当前位置: X-MOL 学术Social Epistemology › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
How and Why We Should Argue with Angry Uncle: A Defense of Fact Dumping and Consistency Checking
Social Epistemology ( IF 1.625 ) Pub Date : 2021-06-17 , DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2021.1930275
Matt Ferkany 1
Affiliation  

ABSTRACT

How should we talk to Angry Uncle, or attempt to persuade any very ignorant audience? This paper discusses several strategies, including fact dumping, consistency checking, pandering, and just being friendly. It defends the continued value of fact dumping and consistency checking despite skeptical doubts rooted in recent cognitive science literature about their strategic efficacy. Pandering and friendliness often fail to confront our audience with epistemic resistance and so face serious limitations as means of responding to ignorance. Any reasonable view of how to talk to Angry Uncles must also consider how to meet relevant moral standards, such as showing respect for ourselves, our audience, and important social causes. Without some fact dumping and consistency checking, pandering and friendliness often fail to meet these standards. All in all, the various modes work best together, and it would be a mistake to conclude from unfavorable cognitive science research that we should avoid fact dumping and consistency checking in Angry Uncle exchanges.



中文翻译:

我们应该如何以及为什么要与愤怒的叔叔争论:事实倾销和一致性检查的辩护

摘要

我们应该如何与愤怒的叔叔交谈,或试图说服任何非常无知的观众?本文讨论了几种策略,包括事实转储、一致性检查、迎合和友好。尽管在最近的认知科学文献中对其战略效力存有怀疑,但它捍卫了事实倾销和一致性检查的持续价值。迎合和友好往往无法让我们的观众面对认知抵抗,因此作为应对无知的手段面临严重的限制。任何关于如何与 Angry Uncles 交谈的合理观点还必须考虑如何满足相关的道德标准,例如对我们自己、我们的观众和重要的社会事业表示尊重。如果没有一些事实倾销和一致性检查,迎合和友好往往无法满足这些标准。总而言之,

更新日期:2021-07-27
down
wechat
bug