Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:21:26.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Trust and Social Location

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Nancy Daukas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epistemic trustworthiness is defined as a complex character state that supervenes on a relation between first- and second-order beliefs, including beliefs about others as epistemic agents. In contexts shaped by unjust power relations, its second-order components create a mutually supporting link between a deficiency in epistemic character and unjust epistemic exclusion on the basis of group membership. In this way, a deficiency in the virtue of epistemic trustworthiness plays into social/epistemic interactions that perpetuate social injustice. Overcoming that deficiency and, along with it, normalized practices of epistemic exclusion, requires developing a self-critical perspective on the partial, socially-located character of one's perspective and the consequent epistemic value of inclusiveness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 3 , Issue 1-2 , June 2006 , pp. 109 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bleier, R. (1984). Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and its Theories on Women. Elmsford, NY: Pergamom Press.Google Scholar
Coady, C.A.J. (1992). Testimony. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Collins, P. H. (1986). “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Signifi cance of Black Feminist Thought,” Social Problems 33: S14–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1983). “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge.” In LePore, E. (1986), Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
DuBois, W.E.B. (1994). The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, 2nd edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2003). “Epistemic Injustice and a Role for Virtue in the Politics of Knowing”. In Brady, and Pritchard, (eds.) (2003). Moral and Epistemic Virtues, pp. 139–58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2002). Pathways to Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1991). “Situated Knowledges.” In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, pp. 183–202. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1993). “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity?’” In Alcoff, L. and Potter, E., eds., Feminist Epistemologies, pp. 49–82. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (ed.) (2004). The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism,” in Harding, S. and Hintikka, M. B. (eds.), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives On Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, pp. 283–310. Boston MA: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. (1990). The Politics of Women's Biology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. & Doell, R. (1983). “Body, Bias and Behavior: a Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science,” Signs 9: 206–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, E. (1991). “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”. Signs 16(3). Reprinted in Keller and Harding (eds.) (1996). Feminism and Science, pp. 103–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayan, U. (1988). “Working Together Across Difference: Some Considerations of Emotions and Political Practice,” Hypatia 3(2): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanier, B. (1995). Im/partial Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
The Gender and Biology Study Group. (1988). “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology,” Hypatia 3(1). Reprinted in N. Tuana (ed.) (1989), Feminism & Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. (2003). “Why standpoint matters”. In Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds.), Science and other cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, pp. 26–48. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (1996). Virtues of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar