I really enjoyed this post and contemplating mentioning Mary's Room in my comment and then read your mentiin of it! Wonderful!. But I think it worth mentioning the essential muddiness of meta-epistemic claims. They assume that human minds, the originators of such claims, are homogeneous like a line of toasters coming off a factory assembly belt. The latter are manifestly not, neither in the info they receive, nor in what weight they attach to it, nor in what data is operating sub rosa in their claims!
But my quibbles aside, you've written a wonderful paper! I'd love to hear your thoughts of how to judge conflicting claims of epistemic privilege in environments where the group identity of the speakers are hidden, or even deceptive. Example, use of avatars in metaverse encounters.
If a philosopher wishes to be read by anyone other than other academics, who are unlikely to read anyway given that they are focused on their own articles....
If a philosopher wishes to be perceived as relevant by the broad public (a MUCH larger audience) who funds academic philosophy....
It could be a wise strategy to ruthlessly strip out any specialized terminology which one has learned in the ivory tower. The theory here is that if the point of an article can not be expressed in every day common street language accessible to the average human being, it may be a point that's not worth making. Something to consider, that's all...
Lidal Dror (Princeton University), "Is There an Epistemic Advantage to Being Oppressed?"
Good paper, and very important point (at the end of this post).
I really enjoyed this post and contemplating mentioning Mary's Room in my comment and then read your mentiin of it! Wonderful!. But I think it worth mentioning the essential muddiness of meta-epistemic claims. They assume that human minds, the originators of such claims, are homogeneous like a line of toasters coming off a factory assembly belt. The latter are manifestly not, neither in the info they receive, nor in what weight they attach to it, nor in what data is operating sub rosa in their claims!
But my quibbles aside, you've written a wonderful paper! I'd love to hear your thoughts of how to judge conflicting claims of epistemic privilege in environments where the group identity of the speakers are hidden, or even deceptive. Example, use of avatars in metaverse encounters.
If a philosopher wishes to be read by anyone other than other academics, who are unlikely to read anyway given that they are focused on their own articles....
If a philosopher wishes to be perceived as relevant by the broad public (a MUCH larger audience) who funds academic philosophy....
It could be a wise strategy to ruthlessly strip out any specialized terminology which one has learned in the ivory tower. The theory here is that if the point of an article can not be expressed in every day common street language accessible to the average human being, it may be a point that's not worth making. Something to consider, that's all...