Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T19:21:23.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SOCIAL VALUE OF REASONING IN EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2015

Jennifer Nagel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Social epistemology has to be admired for its courage in tackling those areas of human judgment that seem most epistemically problematic. When and how are we justified in accepting the testimony of a stranger? That looks like a hard question. Social epistemology has less obvious application to what might be considered the easy cases of epistemic justification: for example, the justification of judgments founded on explicit reasoning (‘there is no largest prime number’), or inner sense (‘I am presently feeling cold and a bit nervous’). My aim in what follows is to explore the social dimension of these ‘easy’ cases, and in fact also to discuss some hidden reasons why the epistemic justification of these judgments seems less problematic than the justification of judgments based on, for example, testimony and perception.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 12 , Special Issue 2: 10th Anniversary of Episteme , June 2015 , pp. 297 - 308
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Audi, R. 2001. ‘An Internalist Theory of Normative Grounds.’ Philosophical Topics, 29: 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balci, F., Freestone, D., and Gallistel, C. R. 2009. ‘Risk Assessment in Man and Mouse.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106(7): 2459–63.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2008. ‘Metacognition in Animals: A Skeptical Look.’ Mind & Language, 23(1): 58–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2011. The Opacity of Mind: An Integrative Theory of Self-Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, J. D., Alford, W. T., Zhou, W., and Hohmann, A. G. 2013. ‘Source Memory in the Rat.’ Current Biology, 23: 387–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ernst, M. O. and Banks, M. S. 2002. ‘Humans Integrate Visual and Haptic Information in a Statistically Optimal Fashion.’ Nature, 415(6870): 429–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. 2009. ‘Introspection, Confabulation, and Dual-process Theory.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2): 142–3.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. 2012. ‘The Role of Metacognition in Human Social Interactions.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599): 2213–23.Google Scholar
Garrett, E. J. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E. 2002. ‘‘Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-geometric Analysis.’ Language, 78(3): 482–526.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., and Lindsay, D. S. 1993. ‘Source Monitoring.’ Psychological Bulletin, 114(1): 3–28.Google Scholar
Lee, D. 1938. ‘Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language.’ Philosophy of Science, 5(1): 89–102.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. 1999. ‘Accounting for the Effects of Accountability.’ Psychological Bulletin, 125(2): 255–75.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. 2011. ‘On the Universality of Argumentative Reasoning.’ Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11(1–2): 85–113.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. and Sperber, D. 2011. ‘Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2): 57–74.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y., and Han, C. 2007. ‘Evidentiality in Language and Cognition.’ Cognition, 103(2): 253–99.Google Scholar
Smith, J. D. 2009. ‘The Study of Animal Metacognition.’ Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(9): 389–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, P. 2004. ‘Evidential Paradigms, World Variables and Person Agreement Features.’ Italian Journal of Linguistics, 16(4): 253–80.Google Scholar
Speas, P. 2008. ‘On the Syntax and Semantics of Evidentials.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5): 940–65.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., and Wilson, D. 2010. ‘Epistemic Vigilance.’ Mind and Language, 25(4): 359–93.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 1998. ‘Individual Differences in Rational Thought.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2): 161.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. 1973. ‘Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability.’ Cognitive Psychology, 4: 207–32.Google Scholar
Von Fintel, K. and Gillies, A. S. 2010. ‘Must … stay … strong!’ Natural Language Semantics, 18(4): 351–83.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wimmer, H., Hogrefe, G. and Perner, J. 1988. ‘Children's Understanding of Informational Access as Source of Knowledge.’ Child Development, 59(2): 386–96.Google Scholar