Chapter 10 Flashcards
What are group agents?
Group agents are capable of participating in epistemic relations such as beliefs and being-justified.
Of course the skeptic view may be that group agents are not possible and rather is a case of loose use
Summative approach
Epistemic attitudes of the group agent is determined by how many members believe P.
- BAF and JAF`
Belief aggregation function (BAF)
Functionally, the set of rules that maps each individuals beliefs in P to the groups belief in P.
Essentially the set of rules lays out how many members of G is required to claim that the group agent believes in P
Justificational aggregation function (JAF)
Similar to BAF, just a set of rules for determining how many members of G J-status is required to determine the group agents’s J-status
BAF/JAF problem
There are 100 members in G
40 believe X: a is true
20 believe Y: b is true
60 believe Z: a or b is true
Group G believes Z by majority.
But X, Y are not majority, so group G doesnt believe in it.
But Z arose from the fact the group believes in X and Y, as Z is simply the combination of X and Y
As such, how can only Z be justified if X, Y arent? (due to majority)
Explanation for BAF/JAF
Aggregate functions BAF/JAF are about vertical elements (how does individual beliefs/justification “rise” to the group level?)
However we are missing the horizontal aspect, how do group epistemic attitudes affect the other epistemic attitudes of the group. (How does X, Y affect Z? We should care otherwise we are not accounting for how Z arose from X, Y, not juSt bEcause the majority believe Z)
Social problem of summativism
Not very “social” theory despite being within social epistemology. Explores how individual beliefs/justification arises to group level, but not how groups levels affect group level…
Goldman however says its fine to expect group beliefs to form without intergroup interaction… but this seems silly.
Joint Acceptance Account
Talks about how intergroup interactions can lead to group beliefs. This is much more “social” in a way than Summativism.
What does Shmidtt and Lackey suggest social dynamics (intergroup interaction) do that Summativism doesn’t cover?
Change criteria for justification for something more than merely individuals
Create obligations between group members, whose fulfillment/violation of such obligations affects the J-status. (Maybe certain values of the group)
What does it mean to ask which procedures are most truth-conducive?
It means asking which procedures ware most likely to generate/acquire true beliefs.
Condorcet Jury Theorem (CJT)
Often cited in defense of democratic voting as an effective means of arriving at the truth.
Under certain conditions, a large group voting on a
decision with an objectively correct answer will arrive at that correct answer with extremely high probability.
What are the conditions for CJT?
- Decision must have a right answer
- Every voter should be informed enough more than mere random guessing (should have some justification for vote)
- Each voter is probabilistically independent (knowing one voters’ state gives NO information about anothers)
What tool is being used to find the answer for how social structures influence knowledge acquisition? Give an example of a specific usage
These questions are often investigated using computer models and simulations
An example of a question would be: What common social practices and methodologies result in the best advances in scientific knowledge
Positives and negatives of using simulations to investigate how social structures influence knowledge acquisition
Advantage is it isn’t limited to historical evidence
We can use simulations to investigate the what if’s
However models and simulations involve assumptions and abstractions, each of which requires validation/defense. (Problem of explainability, TLDR hard to know how/why)
