Yu Li-An
Department of Philosophy, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Synthese. 2022;200(5):360. doi: 10.1007/s11229-022-03838-0. Epub 2022 Aug 22.
This paper argues that the value of openness to epistemic plurality and the value of social responsiveness are essential for epistemic agents such as scientists who are expected to carry out non-epistemic missions. My chief philosophical claim is that the two values should play a joint role in their communication about earthquake-related damages when their knowledge claims are advisory. That said, I try to defend a minimal normative account of science in the context of communication. I show that these epistemic agents when acting as communicators may encounter various epistemic and practical uncertainties in making their knowledge claims. Using four vignettes, I show that the value of openness to epistemic plurality and the value of social responsiveness may best serve their epistemic and practical purposes across different contexts by reducing their epistemic and practical risks associated with the knowledge claims they communicated. The former may reduce the risks of prematurely excluding epistemic alternatives and is conducive to two types of epistemic plurality; the latter is supposed to reduce the risks of making self-defeating advisory claims and harmful wishful speaking by minimizing the values in tension that can be embedded in the social roles the epistemic agents play.
本文认为，对认知多元性持开放态度的价值以及社会响应性的价值，对于诸如科学家这类预期要执行非认知任务的认知主体来说至关重要。我主要的哲学观点是，当这些认知主体的知识主张具有咨询性质时，这两种价值在他们关于地震相关损害的交流中应共同发挥作用。也就是说，我试图在交流背景下捍卫一种关于科学的最低限度的规范性解释。我表明，这些认知主体在充当传播者时，在提出知识主张时可能会遇到各种认知和实践上的不确定性。通过四个事例，我表明，对认知多元性持开放态度的价值以及社会响应性的价值，通过降低与他们所传达的知识主张相关的认知和实践风险，在不同背景下可能最有助于实现他们的认知和实践目的。前者可能降低过早排除认知选项的风险，并有利于两种类型的认知多元性；后者则应通过最小化认知主体所扮演的社会角色中可能存在的相互冲突的价值，来降低提出适得其反的咨询主张和有害的一厢情愿言论的风险。
