Topics in Epistemology

Reading Methodology

The course texts will be read on Perusall, an online tool where you can and should add your own comments to the texts for your classmates to read. These comments can be simple doubts, clarificatory questions, reconstructions of the arguments of the text, elaborated counterarguments, counterexamples, and objections of any kind, but also references to related discussions or works. The idea is to use some of such comments in class discussion.

To enroll in the Perusall course, all you need to do is create a Perusall account and enter the course code when registering.

Discussion Methodology

The instructor will act as moderator and ensure that the most relevant topics of the papers are discussed.

Aside from these written comments, you are expected to actively participate in the group discussion by presenting your point of view and dynamically moving the discussion forward by responding to other students' comments (i.e., you are expected to agree, disagree, or follow up).

Writing Methodology

Research paper

The length of the research paper will be between 3000-5000 words. However, the length of the paper (within these limits) will not be considered relevant for evaluation. Instead, your paper will be evaluated on the following criteria:

• Philosophical rigor and depth (including whether the structure is in service of the dialectical goals).
• Clarity.
• Mastery of the topic (including mastery of the philosophical concepts).
• Originality.

Blog post

Two weeks before the research paper deadline, you will participate in a blog on social epistemology in which you will be both a contributor and a commentator.

• As a contributor, you will present one or at most two of the arguments you give in your research paper in a 1000-word post on the blog. Be specific: the point is not to present a general problem or thesis, but a specific argument.
• As a commentator, you will comment on the other students' posts.

Contributions and comments to the blog will last one week. This means the following:

• A few days before the blog opens, you must submit your 1000-word essay.
• The instructor will upload your text to a website where the other students will have the opportunity to read it.
• That week, you will receive at least one written critical comment on your essay from each of the other students.
• Conversely, you must provide at least one written critical comment on the other students' essays (to all of them).
• You may respond to the other students' comments on your essay, but you are not required to do so. 
• The other students may respond to your responses, but are not required to do so.
• And so on. 
• The deadline for submitting your comments is the last day of the blog.

It is highly advisable that your essay be based on an almost finished draft of your research paper so that you can incorporate the feedback you have received (if relevant), polish the paper the week after the blog closes, and submit it. In this sense, the blog serves as a final quality check before submission.

Feedback Methodology

You will receive feedback on your work from two sources. 

First, the instructor will be happy to give you advice and feedback on the writing process at any time. In order to keep email correspondence to a minimum, this feedback will be given informally before or after class, or as needed during office hours. (In either case, you are required to tell the instructor the topic of your paper, even if you do not want or need feedback or advice.)

Second, you will receive at least as many comments on your blog posts as there are enrolled students minus one (i.e., you).

Sessions 

One session per week, 3 hours per session.

Week 1. Introduction to the Course (February 10)

• General introduction to epistemology/social epistemology. 
• Explanation of the methodology and organizational aspects of the course.

Week 2. Epistemic Injustice: Testimonial Injustice, Credibility (February 17 — 24 pages)

• Fricker, Miranda. 2011. Rational Authority and Social Power: Towards a More Truly Social Epistemology. In Goldman, A. & Whitcomb, D. (eds.). Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. (15 pages)
• Luzzi, Federico (2016). Testimonial Injustice Without Credibility Deficit. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 5: 203-211. (9 pages)

Week 3. Epistemic Injustice: White Ignorance (February 24— 21 pages)

• Martín, Annette 2021. What is White Ignorance? The Philosophical Quarterly 71: 864-85. (21 pages)

Week 4. Testimony: Reductionism, Nonreductionism, Transmission  (March 3 — 26 pages)

• Lackey, Jennifer. 2011. Testimony: Acquiring Knowledge from Others. In Goldman, A. & Whitcomb, D. (eds.). Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. (15 pages) 
• Carter, J. Adam & Nickel, Philip J. 2014. On Testimony and Transmission. Episteme 11: 145-155. (11 pages)

Week 5. Testimony: Expert Testimony (March 10 — 20 pages)

• Grundmann, Thomas (forthcoming). Experts: What are they and how can laypeople identify them? In Jennifer Lackey & Aidan McGlynn (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Social Epistemology. Oxford University Press (20 pages).

Week 6. Groups: Group Belief (March 17— 24 pages)

• Lackey, Jennifer. 2020. Group Belief: Lessons from Lies and Bullshit. Chapter 1 of The Epistemology of Groups. Oxford University Press. (24 pages) 

Week 7. Groups: Justified Group Belief (March 24— 37 pages)

• Lackey, Jennifer. 2020. What Is Justified Group Belief?. Chapter 2 of The Epistemology of Groups. Oxford University Press. (37 pages)

Week 8. Groups: Collective Epistemic Virtues and Vices (March 31 —  30 pages)

• Fricker, Miranda. 2010. Can There Be Institutional Virtues? In Szabo Gendler, T & Hawthorne, J. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Volume 3. Oxford University Press. (30 pages)

Week 9. Disagreement: The Concept of Disagreement  (April 14 — 20 pages)

• Worsnip, Alex. 2019. Disagreement as Interpersonal Incoherence. Res Philosophica 96: 245-268. (20 pages)

Week 10. Disagreement: The Equal Weight View, the Total Evidence View (April 21 — 34 pages)

• Kelly, Thomas. 2011. Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence. In Goldman, A. & Whitcomb, D. (eds.). Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. (34 pages)

Week 11. Disagreement: Higher-Order Evidence (April 28 — 29 pages)

• Christensen, David 2010. Higher-Order Evidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81: 185-215. (29 pages)