Search

Neste estudo, argumento que a existência do conhecimento por especialista potencialmente coloca um problema para o evidencialismo, a visão de que a justificação que uma pessoa tem sobrevem à evidência que essa pessoa possui. Um especialista é o tipo de pessoa a partir de quem o conhecimento (ou a crença justificada) é esperado em situações em que um não-especialista normalmente não atingiria o conhecimento (ou a crença justificada). Assim, potencialmente, o estatuto epistêmico das crenças deles diferem, mesmo que a evidência que possuem pareça ser a mesma. Uma solução viável a esse problema tem de mostrar que, apesar das aparências, o especialista e o não-especialista, nos casos problemáticos, não possuem a mesma evidência. Proponho uma solução a esse problema, ao defender um princípio que especifica as condições sob as quais um item de informação deveria contar como evidência

This paper focuses on extant approaches to counteract the consumption of fake news online. Proponents of structural approaches suggest that our proneness to consuming fake news could only be reduced by reshaping the architecture of online environments. Proponents of educational approaches suggest that fake news consumers should be empowered to improve their epistemic agency. In this paper, we address a question that is relevant to this debate: namely, whether fake news consumers commit mistakes for which they can be criticized and that they could easily avoid by reforming their doxastic conduct. Proponents of structural approaches, like R. Rini and B. Millar, have defended in different ways a negative answer to this question. In this paper, we criticize their views and suggest that individual users could improve on their epistemic practice by widening their information diet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Along with what McDowell has called the disjunctive conception of experience (DCE), and against a venerable tradition, the veridical experience that P and the subjectively indistinguishable hallucination that P are not type-identical mental states. According to McDowell, a powerful motivation for DCE is that it makes available the sole internalistically acceptable way out of a sceptical argument targeting the possibility of perceptual knowledge. In this paper I state in explicit terms the sceptical argument McDowell worries about, and show that DCE has not the epistemological merits that McDowell ascribes to it. To begin with, I join a series of commentators in arguing that the way out of the sceptical argument made available by DCE is not internalistically acceptable, and so argue that it is not a way out that an internalist about epistemic justification would have any special reason to prefer to a parallel externalist way out that does not commit to DCE. Secondly, I show that the internalist can resist the sceptical argument by denying a different premise of it that McDowell takes for granted. I conclude by maintaining that McDowell's epistemological motivation for DCE is undercut. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]