This is awesome! As a sex therapist in training this (hermeneutical injustice) is really useful to empower asexual people when it relates to sexual consent. My mind is blowing up at SO many levels. Apart from asexuality, now I know the HI concept I see it in a lot of contexts. Which is ironically and funny at the same time. I'm laughing alone in my room thinking about this and searching for Fricker's book on Amazon. I'm thirsty to know more.
This is really succinct. I have been researching this concept in clinical encounters. As a physician who has expertise in the clinical neurosciences I evaluate a lot of patients who claim disability. Anecdotally, I experience that other professionals including administrative judges tend to lend less legitimacy to comments made by patients who are “diagnosed” as having mental health conditions or perceived as “difficult patients” because they raise questions or may not be perceived as “eloquent or sophisticated”. Another area where epistemic injustice is very palpable is in Family Court. This is especially true in the county I live in. I would love an opportunity to discuss these issues with you and bring to light how epistemic injustice looks in these contexts with profound implications for patients and even children of divorce. Thanks for this video. May I recommend also the book The Epistemic Dimensions of Ignorance to supplement Miranda Fricker’s eloquent concepts.
Awesome video! You explain the theory really well and I appreciate how accessible your language is. Plus your video editing and “on-camera presence” are spot on. Keep it up :)
The video was amazing. I am currently thinking about these social epistemological issues as well and your video was extremely helpful in trying to clear out the vocabularies in social epistemology. Thank you!
Thanks for bringing attention to this. I have often felt like I had difficulty in voicing my perfectly sound opinion because people would simply not believe my beside all logic.
Thanks! Putting a name to a form of injustice is an important step towards addressing it. Before *sexual harassment* was a commonplace concept, victims lacked the words to describe their experience - similar thing here I think. Fuji XT3 camera + kit lens (nice, but overkill for this). Cheap light from ebay, in a softbox, high up on a stand.
i am writing a paper about testimonial injustice and dismissive incomprehension... i know that there are many cases of them, but i can not find concrete examples like the case of tom robinson. it can be an article in a newspaper or a video on youtube. can anyone help ?
I would forward that epistemic injustice isn't just but being seen as a knower, but also not seen as having a system of understanding or ways of orienting oneself to a world that I've had created in order to come to knowing. Meaning that all colonized peoples are post apocalypse... having worlds destroyed and all knowledge produced in and of that world both destroyed and obscured... Then to have a system of knowledge inserted that justifies itself and has no external auditors.
Yes good point - we might even understand "system of understanding or ways of orienting oneself to a world" as knowledge in a broad sense of the term, encompassing practical know-how as well as knowledge-that.
So this is an interesting topic and I enjoyed the video, but why is it in the playlist on the philosophy of truth? It doesn't seem very relevant to that topic. It would fit better in a playlist on moral philosophy or social justice.
Interesting standpoint. I am not sure just because one has an experience than someone else has have, that they cannot convey that knowledge in a way that their interlocutor cannot understand. Or I may be completely misunderstanding the position.
Yes, you've missed the point here! Epistemic injustice is when someone, because of the kind of person they are, isn't treated as possessing knowledge when they in fact do.
Here's an example: suppose you're a female scientist, an expert in, say, quantum measurement. You tell someone a fact you know about how quantum mechanics works. But, because you're a woman, they assume you don't really know stuff about science. Maybe they ask a male colleague instead. They don't treat you as having knowledge, because of the kind of person you are. That's epistemic injustice.
Very interesting and useful concepts that fail the basic hypocrisy test: do you apply them to yourselves? If white males say "Ummm..." do we just perform epistemic injustice on them and not bother hearing the rest of the sentence? If Men's Rights Activists say "We believe that feminism has the following issues that deeply concern us: One..." so we just tune them out? I have a feeling that's exactly what we do, that is if we are this video's target audience. So if what's good for the goose is good for the gander, this video is great. If on the other hand it's just another intellectual tool that *I* can only use against *you* and then ignore you if you reply in kind, then it's classic hypocrisy. According to epistemic injustice theory if you don't like what I say just because of how you judge my group then you're performing systemic injustice. If this comment is not making any real sense to you, consider that you might have internally smothered my testimony from a lack on concepts :)
Yeah, I have been doing research into critical-theory-adjacent literature and it just seems like bad philosophy. The concepts are underdeveloped (I read a paper titled "What Is White Ignorance" where the author explicitly said she wasn't going to offer a conceptual analysis of her titular topic), slanted (are only meant to apply to putatively dominant groups in society, and are claimed without evidence to impact putatively oppressed groups more), and equivocation is abundant (words like "marginalized" or "oppressed" are stripped of their context-sensitivity and are used to "control the narrative" by implying that you can't marginalize or oppress individuals if they belong to a putatively dominant class). It also seems like there's no dissenting opinions in the field, and peer review seems to be nonexistent. In other parts of philosophy like free will or philosophy of mind there's all sorts of criticisms about technical concepts like "qualia" or "freedom." In critical-theory-adjacent literature it looks like the main goal is to just pump out bad arguments in favor of subverting perceived power structures. Like the idea that you're being epistemically harmed because a layman expects you to explain your academic thesis to them, lol.
Pssst hey you, yeah you, you know what this is right? Of course you do, you and me both, this is the comment you've been looking for, I'm here for you pal. So you're wondering if anything can be done? Simple answer: no. It's gone too far. Get out of the cities, grow food, network, have babies that's it. Here's hoping I'll see you on the other side of the bottleneck man🍻
Iam glad I found this channel watching from East Africa, Uganda 🇺🇬🇺🇬
Glad you found it!
Thank you for making this video and bringing attention to this topic. As a graduate student this video helped me to better understand this topic!
Glad it was helpful!
This is awesome! As a sex therapist in training this (hermeneutical injustice) is really useful to empower asexual people when it relates to sexual consent. My mind is blowing up at SO many levels. Apart from asexuality, now I know the HI concept I see it in a lot of contexts. Which is ironically and funny at the same time. I'm laughing alone in my room thinking about this and searching for Fricker's book on Amazon. I'm thirsty to know more.
That’s great! Hope it goes well for you.
This is really succinct. I have been researching this concept in clinical encounters. As a physician who has expertise in the clinical neurosciences I evaluate a lot of patients who claim disability. Anecdotally, I experience that other professionals including administrative judges tend to lend less legitimacy to comments made by patients who are “diagnosed” as having mental health conditions or perceived as “difficult patients” because they raise questions or may not be perceived as “eloquent or sophisticated”. Another area where epistemic injustice is very palpable is in Family Court. This is especially true in the county I live in. I would love an opportunity to discuss these issues with you and bring to light how epistemic injustice looks in these contexts with profound implications for patients and even children of divorce. Thanks for this video. May I recommend also the book The Epistemic Dimensions of Ignorance to supplement Miranda Fricker’s eloquent concepts.
Absolutely, there's many practical contexts in which implicit bias plays a huge role, that we're only just now getting to grips with.
Awesome video! You explain the theory really well and I appreciate how accessible your language is. Plus your video editing and “on-camera presence” are spot on. Keep it up :)
Wow, thank you! More like this coming later in April.
I loved this! Thank you for explaining it thoroughly.
Glad it was helpful!
The video was amazing. I am currently thinking about these social epistemological issues as well and your video was extremely helpful in trying to clear out the vocabularies in social epistemology. Thank you!
Hey thanks! Glad you found it useful.
Thanks for bringing attention to this. I have often felt like I had difficulty in voicing my perfectly sound opinion because people would simply not believe my beside all logic.
Thank, glad it was helpful! I think it's a really important topic.
@@AtticPhilosophy I think this writer saw your video.. ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-testimonial-injustice/
Artistically great video. Love the lighting and setup. Makes me picture you chilling in your loft playing your guitar.
Thanks - that's the downtime!
Loved this. I never heard of this and it's good to have a name for this phenomenon. Side note: what kind of camera and light are you using?
Thanks! Putting a name to a form of injustice is an important step towards addressing it. Before *sexual harassment* was a commonplace concept, victims lacked the words to describe their experience - similar thing here I think.
Fuji XT3 camera + kit lens (nice, but overkill for this). Cheap light from ebay, in a softbox, high up on a stand.
Thanks for the video! Greetings from Brazil
Hi from England!
You really explain very well
Thanks! (Lots of lecturing helps!)
Amazing explanation, thank you so much!
You're very welcome!
Harvard academic won't engage because it's too uncomfortable to explain?
Thank you so much! This is really helpful.
Very thorough and accessible explanation! Subscribed!
Great, thanks! Glad to have you on board.
Awesome video, it was really insightful, thanks for making such amazing content!
My pleasure, glad you found it useful. More to follow!
Really helpful. Thank you.
Thanks, glad you found it helpful!
i am writing a paper about testimonial injustice and dismissive incomprehension... i know that there are many cases of them, but i can not find concrete examples like the case of tom robinson. it can be an article in a newspaper or a video on youtube. can anyone help ?
This is a great overview article with some cases that might help: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12336
Do you have a podcast?🥰
Afraid not
I would forward that epistemic injustice isn't just but being seen as a knower, but also not seen as having a system of understanding or ways of orienting oneself to a world that I've had created in order to come to knowing. Meaning that all colonized peoples are post apocalypse... having worlds destroyed and all knowledge produced in and of that world both destroyed and obscured...
Then to have a system of knowledge inserted that justifies itself and has no external auditors.
Yes good point - we might even understand "system of understanding or ways of orienting oneself to a world" as knowledge in a broad sense of the term, encompassing practical know-how as well as knowledge-that.
So this is an interesting topic and I enjoyed the video, but why is it in the playlist on the philosophy of truth? It doesn't seem very relevant to that topic. It would fit better in a playlist on moral philosophy or social justice.
Good point! I'll move it.
Interesting standpoint. I am not sure just because one has an experience than someone else has have, that they cannot convey that knowledge in a way that their interlocutor cannot understand. Or I may be completely misunderstanding the position.
Yes, you've missed the point here! Epistemic injustice is when someone, because of the kind of person they are, isn't treated as possessing knowledge when they in fact do.
@@AtticPhilosophy knowledge in both positions of a claim? Or just one side?
Here's an example: suppose you're a female scientist, an expert in, say, quantum measurement. You tell someone a fact you know about how quantum mechanics works. But, because you're a woman, they assume you don't really know stuff about science. Maybe they ask a male colleague instead. They don't treat you as having knowledge, because of the kind of person you are. That's epistemic injustice.
@@AtticPhilosophy Is that any different than an ad hominem fallacy?
Very interesting and useful concepts that fail the basic hypocrisy test: do you apply them to yourselves? If white males say "Ummm..." do we just perform epistemic injustice on them and not bother hearing the rest of the sentence? If Men's Rights Activists say "We believe that feminism has the following issues that deeply concern us: One..." so we just tune them out? I have a feeling that's exactly what we do, that is if we are this video's target audience. So if what's good for the goose is good for the gander, this video is great. If on the other hand it's just another intellectual tool that *I* can only use against *you* and then ignore you if you reply in kind, then it's classic hypocrisy. According to epistemic injustice theory if you don't like what I say just because of how you judge my group then you're performing systemic injustice. If this comment is not making any real sense to you, consider that you might have internally smothered my testimony from a lack on concepts :)
What?
Yeah, I have been doing research into critical-theory-adjacent literature and it just seems like bad philosophy. The concepts are underdeveloped (I read a paper titled "What Is White Ignorance" where the author explicitly said she wasn't going to offer a conceptual analysis of her titular topic), slanted (are only meant to apply to putatively dominant groups in society, and are claimed without evidence to impact putatively oppressed groups more), and equivocation is abundant (words like "marginalized" or "oppressed" are stripped of their context-sensitivity and are used to "control the narrative" by implying that you can't marginalize or oppress individuals if they belong to a putatively dominant class). It also seems like there's no dissenting opinions in the field, and peer review seems to be nonexistent. In other parts of philosophy like free will or philosophy of mind there's all sorts of criticisms about technical concepts like "qualia" or "freedom." In critical-theory-adjacent literature it looks like the main goal is to just pump out bad arguments in favor of subverting perceived power structures. Like the idea that you're being epistemically harmed because a layman expects you to explain your academic thesis to them, lol.
❤
Thanks!
really nice vid :)
Thanks!
Pssst hey you, yeah you, you know what this is right? Of course you do, you and me both, this is the comment you've been looking for, I'm here for you pal. So you're wondering if anything can be done? Simple answer: no. It's gone too far. Get out of the cities, grow food, network, have babies that's it. Here's hoping I'll see you on the other side of the bottleneck man🍻
Fans of Jordan Peterson are here watching and disliking the video.. 😂