Negotiating Epistemic Authority
نویسندگان
چکیده
Why do we trust what other people say, and form beliefs on the basis of their speech? One answer: they are taken to have epistemic authority. Intuitively this means that the other person (or institution, or group) is taken to be authoritative in what they say, at least with respect to a particular domain. Here, we want to claim that there are (at least) two varieties of epistemic authority, one based on reliability and one on assuming (nonepistemic) authority. We claim that both are subject to linguistic negotiation. This paper begins by reviewing McCready’s (2015) theory of reliability, and then turns to strategies for attempting to assume epistemic authority, focusing on those involving the use of not-at-issue content. We then show the results of two experiments which test the interaction of stereotypes about gender with epistemic authority, and how this is mediated by language use, focusing on the case of gendered pronouns. Finally, the results are explored for Bayesian views of argumentation and analyzed within McCready’s Reliability Dynamic Logic.
منابع مشابه
What Is An Expert That A Person May Trust Her?
I present a definition of expertise that involves both epistemic and political authority. I argue that these two forms of authority require different treatments and defend a political epistemology that articulates a division of cognitive labor between political and epistemic authority.
متن کاملKnowledge, Moral Claims and the Exercise of Power in Global Health
A number of individuals and organizations have considerable influence over the selection of global health priorities and strategies. For some that influence derives from control over financial resources. For others it comes from expertise and claims to moral authority—what can be termed, respectively, epistemic and normative power. In contrast to financial power, we commonly take for granted th...
متن کاملNegotiating authority: a comparative study of reform in medical training regimes.
Recently the medical profession has faced increased outside pressure to reform postgraduate medical training programs to better equip young doctors for changing health care needs and public expectations. In this article we explore the impact of reform on professional self-governance by conducting a comparative historical-institutional analysis of postgraduate medical training reform in the Unit...
متن کاملReconsidering Authority Scientific Expertise, Bounded Rationality, and Epistemic Backtracking
How to regard the weight we give to a proposition on the grounds of its being endorsed by an authority? I examine this question as it is raised within the epistemology of science, and I argue that “authority-based weight” should receive special handling, for the following reason. Our assessments of other scientists’ competence or authority are nearly always provisional, in the sense that to sav...
متن کاملThe Dynamics of Consensus Building in Intracultural and Intercultural Negotiations
This research examines the dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations achieved through the convergence of mental models between negotiators. Working from a dynamic constructivist view, according to which the effects of culture are socially and contextually contingent, we theorize and show in two studies of U.S. and Chinese negotiators that while consensus mig...
متن کامل