Phil 1101 1st Edition Lecture 11Outline of Last Lecture I. Knowing from othersII. Ways of knowingIII. How do we transmit knowledge?IV. Testimonial skepticismV. Anti-reductionismOutline of Current Lecture I. Good apples and badII. The (epistemic) state of natureIII. Fricker/Craig hypothesisIV. Rationality and CredibilityV. Rationality without CredibilityCurrent LectureI. Good apples and bada. Suppose you had to sort the good apples from the bad applesb. You’d need a method to be able to tell the differencec. Now suppose you wanted to buy a good apple from someone who says they can tell the differenced. Even if they have a reliable method, that won’t help you unless you can trust they are competent-unless you think they are credibleII. The (epistemic) state of naturea. Suppose we had only ourselves to rely on for information (to get to the doog apples-the true beliefs)These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.b. We wouldn’t survive longc. Humans are social and need each other for information. We need each other to sort the good apples from the badIII. Fricker/Craig hypothesisa. Being a knower, in at least ideal cases, means being a recognizably good informantb. Being a good informant:i. Rational authority1. Competent about the subjecta. Competent: has a reliable method of sorting the good and bad apples (actually gets it right most of the time)b. Trustworthy/dependable: person can be relied on to tell the truth when we need the truth (no bullshit)2. Trustworthy and dependableii. Credibility: there are public clues (indications) they are likely to be rightc. What makes you credible might not have to do with your rational authority, it might be society’s decision that you are credibled. Social power can determine who the good informant is and who is treated as a nobleIV. Rationality and Credibilitya. Fricker:i. These can come apart- and in systematic waysii. And that means they are open to corruption and manipulationV. Rationality without Credibilitya. People can be competent and trustworthy but not recognized as credible by those in powerb. If so, then they aren’t seen as good as they actually arec. Bad Consequences:i. Epistemic injustice: not recognizing someone’s status as a knower because of a non-epistemic fact about their identityii. This results in a possible loss of
View Full Document
Unlocking...