Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:14:44.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Debunking Biased Thinkers (Including Ourselves)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2015

NATHAN BALLANTYNE
NATHAN BALLANTYNE*
Affiliation:
FORDHAM [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Most of what we believe comes to us from the word of others, but we do not always believe what we are told. We often reject thinkers’ reports by attributing biases to them. We may call this debunking. In this essay, I consider how debunking might work and then examine whether, and how often, it can help to preserve rational belief in the face of disagreement.

Keywords

epistemologysocial epistemologyskepticismsources of knowledge and justificationphilosophy of psychology
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 141 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 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

Arnauld, Antoine, and Nicole, Pierre. ([1683] 1996) Logic or the Art of Thinking. Translated by Buroker, Jill Vance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, Nathan. (2014) ‘Knockdown Arguments’. Erkenntnis, 79, 525–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, Nathan. (Forthcoming) ‘The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence’. The Philosophical Quarterly. doi: 10.1093/pq/pqu096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Michael. (2009) ‘Rational Disagreement after Full Disclosure’. Episteme, 6, 336–53.Google Scholar
Christensen, David. (2007) ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News’. The Philosophical Review, 116, 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, David. (2010) ‘Higher-order Evidence’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81, 185–215.Google Scholar
Christensen, David. (2011) ‘Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism’. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11, 1–22.Google Scholar
Christensen, David. (2014) ‘Disagreement and Public Controversy’. In Lackey, Jennifer (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology (New York: Oxford University Press), 143–63.Google Scholar
Christensen, David, and Lackey, Jennifer, eds. (2013) The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cross, K. Patricia. (1977) ‘Not Can, But Will College Teaching be Improved?’ New Directions for Higher Education, 17, 1–15.Google Scholar
Ehrlinger, Joyce, Gilovich, Thomas, and Ross, Lee. (2005) ‘Peering into the Bias Blind Spot: People's Assessments of Bias in Themselves and Others’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 680–92.Google Scholar
Elga, Adam. (Unpublished manuscript) ‘Lucky to be Rational’.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2005) ‘Respecting the Evidence’. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 95–120.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard, and Warfield, Ted, eds. (2010) Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard. (2001) Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frances, Bryan. (2013) ‘Philosophical Renegades’. In Christensen, David and Lackey, Jennifer (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (New York: Oxford University Press), 121–66.Google Scholar
Fumerton, Richard. (2010) ‘You Can't Trust a Philosopher’. In Feldman, Richard and Warfield, Ted (eds.), Disagreement (New York: Oxford University Press), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (2002) Possible Worlds. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. S., Kellas, A. M., and Kennaway, E. L.. (1919) ‘Experiments on Acclimatization to Reduced Atmospheric Pressure’. Journal of Physiology, 53, 181–206.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. S. (1922) Respiration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Chip, Larrick, Richard, and Klayman, Joshua. (1998) ‘Cognitive Repairs: How Organizational Practices can Compensate for Individual Shortcomings’. Research in Organization Behavior, 20, 1–37.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., and Harris, V. A.. (1967) ‘The Attribution of Attitudes’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. (2003) ‘A Perspective on Judgment and Choice’. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. (2008) ‘Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization’. Journal of Philosophy, 105, 611–33.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas, and McGrath, Sarah. (Forthcoming) ‘Are There Any Successful Philosophical Arguments?’. In Keller, John A. (ed.), Being, Freedom and Method: Themes from van Inwagen (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kenyon, Tim. (2014) ‘False Polarization: Debiasing as Applied Social Epistemology’. Synthese, 191, 2529–47.Google Scholar
King, Nathan. (2012) ‘Disagreement: What's the Problem? Or A Good Peer is Hard to Find’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85, 249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 1999. ‘Distrusting Reason’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 181–96.Google Scholar
Kruger, Justin, and Gilovich, Thomas. (1999) ‘‘Naïve Cynicism’ in Everyday Theories of Responsibility Assessment: On Biased Assessments of Bias’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 743–53.Google Scholar
Larrick, Richard. (2004) ‘Debiasing’. In Koehler, Derek and Harvey, Nigel (ed.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. (1983) Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard, and Wilson, Timothy. (1977) ‘Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes’. Psychological Review, 84, 231–59.Google Scholar
Pronin, Emily. (2007) ‘Perception and Misperception of Bias in Human Judgment’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37–43.Google Scholar
Pronin, Emily, Lin, Daniel Y., and Ross, Lee. (2002) ‘The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self versus Others’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronin, Emily, and Kugler, Matthew. (2007) ‘Valuing Thoughts, Ignoring Behavior: The Introspection Illusion as a Source of the Bias Blind Spot’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 556–78.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1982) Reason, Truth, and History. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reeder, Glenn D., Pryor, John B., Wohl, Michael J. A., and Griswell, Michael L.. (2005) ‘On Attributing Negative Motives to Others Who Disagree With Our Opinions’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1498–1510.Google Scholar
Ross, Lee, Ehrlinger, Joyce, and Gilovich, Thomas. (In press) ‘The Bias Blindspot and its Implications’. In Elsbach, K. D. and Kayes, A. B. (eds.), Contemporary Organizational Behavior in Action (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. ([1928] 2004) Sceptical Essays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Norbert, Sanna, Lawrence J., Skurnik, Ian, and Yoon, Carolyn. (2007) ‘Metacognitive Experiences and the Intricacies of Setting People Straight’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127–61.Google Scholar
Sorensen, Roy. (1988) Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelley, and Brown, Jonathon. (1988) ‘Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health’. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.Google Scholar
Wilson, Timothy, and Brekke, Nancy. (1994) ‘Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations’. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Timothy, Centerbar, David, and Brekke, Nancy. (2002) ‘Mental Contamination and the Debiasing Problem’. In Gilovich, Thomas, Griffin, David, and Kahneman, Daniel (eds.), Heuristics and Biases (New York: Cambridge University Press), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Barbara. (1979) ‘Believing at Will’. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 246–56.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter. (2009) Metaphysics. 3rd ed.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar