was on the subject is "The Wager", which argues, through cost–benefit
Analysis, that individuals should take steps to believe in God. This entire argument hinges on the premise that epistemic reasoning is incapable of
proving, with any real certainty, the existence of God; therefore, individuals must base their decision to believe, or not believe, on prudential reasoning.
Beginning at the end of the twentieth century and continuing to the present day, scientist and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, The premise that epistemic reasoning is incapable of educating our decision in believing in God is a bold claim, on that is disproved by the
"Fine–Tuning Data" argument of Collins. Collins' argument sats that the precise balance of the structural settings of the universe that need to be given
in order to permit life, in any form, is more probable given the Theistic Hypothesis that God (God being an ethereal, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, omnipresent mind, not necessarily the traditional God of Christianity that Pascal is talking about) caused the fine–tuning than the
Atheistic Hypothesis that the universe and its fine–tuning are simply brute facts. The Principle of Confirmation therefore lends the "Fine–Tuning Data"
as evidence for the Theistic Hypothesis over the Atheistic Hypothesis. The objection that there are possible tuning values outside the illuminated range
that could be conducive to life falls flat do to the Principle of Indifference (also called the Principle of Insufficient Reason), which says that since we
do not know how the non–illuminated range can come about, then the "Fine–Tuning Data" is still equally improbable inside the illuminated range. The
Atheistic Many–Universe objection also comes up short because: there is no evidence that other universes than ours exist: without a nonrepeating
function to the Universe Generator, the probability of achieving the "Fine–Tuned Data" does not increase, let alone approach one, like the objection
intends; and even if there were a Universe Generator cranking out universes with a nonrepeating function, that is still more

Conee And Feldman's Epistemic Justification
People read from an abundant number of sources and retain the information presented. However, if people forgot the source of the information, would
they be justified in the knowledge they have gained? Having a justification for knowledge is a necessary condition to have epistemic justification.
According Earl Conee and Richard Feldman epistemic justification could be gained through internalism. Internalism should be understood as a
person's beliefs that are justified only by ideas that are internal to oneself. Ideas can be made internal through mentalism or accessiblism. The former is
beliefs justified by occurrent or dispositional mental states. While the latter are beliefs that are justified by states an agent has some sort of special
access to.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He affirms Sally has the same belief about broccoli and the same background beliefs about the dependability of her memory, however, the source
changed from the New York Times to the National Inquirer, a source that Goldman supposes to be unreliable. Goldman then believes that even
though Sally's internal state is the same, she cannot be justified in believing in that broccoli is healthy. Conee and Feldman agree during this
circumstance Sally does not know the health benefits of broccoli. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Sally is not justified in her belief. The
initial weakness in the objection is the concluding inference is invalid according to Conee and Feldman, while the second fault is that the allegedly
unjustified belief is a justified true belief or better known as a Gettier case. It is a Gettier case because it is a true belief that is accidentally correct,
despite it being realistically believable. The pair clarifies that when Sally forgets her bad source she did not gain justification, however, she gained
justification because she does not have a defeater for a justification for her broccoli

How Does The Author Use Time In The Great Gatsby Epistemic...
Time is essential to living in the universe. Time is the idea that with every second that passes, will be unique. In The Great Gatsby, Nick is an
epistemic narrator. This means that he is flashing back to this time in his life where he lived in West Egg and had a neighbor by the name of Gatsby.
This novel also withholds the characteristics of Gatsby's axiological narrative. Both of these narrative modalities are critical to the reader and further
understanding of the novel.
Nick is an epistemic narrator which means he is reflecting on a certain situation. An epistemic narrative can sometimes seem to create a mystery in how
it's written. The key to an epistemic narrator is a sustained, communal acquisition of knowledge not associated with a time variable. Throughout this
novel we are getting short pieces of the story marked through time. " At nine o'clock one morning late in July..." (Ch 4. Pg 63). And Nick does this
again in chapter five when he states "Two o'clock and the whole corner of the peninsula was blazing with light..." (Ch 5. Pg 81). In both of these
instances he sets the scene with a certain time he remembers. Nick as the epistemic narrator not only selects chapters four through six to use this type
of time sense of the setting, but he does it for the rest of the novel as well. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The axiological narrative involves forming moral obligations based on ethics, values, and religion. In F. Scott Fitzgerald's text Gatsby wants nothing
more that Daisy. He values who Daisy is and feels it's a moral obligation to have her. Gatsby values the money he possess, but desires Daisy for
reason that she also has a connection, an almost symbolic connection with money. Multiple instances she is related with wealth and prosperity. Gatsby,
coming from a poor background, and not having the luxury of the money he has now can give the reader a good understanding of how much he values
money or Daisy in this axiological

My Current Views On Epistemic Analysis
My Current Views on Epistemology This essay will lay out my current views of epistemic topics we have discussed throughout the course. I will
explain my current views on Skepticism, Perception, Gettier Problem, Justification, A Priori, and the role of the Two Systems. I will first explain
my current views I hold and the reasons behind why I hold my current viewpoints of the six topics listed above. I will begin by discussing my
viewpoints of Skepticism. While looking back at my first exam of the course, my viewpoints of Skepticism were based off of Hume's Skepticism.
Looking back, I would say that I still have to agree with some of Hume's ideas about Skepticism. In my exam I wrote about how the external world
helps us form ideas and opinions.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Some of my viewpoints might change regarding Skepticism, Perception, and Justification. For example, my views of being a particular skeptic might
change to extreme skeptic the more education I receive. My viewpoint of perception might change regarding Internalism and Externalism if someone
finds a more coherent view of the combination of Internalism and Externalism, with little disadvantages. Also, my viewpoints of perception could
change if I unexpectedly become deaf or blind, which could alter my experience of the world completely. As I grow older my experiences will
change me into a different person and have a significant impact on some of my current views I hold. As for the topic including, A Priori,Gettier Problem
, and the two systems I still hold strong viewpoints and do not foresee them changing in the

Negative Effects Of Egocentrism
We are a social species. We reproduce sexually and thus our relationships with those around us are essential to our ability to succeed as an
individual. With these ideas in mind, society has come to denounce egocentrism and to view those who are prone to it as undesirable and incapable
of success. Egocentrism is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "Thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others." In the
eyes of most, to think only of oneself is to be parasitic to all others. To lack empathy is to be inherently indifferent which precedes unsuccessfulness.
Why is it then that there are so many stories of cruel billionaire businessman mistreating their employees and loved ones? How can people that
disregard the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, in my experience, for an egomaniac money, sex, and other transient pleasures are just as good as long term relationships. Love and happiness
are chemical cocktails. These chemicals present themselves just as readily in fleeting relationships; commitment is unnecessary to their appearance.
More than that, a self–centered person, barring any mental illness, can choose whether they behave egocentrically or benevolently in their relationships
depending on what they find advantageous. But, the instability of relationships among the egocentric can also be harmful to their empathetic friends
and romantic partners. This case is a bit more tricky, it can be somewhat difficult to just choose to hate someone even if exposure to them is harmful. Is
it really fair to let egotism go unchecked if it destabilizes relationships and causes emotionally harmed to the less naturally egotistical? Truthfully, one
must manage their own relationships. If one experiences emotional distress due to someone else's self–obsession it is his own fault for becoming
involved with an egomaniac. Egocentrism is inherently harmful to interpersonal relationships, but that is the problem of the egomaniac and nobody

Swinburne's Rebuttal To The Substantial Problem Of Evil In...
I posit that God if [He] does exist is ageless, timeless, omniscient, and omnipresent insofar as He exists in a dimension outside time and
three–dimensional space. Because of that, and given the limits of epistemic accessibility, it seems rather impossible to say with certainty what about
God is objectively true. In fact, to say anything more than that outside of what is possibly or probably the case concerning God, is akin to poetry, a
series of metaphors characterizing a hyper–dimensional being. In fact, it seems odd to attach a gender to the Divine, much less an anthropomorphic
form with such certainty. From hereafter, I propose that we refer to God as either an 'It' or, if one felt so inclined, seeing as only a mother could
incubate life prior to birth, I propose ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thereafter, I will attempt to show the falseness of each view in two ways. First, I will present my theory of knowledge that is currently under
development, and which intuits with the limits of human three–dimensional perception. Given the early stages of my developing epistemic theory, I
shall enlist the help of an established epistemic tool in Stephen Wykstra's 'Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access' (CORNEA), a principle that
intends to serve as an answer to both Rowe and Swinburne, albeit mostly the latter. Finally, I will briefly explicate a multiverse solution to the problem
of evil whereby I will attempt to show how a multiverse could–on appearances–satisfy the conditions set by both the theist and the atheist in a manner
that is conceivable by both able to be understood by the intellect as well as the senses so as to serve as an anti–metaphor. In fact, I aim to show that my
prima facie proposal for a multiverse theodicy could give at least prima facie satisfaction to Richard Swinburne's Christian based

Objectivity And Religion
The literatures on values in philosophy on observation and theory have to do with the distinction between the observable and unobservable.
Objectivity comes in degrees. Claims, methods and results can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal. Using the term "objective" to
describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it. The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys
in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry. Understanding
scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society. How can we maintain the view that
objectivity... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Contextual values are moral, personal, social, political and cultural values such as pleasure, justice and equality, conservation of the natural
environment and diversity. The most notorious cases of improper uses of such values involve travesties of scientific reasoning, where the intrusion of
contextual values led to an intolerant and oppressive scientific agenda with devastating epistemic and social consequences. In the Third Reich, a large
part of contemporary physics, such as the theory of relativity, was condemned because its inventors were Jewish; in the Soviet Union, biologist Nikolai
Vavilov was sentenced to death (and died in prison) because his theories of genetic inheritance did not match Marxist–Leninist ideology. Both states
tried to foster a science that was motivated by political convictions (Lenard's "Deutsche Physik" in Nazi Germany, Lysenko's anti–genetic theory of
inheritance in the Soviet Union), leading to disastrous epistemic and institutional

Mcmahan's Epistemic Limitations
I now turn my attention towards McMahan's general proposition concerning epistemic limitations in regards to another aspect that is beyond an
individual's control. He suggests that a soldier is epistemically unjustified for accepting beliefs based on little evidence because it conforms to a
distorted ideology that they have of the world. He states that a unjust soldier that is acting " ...based on factual beliefs for which there is little or no
evidence–but that he accepts it uncritically because the factual beliefs cohere well with the way his distorted ideology says that the world ...has little or
no epistemicallyвЂђbased excuse for participating in his side's unjust war"(McMahan 138). Once again, on the surface, McMahan appears to have a
sound... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I will admit that this is a strong counter, as it is reasonable to claim that the soldier with distorted views should both acknowledge that his racist
views would conflict with his behavior during the war. It is also reasonable to say that the soldier should attempt to resolve his conflict before
going into an unjust war. That being said, human beings, by nature, are creatures of habit. Just as it takes years for us to develop our traits, we also
develop behaviors and practices that stay with us for a prolonged period of time, perhaps for the rest of our lives. Most of our views and practices are
established at an early age, so if you've been practicing something for so long, it eventually becomes a part of your belief system. It will be extremely
difficult to abandon an idea that you have in your belief system. As such we can see that these distorted ideologies, albeit not healthy or helpful in our
relationships with others over time, is extremely hard to permanently get rid

Epistemic Virtue And The Ecological Crisis Summary
In Byron Williston's essay, "Epistemic Virtue and the Ecological Crisis", Williston examines Joel Kovel's ideas on what it takes to get ahead in a
capitalist society: "To succeed in the marketplace and to rise to the top, one needs a hard, cold, calculating mentality... None of these traits are at all
correlated with ecological sensibility or caring" (Kovel, quoted in Williston, p. 250;252). Kovel's ideal person is one that is always looking for deeds
that are self–serving. Kovel is implying that to be successful in life, one must put morals as an afterthought in order to move ahead in this capitalistic
society. I disagree with Kovel statement, based on how Kovel's claims on how to be successful is not true for all professions. Furthermore, I disagree
with Kovel's statements that if someone is successful, they cannot be environmentally sensitive, or possess the trait of being caring by looking at the
cases of Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. When Kovel states to rise to the top, one needs to have a calculating mentality, this may be
true for some people, but not all. Kovel is picturing the stereotype of the 'businessman', one who puts their career over being emotionally caring and
environmentally friendly. Yet someone's career
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This leads me to conclude that Kovel believes that one must choose between being successful or being environmentally friendly and caring. When
looking at the example of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, both high paying actors and supporters of the environment, they are the parents' to six children
(Roberts 2018). One would consider the raising of a child, shows that they contain the caring personality trait. Therefore, Jolie and Pitt can be
successful in their fields, sensitive about the environment, and are still caring people, as they are parents. This goes against Kovel's idea of what type
of people Pitt and Jolie should

Rhetoric Making Sense Of Human Interaction-Making
"Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning–Making"
Explain what the term epistemic means.What is the difference if rhetoric is epistemic versus if it is not?
Epistemic is understanding our perception to certain aspects in our daily lives. It is knowledge that we acquire because of our experiences and what
we have lived. Rhetoric is just like a technique of persuasion, writing effectively, and it is about how we think and how we can change our thoughts.
Therefore, rhetoric is not epistemic if we do not actually understand why we think the way we do.
Does the rhetorical principle help you better understand why the discussion is happening as it is?
I choose to take ethos and pathos as an aspect of rhetorical theory and apply it to one of the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Write a 2–3 paragraph response that describes rhetorics as best you can right now and help your friend know what's important about it.
Rhetorics is basically speaking or writing effectively.It is the study of writing or speaking with the purpose of trying to influence or persuade. The
purpose of studying rhetoric is to achieve that they audience see,feel,believe and think what we want based in our writing. However, obtaining this
goal is not that simple,one has to comprehend that we all think differently based on how we were raised or base in our knowledge. Rhetoric in
knowing how to create a successful writing and speeches. It is extremely important to know rhetoric techniques to achieve any goal that we have in
mind. An example could be a candidate for presidency. If, the candidate does not know what rhetoric is or what it is use for, the presentations and
speeches will most likely fail. As a result, the citizens will not be persuaded to vote and the candidate will lose the elections. Rhetoric is the foundation
to anything that we want to accomplish in our

An Explanation Of An Argument Against The Absurdity Of...
Accepting a skeptical viewpoint would only lead us to a life of pure perspicuity.
Arguments against the absurdity of thinking that any source of knowledge or information when concluding a premise is thus circular and holds no
weight as to the validity of said premise, showing that we must provide some type of justification, whether proven or otherwise to defend our opinions
and conclude value for arguments. To accept this rationale would equate to accepting skepticism across all epistemic philosophical questioning, thus
questioning any and all previous, current and future shared information. The reliability of sources in the context of
Comment [JB1]: You need a title
Comment [JB2]: Each of these sentences is taken, word for word, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on epistemic circularity, which is
not cited as one of your sources.
Comment [JB3]: These sentences are also taken from the same Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry. These sentences are in quotation marks,
which is better than presenting them unquoted. But you don't give the source for the quotation.
Comment [JB4]: I don't know what these sentences mean. hearsay is inarguable. Hearsay is a source, whether reliable or not depends on the source
itself.
The source of one's own knowledge, sense data, and various other means of gaining relevant information to build a foundation for our beliefs, is by
definition, foundationalism. We must question only to a certain degree and allow

There Has Been Great Debate On Whether Science Should Be
There has been great debate on whether science should be value–free or not. The value–free ideal view of science states that the scientific internal
stages should remain free of non–epistemic values and should only be a factor in the external stages of science (Douglas, ). These internal stages are
the selection of different methodologies, choosing which data is useful, and within the interpretation of data (Douglas, ). Non–epistemic values are
beliefs, values, and morals, whereas epistemic values are cognitive values focusing on truths, knowledge, and understanding. Rejecting the value–free
ideal of science means accepting the risk associated with the rejection or acceptance of a hypothesis because of the non–epistemic values within the ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hempel (year) also believed that if there is no evidence can determine certainty within a hypothesis as values are needed to weigh the consequences of
possible errors that may occur in the decision to reject or accept a hypothesis.
Therefore, the potential implications of science are beyond the just the scope of the science field and extend into the public. Only the resultant
technologies of research can be limited but the existence of knowledge alters the outlook on the world. Douglas states search for truth is a
nontranscendent good but the development of knowledge is important and must be weighed against moral choices. Specifically, a scientist must
consider the unintended consequences of their actions in regards to negligence and recklessness to determine if the risks offset the benefits.
Recklessness is defined as being fully aware of the risks or imposing the unjustified risks on others, whereas negligence is defined as being unaware of
the risks that could cause harm and prevent the risk. The Challenger disaster seems to exemplify the issues of scientists, or in this case, engineers,
removing their role responsibilities. The engineers were told to put on their management hat by the Morton–Thiokol management team. However, it
seems that there should not be separate hats but rather there should only be one hat that considers the consequences and implications of their own
actions. The Challenger is not the only example of scientists removing their

The Sorites Paradox And The Epistemic View
solution to it.
The Sorites Paradox begins with the problem that if one looks at a vague term such as a heap, at what point is it no longer a heap if you keep taking
grains of sand out of it. The same can be said for cattle, if one keeps removing cattle from a herd when will it no longer be a herd. The Sorites Paradox
is paradoxical because all the premises appear to be true as well as the argument being valid (the conclusion really follows from the premises); yet
the conclusion appears to be false. In which case there must be a problem with one of the premises in order for the conclusion to be false, however it
is very difficult to see which premise is false. One proposed solution to the problem is the Epistemic view.
There are two versions of the argument the many–premise version and the two–premise version.
The keys steps in the many–premise version of the Sorites Paradox are as follows:
(MPS)(1)1,000,000 grains of sand make a heap; (2)If 1,000,000 grains of sand make a heap, then 1,000,000 – 1 (= 999,999) grains of sand make a heap;
So
(3)999,999 grains of sand make a heap.
(Morris, 2016)
The argument begins with 1,000,000 grains of sand which can obviously be seen as a heap. One grain of sand is subtracted each time e.g 1,000,000 –
1 = 999,999 grains of sand, with the conclusion following that 999,999 grains of sand make a heap. This seems a valid argument as the conclusion
follows from the premises and it is clear that 999,999 grains of sand being

Must We Teach Epistemic And Deontic Use?
Title: Must we teach epistemic and deontic use? Using corpora to identify patterns and make teaching decisions for must
Corpora, which analyze authentic language, have become the new way to discover usage patterns that can be used to help teachers to make informed
decisions about what to teach, and when to teach it. Determining whether epistemic or deontic must is more frequent, and therefore which is the
preferred form to teach was the motivation for this brief analysis. This paper describes a brief corpus examination for the modal must. Specifically, this
analysis examined the patterns that emerged for must. It was determined that the frequency of modality could be a result of the register in which
instances occurred, and within both ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
2)Modals do not change to show tense. 3)Modals carry the negative of the sentence by the addition of not/n 't 4)Modals form questions by inversion
with the subject of the sentence. 5)Modals are all followed by the base form of the verb without the addition of to. Combining a modal auxiliary with
a simply present verb, "to" is not necessary (Celce–Murcia & Larsen–Freeman, 1999). Modals are also difficult to learn because of their meaning, or
how they function in a sentence. Cook (1978) notes in the following quote that the form is not what causes the difficulty, but rather the meaning.
English modal verbs constitute a problem for the student of English as a foreign language. The problem lies not in the surface positioning of the
modals, since they are always the first auxiliary in the verb phrase, nor in the positioning of the negative, since the negative always follows the modal
verb. The problem lies in the recognition and proper use of the meanings. (p.5) Functionally, each modal has several meanings. They can be divided
according to their meanings into being epistemic or deontic modals. Epistemic modals are used to indicate the speaker's opinion about the truth of
some proposition (Palmer, 1990). In other words, in the epistemic use, modals can be interpreted as indicating inference or some other process

Berlyne's Theory Of Exploratory Behavior
Daniel Berlyne (1949, 1950), one of the most prolific contributors to theory and research on exploratory behavior, conceptualized curiosity as a reaction
to novel stimuli that involved feelings of interest or uncertainty. These internal states were assumed to motivate exploration of novel stimuli in order to
acquire new information. Berlyne (1954) explicitly differentiated between epistemic and perceptual curiosity, which differed in terms of the types of
stimuli that activated these emotional states and the behaviors that were motivated by them. Epistemic curiosity was aroused by complex ideas or
conceptual ambiguities (e.g. scientific theories, intellectual conundrums), which motivated asking questions or testing hypotheses in order to gain
knowledge (Berlyne, 1954).... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
sights, sounds), motivated behaviors such as visual inspection in order to acquire new information (Berlyne, 1957, 1958). As Berlyne's (1960, 1966)
conception of curiosity and exploration evolved, he also differentiated between specific and diversive exploratory behavior. Specific exploration was
motivated by both epistemic and perceptual curiosity, and involved the detailed investigation of a particular novel stimulus in order to acquire
additional knowledge or perceptual information. According to Berlyne, specific exploratory behavior was most likely to occur in situations that were
relatively rich with novel stimuli. An example of specific exploration would be to approach and carefully examine a novel object. In situations where
there was limited stimulation, feelings of boredom activated diversive exploration, which involved searchingthe environment for somethingnew and

The Importance Of Cell Phones In The College Classroom
Unfortunately, cell phones have become one of the biggest challenges instructors face in college classrooms as these devices have become a
pervasive part of young people's lives. What used to only make phone calls and send text messages, now does our emailing, sends us Facebook and
Snapchat notifications, and plays music. Additionally, our cell phones are not only used for personal activities, but for school and work life. We want
to be reachable in case of an emergency, but the constant stream of notifications has led our productivity to significantly tumble down. Recently, I
noticed that in many of my classes, even though the professor says there is a "no phone" policy, many students are scrolling through their social media
feeds or responding to a text rather than paying attention to the lecture of the day. I admit to using my phone constantly during class, which often has
led my grades to suffer poorly. Rather than paying attention to the lesson, I was checking on buzzing notifications of entertainment news and random
trivia. Because I was not listening to my professor earlier in the day, I had a difficult time trying to complete the homework assignment. Thus, in an
attempt to be epistemic temperate, for the last two days, I tried to not use my phone during class lectures and study time to measure my productivity.
During my first lecture, it was quite difficult to not constantly check my phone and see what was going on social media. At one point in the morning, I

Frede Vs. Burnyeat: Does The Skeptic Have Beliefs?
Frede vs Burnyeat: Does the Skeptic Have Beliefs? In Michael Frede's article, 'The Sceptic's Beliefs,' Frede argues that contrary to popular
interpretation Pyrrhonian skeptics do, in fact, have beliefs. However, other scholars such as Myles Burnyeat disagree with this notion that Pyrrhonian
skeptics can have beliefs. In this paper I will argue that Frede's view of The Outlines of Scepticism is the correct interpretation of Sextus. As well as
explain and clear up the dispute between epistemic and non–epistemic appearances. First it is important to understand the type of belief we are talking
about before we can truly understand Frede's and Burnyeat's dispute between epistemic and non–epistemic appearances. In The Outlines of Scepticism
Sextus... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Frede argues that when we assent to appearances it is a different type of belief than one we are used to Sextus talking about. The assent to an
appearance is a non– dogmatic belief and Frede believes skeptics are allowed to have non– dogmatic beliefs. In fact, without these non–dogmatic
beliefs all skeptics would have to live lives that resembled Pyrrho's. The difference between epistemic and non– epistemic appearances can be seen in a
passage Frede wrote. "I might, when I see an oar partially submerged in water, say 'it appears bent to me,' where 'appears to me' has the sense that I
believe the oar is bent; if, however, someone explains to me that it only appears bent to me, I shall no longer think the oar is bent. Nonetheless, the oar
still looks bent. And thus I can still say that the oar appears bent, but now I shall be using 'appears' non– epistemically." If the oar really was bent then
'appears' would be epistemic. Burnyeat thinks the difference between epistemic and non– epistemic is the same distinction between how things seem
and reality. Burnyeat also thinks that the skeptic can assent to how things seem but must suspend judgment about how things really are. Because the
skeptic does not assent to reality, Burnyeat believes that the skeptic is not assenting to how something truly is and therefore has no beliefs. However,
Frede thinks

Philosophy and Democracy
1. RONALD DWORKIN: According to Dworkin, democracy is an egalitarian perception to political equality (). Dworkin argues for a substantive
approach to democratic procedure; in effort to secure an equal distribution of political power to citizens as a whole (9; 117). Dworkin's consequential
approach classifies two types of political decisions: "choice–sensitive" and "choice–insensitive" issues (132). Dworkin defines choice–sensitive issues
in terms of justice that: "depends essentially on character and distribution of preferences within the political community" (132). For example, Dworkin
asserts: "The decision whether to use available public funds to build a new sports center or a new road system is typically choice–sensitive" (132)....
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to Estlund, epistemic proceduralism embodies a 'just right' conception of democracy; one that avoids epistemic polarization of democratic
procedure, either too strong or non–existent (74; 75). Estlund's defense of his democratic normative framework highlights the flawed, undemocratic
nature structuring fairness and deliberation (70). Estlund's account for democratic legitimacy avoids fairness based approaches that disregard the
epistemic value of democratic deliberation; as well as the democratic ideal that legitimate decisions are only those that are correct under the highly
restrictive correctness theory (75). Estlund excludes non–epistemic values in his justification of democracy; in addition, Estlund also avoids the ideals
of epistocracy (71). Estlund's epistemic proceduralism holds that a law's legitimacy is derived partly from the epistemic value of the procedure that
produced said laws (70–71). Thus laws can be legitimate–independent of correctness, while still conforming to an epistemic value of democratic
deliberation (70–71). Why obey bad laws? According to Estlund, democracy is dependent on citizen obedience to legitimate procedural
outcomes–independent of correctness (70:75). Citizens are to obey legitimate democratic decisions, even when these outcomes are believed to be
mistaken (77). Estlund argues that the correctness of democratic decisions lies within his theory of epistemic

Right to Believe in God
Do we have the right to believe in God? Are we rational in believing in God? In this essay I will attempt to answer these two connected questions. In
order to do this, I will first discuss the concept of evidentialism, which criticizes or even condemns the belief in God. Then, I will try to criticize
evidentialism in the spirit of William James' attack on it. Finally, I hope to provide some answers to the two questions posed above.
Evidentialism holds that one should believe only that for which one has sufficient evidence. To put it in W.K. Clifford's words, "it is wrong always,
everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Bertrand Russell defended a similar position with his 'true precept of
veracity' that goes as follows: "We ought to give to every proposition which we consider as nearly as possible that degree of credence which is
warranted by the probability it acquires from the evidence known to us."
Evidentialism has permeated itself not only in philosophical inquiry but also in the public domain. In fact, evidentialism is one of the most common
tools used to criticize religion. Bertrand Russell, upon being asked about what he would say if after death he were to be brought to God, said: "Not
enough evidence God! Not enough evidence!" Evidentialists state that being warranted by evidentialist means mostly implies being warranted by the
senses. In the modern Western culture influenced by evidentialism, a reasonable theory must be

Epistemic Racism
Lastly, epistemic racial discrimination has left irreversible emotional and physical damage that continues to haunt the Indigenous community.
"Epistemic racial discrimination refers to the positioning of the knowledge of one racial group as superior to another, it includes a judgment of not
only which knowledge is considered valuable but is considered to be knowledge. In the context of Indigenous health, the imposition of western
knowledge systems and particularly the use of western science to demonstrate the supposed inferiority of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous ways of
knowing constitute acts of epistemic racism" (Allan & Smylie, p. 5, 2015).
Geddes writes about the Indigenous children who were ripped from their families and forced to attend residential schools far away from their
community. The intent was to strip them of their 'Indianess' and force upon them to become 'white' (Geddes). There was a definite agenda to erase their
memories of their culture and be westernized. They were considered inferior beings and were not allowed to speak their language, nor were they
allowed to see their families. These Indigenous children were victims of repetitive emotional, sexual and physical abuse in these residential schools.
Irene painfully recalls her time at Duck Lake Indian Residential where she was repeatedly sexually abused by the principal. At the young age of
twelve the principal sent her to be a maid for his friends without permission granted from her parents

Analysis Of The Article ' Testimonial Injustice ' And '...
In Miranda Fricker's article Testimonial Injustice, she highlights the significant effects for the connection of ethics and epistemology. Ethics is one
of the philosophies' branches that asks the question, "What is a good life or how to live a good life?" Epistemology is the theory of philosophy
that ask the questions, "What do you know?" and "How do you know it?" Fricker basically, combines the two subjects at the matter and produced
the concept of epistemic injustice. According to Fricker, epistemic injustices comes in the form of testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice
involves preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience; that cause any individual to put a label another individual's words as
a credibility deficit or a credibility excess. Fricker highlights, anyone can be a victim of epistemic injustices. In this paper, I will support Fricker's
argument that identity preconception and prejudgments create credibility deficits consequently hindering right practice of epistemic that everyone
should have. According to Fricker, epistemic injustice can occur when the regular everyday individual 's filled his or her minds with prejudicial
stereotypes and social power. A disadvantage of epistemic injustice is that with these prejudicial stereotypes and social images, their brains are
programmed to trigger naturally a message to judge someone's accuracy on their knowledge. Fricker states, "social power is a capacity we have as
social agents to

Miranda Fricker 's Concept Of Epistemic Injustice
Miranda Fricker's Concept of Epistemic Injustice
In Miranda Fricker's article Testimonial Injustice, she highlights the significant effects for the connection of ethics and epistemology. Ethics is one of
the philosophies' branches that asks the question, "What is a good life or how to live a good life?" Epistemology is the theory of philosophy that ask the
questions, "What do you know?" and "How do you know it?" Fricker basically, combines the two subjects at the matter and produced the concept of
epistemic injustice. According to Fricker, epistemic injustices comes in the form of testimonial injustice.
Testimonial injustice involves preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience. In which, causes any individual to put a label
on another individual's words as a credibility deficit or a credibility excess. Fricker highlights, anyone can be a victim of epistemic injustices. In this
paper, I will support Fricker's argument that epistemic injustice creates wrongfully prejudgments about other's credibility of their knowledge. She
thinks that people should change their perceptions and then their beliefs to give people around them a fair chance to prove their credibility. I will be
defending her through examples and back her up in some objection that other's may have against her theory.
According to Fricker, epistemic injustice can occur every day because people tend to fill their minds with prejudicial stereotypes and social power. A
disadvantage of

Is Knowledge Relative Because Epistemic Intuitions Vary?
Is knowledge relative because epistemic intuitions vary?
In a paper entitled Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions, Weinberg, Nichols and Stich (who I will hereafter refer to as WNS) have proposed a
challenge for the "normative project" (WNS 2001: 2) of epistemology, a project which involves taking an analytic perspective on epistemology and
thereby setting norms for how to pursue knowledge. One knowledge–forming processes that the this project is based on, as WNS point out, our
"epistemic intuitions" (WNS 2001: 5), and it is from these intuitions that we may work out a normative account of epistemology. The problem, as WNS
state, is that if groups of people other than those that generally write about epistemology have different ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Unless the relativist could somehow distinguish communitarian factors affecting the status of something as knowledge, and the endorsement of a
village elder as a factor affecting the status of something as knowledge, the relativist would have to admit that the sorts of things that could be
considered within the same sense of "knowledge" can possibly be applied to anything merely depending on the epistemological education that people
have been exposed to. Indeed, the "universal core to "folk epistemology"" that WNS believe their results show in response to the "special feeling" case
is limited to the environment where WNS have conducted their studies and cannot be suggested to be universal.
It seems that it would be more reasonable to conclude in such a case that knowledge is being used in different senses, as Sosa does. He proposes that
the sort of status that the East Asians believe to be more valuable for a belief is one concerned with communitarian factors, whereas Westerners do not
really consider these factors. (Sosa 2005: 14) Thus he argues that when asked in the experiments whether the subjects of these questions really know, he
argues that the answers are in response to different propositions, as some people may answer the question with one sense of knowledge in mind (one
that takes communitarian factors into account), whereas another would not. To conflate the two and assert that there was only one sense of knowledge
would be to exploit an

Doxastic Trust And Preemption Theory Essay
Doxastic trust and Preemption theory support identifying apocalyptic roots through authoritative topoi. The written expression of Doxastic trust is
BcA, where B equals belief and A equals a resulting compatible belief. Jaakko Hintikka introduced this formula, explaining, "In all possible worlds
compatible with what c Believes, it is the case that A"; A (anotherbelief) follows due to B's authority, rather than epistemological evidence for A.
Scholars writing about Preemption theory move a step further. A person listening to an authoritative speaker and so accepts p (the authoritative
speaker's view or belief on the subject) will supplant his or her own constructs of reason with the speaker's in any related area. Christoph JaМ€ger and
Paul Faulkner (among other scholars) have challenged Doxastic trust and Preemption theory of late, but their questions concern trust development,
rather than whether hearer–speaker trust exists. Certain necessary conditions, however, predicate accepting p.
First, trust involves Epistemic Dependence: if H[earer] trusts S[peaker] on O[ccasion–meaning the occasion of the speaker ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They borrow it; scholars have long understood Pseudonymous writing–a category encompassing most Second Temple apocalyptic work–as writing not
just under a famous name, but also assuming the attached authority and trust. Thus, they also borrow epistemic dependence and semantic guidance
from the ancient topos. The hearers (or readers) know beliefs may change from reading the text, so the writer must borrow from sufficiently
authoritative sources to overcome lingering doubt, leaving available those topoi already accepted by the community whom the authors are addressing.
Otherwise, the borne message lacks authority to affect beliefs negating the author's purpose. Finding authoritative topoi in apocalyptic literature
therefore lays bare the influences by which authors make their

Henry Allison 's Two Aspect View
Henry Allison 's two aspect view differs profoundly from the two world view by introducing epistemic conditions. For Allison, the difference between
appearances and things–in–themselves is epistemic rather than ontological. Rather than reflecting two separate realms, phenomena and noumena
reflect the structure of the mind.21 The notable distinction here is that rather than the identification of the appearance with the representation, the
appearance is associated with the thing–in–itself.22 Allison argues that Kant 's conditions of human knowledge should be taken as epistemic
conditions rather than logical conditions.23 Allison defines an epistemic condition as a simply a condition that is necessary for an object or objective
state of affairs.24 These epistemic then turn out to be space, time and the categories; it can be known a priori that every object is structured in terms of
these conditions.25 By introducing epistemic conditions, Allison is capable of separating the two aspect view from the two world view. These
epistemic conditions must be distinguished from metaphysical, ontological and psychological conditions.26 The psychological conditions are defined
as a disposition of the mind which governs belief acquisition.27 The prime example of this would be Hume 's customs or habit as features of the
mind.28 Epistemic conditions differ from them by reflecting the structure mind but differ in that they are objectivating; psychological conditions
reflect how the mind

The Pros And Cons Of Testimonial Silencing
Testimonial silencing has two parts that corresponds with failures of the audience to reciprocate successfully and coerced silencing of the speaker by
the audience. The former refers to testimonial quieting, which occurs when the audience, intentionally or unintentionally, fails to identify the speaker
as a knower, owing to pernicious ignorance – harmful reliable ignorance (Dotson 242). The latter refers to testimonial smothering, which is "when an
audience demonstrates testimonial incompetence with respect to the content of potential testimony" so the speaker truncates her testimony (Dotson
245). A successful linguistic exchange requires the audience to both "understand the speaker's words and understand what the speaker is doing with the
words" (Dotson 237). A failure to accomplish this, unintentionally or intentionally, is epistemic violence. Furthermore, in testimonial quieting, the
audience is failing to hear and understand what the speaker is saying in her testimony. Because the speaker cannot force the audience to hear her/him,
there is no reciprocity between audience and speaker, thus, it's a failed linguistic exchange. This pattern of failing to identify the speaker as a knower
is more prevalent to certain groups of people who are systematically silenced (i.e. black women). This form of silencing is because of harmful reliable
ignorance (pernicious ignorance) which may cause harms to one's intellect, epistemic agency, and intellectual traditions of entire groups.

Metaphysical Emotionism : What Evidence Is There?
(a) What is emotionism? What evidence is there in support of epistemic вЂЁemotionism? Provide 2 examples and explain them. Is there evidence
вЂЁfor metaphysical emotionism? Emotionism according to Jesse Prinz is a set of views according to which emotions are essential to morality.
There are two types of emotionism: 1). Metaphysical emotionism is moral properties are essentially related to emotions and facts without mind
independence 2). Epistemic emotionism is moral concepts are essentially related to emotions. Concepts such as right or wrong are emotional states
of mind. Further epistemic emotionism is divided into two categories: a). Constitutive is moral concepts are constituted by feelings and b).
Dispositional is moral concepts dispose one to have certain feelings. Epistemic emotionism is basically how emotions influence moral judgements.
The evidence in support of epistemic emotionism is the dumbfounding experiment. This is where moral attitudes on sex between siblings were
studied for a group of young people. Most if not all said that is morally wrong to even think about it and is very inappropriate but failed to give an
explanation. Another example involves cannibalism where a woman working in a medical lab cooks and eats part of meat, which was donated to the
lab for research purposes. Again this is something immoral, nasty and wrong. Other examples were cheating is wrong or stealing is wrong. Both of
these being moral concepts are wrong and unacceptable and they align

Epistemic Virtue And The Ecological Crisis Analysis
In Byron Willston's essay, Epistemic Virtue and the Ecological Crisis, Williston examines Joel Kovel's ideas on what it takes to get ahead in a
capitalist society: "To succeed in the marketplace and to rise to the top, one needs a hard, cold, calculating mentality... None of these traits are at all
correlated with ecological sensibility or caring." (Kovel, quoted in Williston, p. 250;252). Kovel's ideal person is one that is always looking for
self–serving deeds. Kovel is implying that to be successful in life, one must put mortality as an afterthought to move ahead in a capitalist market. I
disagree with Kovel statement based on how Kovel's claims to be successful in your field of study, you must be cold, hard, and calculating, which is not
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Kovel is picturing the stereotype of the 'businessman', who puts their career over being emotionally caring and caring about the environment. Yet
someone's career path, like business, does not define their beliefs, thus, they can still care about the environment, regardless of their employer. It
also depends on what their job is, as I view Kovel's term of "the market place" (Kovel, quoted in Williston, p. 250), to be the economy, and how one
would make their income. Movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, who has a net worth of $425 million, would be considered successful based off
economic value. (The Richest, n.d.). DiCaprio seems to be at the top of his field, as according to the website, Rankers (n.d.), DiCaprio is number ten
on their list of best actors in the history of film. According to Kovel then, DiCaprio's personality should be cold, hard and calculating and not care
about the environment. Insead, DiCaprio has raised millions of dollars, through his foundation to protect biodiversity, conserving ocean and to reduce
climate change. Therefore, Kovel's description is false about DiCaprio, as well as many other environmental celebrities like Brad Pitt, Mark Ruffalo
and James Cameron (Rankers,

Evidential Basis in Epistemic Justification Essay
The Significance and Priority of Evidential Basis in Epistemic Justification
ABSTRACT:There are various approaches to epistemology as well as to the philosophy of science. The attempt to naturalize them is the newest
approach. In the naturalistic framework, epistemology turns out to be identical with the philosophy of science. The main characteristic of both
naturalized epistemology and naturalized philosophy of science is their methodological monism. Therefore, both of these meta–level areas of
philosophy pursue only one scientific discipline to be a meta–method for themselves. There are objections to naturalism on the basis that (from a
methodological point of view) naturalized philosophy is monistic. I. The Concept of (Epistemic) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Now, the justification component of the classical definition of knowledge takes place at the center of recent epistemology. Consequently, various
epistemic justification theories as contemporary theories of factual knowledge have been produced with respect to some different classifications of
these theories – e.g. internalist theories (foundationalist and coherentist theories), and externalist ones (probabilist and reliabilist theories): While in
the former ones justification of belief is internal, in the latter ones, external to the believer's mind/mental life. That is, internal justification of the
belief is possible by reflection upon the believer's own conscious state of mind, i.e. upon her internal, doxastic state. In short, the justifiability of her
belief is determined by what beliefs she has, and her direct cognitive access to the justification for her belief is required. On the other hand, in
externalist justification some important feature of the belief justification is outside the mind of the believer. The externally justifiability of a belief
may be a function of the reliability of a belief–forming process, which causes that belief to be a true one, or it may be a function of the probability of
the belief. Such factors as reliability, and probability, which play justificatory role, are external, i.e. non–doxastic factors to the believer. She does not
have direct access to them, while her beliefs, as being her internal,

Epistemic Injustice Greek Summary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Erin Thompson

More from Erin Thompson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Epistemic Injustice Greek Summary