David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):233-253 (2013)
Epistemic trust is crucial for science. This article aims to identify the kinds of assumptions that are involved in epistemic trust as it is required for the successful operation of science as a collective epistemic enterprise. The relevant kind of reliance should involve working from the assumption that the epistemic endeavors of others are appropriately geared towards the truth, but the exact content of this assumption is more difficult to analyze than it might appear. The root of the problem is that methodological decisions in science typically involve a complex trade-off between the reliability of positive results, the reliability of negative results, and the investigation's power (the rate at which it delivers definitive results). Which balance between these is the ‘correct’ one can only be determined in light of an evaluation of the consequences of all the different possible outcomes of the inquiry. What it means for the investigation to be ‘appropriately geared towards the truth’ thus depends on certain value judgments. I conclude that in the optimal case, trusting someone in her capacity as an information provider also involves a reliance on her having the right attitude towards the possible consequences of her epistemic work. 1 Introduction2 Epistemic Reliance within the Sciences3 Methodological Conventionalism4 Trust in Science5 Conclusions
|Keywords||social epistemology epistemic trust reliability science and values|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
José Granero-Molina, Cayetano Fernández-Sola, José María Muñoz Terrón & Cayetano Aranda Torres (2015). Habermasian Knowledge Interests: Epistemological Implications for Health Sciences. Nursing Philosophy 16 (2):77-86.
Similar books and articles
Axel Gelfert (2013). Coverage-Reliability, Epistemic Dependence, and the Problem of Rumor-Based Belief. Philosophia 41 (3):763-786.
Karen Jones (2012). The Politics of Intellectual Self-Trust. Social Epistemology 26 (2):237-251.
Linda Zagzebski (2003). Epistemic Trust. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 10 (2):113-117.
Sven Diekmann & Martin Peterson (2013). The Role of Non-Epistemic Values in Engineering Models. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):207-218.
Judith Simon (2010). The Entanglement of Trust and Knowledge on the Web. Ethics and Information Technology 2010 (12):343-355.
Snježana Prijić-Samaržija (2001). Trust and Epistemic Cooperation. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):147-157.
Heather Douglas (2000). Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (4):559-579.
Cynthia Townley (2003). Trust and the Curse of Cassandra (An Exploration of the Value of Trust). Philosophy in the Contemporary World 10 (2):105-111.
Tomoji Shogenji (2012). Internalism and Externalism in Meliorative Epistemology. Erkenntnis 76 (1):59-72.
Stephen Wright (2010). Trust and Trustworthiness. Philosophia 38 (3):615-627.
Gloria Origgi (2008). Trust, Authority and Epistemic Responsibility. Theoria 23 (1):35-44.
Barry Lam (2013). Calibrated Probabilities and the Epistemology of Disagreement. Synthese 190 (6):1079-1098.
Ben Almassi (2012). Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness. Ethics and the Environment 17 (2):29-49.
Anita Ho (2011). Trusting Experts and Epistemic Humility in Disability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):102-123.
Added to index2012-10-02
Total downloads184 ( #5,847 of 1,700,311 )
Recent downloads (6 months)136 ( #543 of 1,700,311 )
How can I increase my downloads?