Abstract
AbstractPhilosophical tradition and conspiracy theorists converge in suggesting that ordinary people ought to do their own research, rather than accept the word of others. In this paper, I argue that it’s no accident that conspiracy theorists value lay research on expert topics: such research is likely to undermine knowledge, via its effects on truth and justification. Accepting expert testimony is a far more reliable route to truth. Nevertheless, lay research has a range of benefits; in particular, it is likely to lead to greater understanding, even when it does not lead to knowledge. I argue that we can reap most of the genuine benefits of lay research while minimizing the risks by engaging in exploratory, rather than truth-directed, inquiry. To engage in exploratory inquiry is to engage dogmatically, expecting to be unable to confirm the expert view or to disconfirm rivals.
Funder
Australian Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference52 articles.
1. Ballantyne, N. (2019). Knowing our limits. Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 26, 2019
2. Ballantyne, N., & Dunning, D. (2022, January 3). Skeptics say, ‘Do your own research.’ It’s not that simple. The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/dyor-do-your-own-research.html
3. Boyd, K. (2017). Testifying understanding. Episteme, 14(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2015.53
4. Carter, J. A. (2021). Epistemic autonomy and externalism. Routledge.
5. Carter, J. A. (2022). Autonomous knowledge: Radical enhancement, autonomy, and the future of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Cited by
23 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献