In this paper, we argue that, although neglected so far, there is a strong link between generics and testimonial injustice. Testimonial injustice is a form of epistemic injustice that “occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word” (Fricker 2007 : 1). Generics are sentences that express generalizations about a category or about its members without specifying what proportion of the category members possess the predicated property. We argue that generics are especially suited to cause testimonial injustice for three reasons. First, generics elicit an “inferential asymmetry” (Cimpian et al. Cogn Sci 34(8):1452–1482, 2010 ). That is, generics are accepted even if only a few individuals possess the predicated property but are, nonetheless, taken to refer to almost all the members of the category. This peculiar combination makes generics particularly apt to cause testimonial injustice. High resistance to counter-evidence is a crucial feature of prejudice, the cause of testimonial injustice, and the more highly predictive a generalization the more it will be employed in concrete situations, leading to instances of testimonial injustice. Second, generics seem to play a key role in leading people to develop essentialist beliefs (Gelman et al. Cogn Psychol 61(3): 273–301, 2010 ; Rhodes et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(34): 13526–13531, 2012 ). Subjects holding such beliefs treat categories as warranting strong generaliations over their members. Therefore, they will be more likely to rely on prejudice while dealing with the category members. Finally, generics are outstandingly common in everyday speech. Hence, their noxious effects are amplified by their diffusion and should not be underestimated.

中文翻译：

---

泛型和认知不公正

在本文中，我们认为，尽管迄今为止被忽视，但泛型和证词不公正之间存在很强的联系。证词不公正是认知不公正的一种形式，“当偏见导致听者对说话者的话的可信度降低时就会发生这种情况”（弗里克，2007 年：1）。泛型是表达关于类别或其成员的概括的句子，但没有指定类别成员拥有谓词属性的比例。我们认为，由于三个原因，泛型特别适合导致证词不公正。首先，泛型引起“推理不对称”（Cimpian 等人。Cogn Sci 34 (8): 1452-1482, 2010）。也就是说，即使只有少数人拥有谓词属性，泛型也被接受，但仍然被视为指代该类别的几乎所有成员。这种奇特的组合使得泛型特别容易造成推荐不公正。对反证的高度抵抗是偏见的一个重要特征，它是证词不公正的原因，并且概括的预测性越高，它就越会在具体情况下被采用，从而导致证词不公正的实例。其次，仿制药似乎在引导人们形成本质主义信念方面发挥着关键作用（Gelman 等人 Cogn Psychol 61 (3): 273-301, 2010; Rhodes 等人 Proc Natl Acad Sci 109 (34): 13526-13531 , 2012)。持有这种信念的受试者将类别视为对其成员进行强烈概括的保证。因此，他们在与类别成员打交道时更可能依赖偏见。最后，泛型在日常用语中非常普遍。因此，