When are we obligated to believe someone? To what extent are people authorities about their own experiences? What kind of harm might we enact when we doubt? Questions like these lie at the heart of many debates in social and feminist epistemology, and they’re the driving issue behind a key conceptual framework in these debates—gaslighting. But while the concept of gaslighting has provided fruitful insight, it's also proven somewhat difficult to adjudicate, and seems prone to over-application. In what follows, I argue that Katherine Hawley's theory of trust can provide a useful alternative lens for looking at contested testimony. To do this, I focus on a particularly complex—but increasingly popular—application of gaslighting: the physician/patient relationship, and the idea of ‘medical gaslighting’. I argue that, even though patients can experience harm when they are disbelieved, there are nevertheless good reasons for physicians not to trust patients about at least some of their own narratives.

中文翻译：

---

信任、不信任和“医疗煤气灯”

我们什么时候有义务相信某人？人们对自己的经历有多大的权威？当我们怀疑时，我们会造成什么样的伤害？像这样的问题是社会和女权主义认识论中许多争论的核心，它们是这些争论中一个关键概念框架背后的驱动问题——煤气灯。但是，虽然煤气灯的概念提供了富有成效的见解，但它也被证明有些难以判断，而且似乎容易过度应用。在下文中，我认为凯瑟琳霍利的信任理论可以提供一个有用的替代视角来审视有争议的证词。为此，我专注于一个特别复杂但越来越流行的煤气灯应用：医患关系，以及“医疗煤气灯”的概念。我认为，