Epistemic Trespassing

Posted by Doug_Huffman 2 months ago to Philosophy
8 comments | Share | Flag

Nathan Ballantyne
Mind, Volume 128, Issue 510, April 2019, Pages 367–395, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzx042
Published: 12 February 2018

Epistemic trespassers judge matters outside their field of expertise. Trespassing is ubiquitous in this age of interdisciplinary research and recognizing this will require us to be more intellectually modest.

Sci-hub.tw hops all paywalls
SOURCE URL: https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-abstract/128/510/367/4850765?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Analog_Kid 1 month, 4 weeks ago
    "...will require us to be more intellectually modest"

    LOL, okay Officer Karen of the Thought Police. I'll try to stop using my rational faculty when it comes to observing facts of reality and commenting on them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by 1 month, 3 weeks ago
      Otay Zoomer. I’ll leave you in bliss.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Analog_Kid 1 month, 3 weeks ago
        What does this even mean???

        Are you sanctioning this condescending belief that only those "in the field of expertise" can opine on said field?

        So just because Ayn Rand didn't have a degree in economics she should have exercised intellectual "modesty" and never mentioned capitalism at all, ever because she didn't have the arbitrary, subjectively defined honorific of "expert" in this field? Mon Dieu!

        Not trying to argue here, I'm legit trying to understand your point and I thank you for the clarification, especially if I misunderstood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 months ago
    Enforcing rules against this 'trespassing' is the job of government licensing agencies. It stops good designers from calling themselves architects, and good therapists from identifying as psychologists.
    It is meant to protect the public against imposters. Maybe, what it clearly does is protect the insiders from competition.
    Comments about climate change are sneered at or censored out if the source is not a peer reviewed qualified climate scientist, that is, a club member. Likewise, comments about religion were once banned unless from a qualified theologian or priest.

    While arguments can go back and forward as to the 'utility' of this kind of banning, it is contrary to Objectivism which holds that opinions and expertise are to be judged by the public and valued by payment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo