Везде
Incline and Admonish: Epistemic Injustice and Counter-Expertise
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Incline and Admonish: Epistemic Injustice and Counter-Expertise
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000616-7-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Sergei Y. Shevchenko 
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 2
Pages
20-32
Abstract
The article deals with the forms of epistemic injustice associated with the scentization of expertise, its locking in a separate scientific discipline. Counter-expertise is directed against deprivation of the right to speak out about one's own interests which is the most common form of epistemic injustice. But the most radical form is related to the comprehension of other’s phenomenal experience as a derivative of the parameters measured by expert. In this regard, the concept of embodiment can play a crucial role both in preventing epistemic injustice and in overcoming the crisis of expertise.
Keywords
‘minimal embodiment’, counter-expertise, counter-knowledge, derivatization of the other, H. Collins
Date of publication
01.06.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
574
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Collins, H. “Interactional Expertise and Embodiment”, in: Sandberg J. et. al. (eds.). Skillful Performance Enacting Capabilities Knowledge, Competence, and Expertise in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 125‒146.
    2. 

  2. Collins, H. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2010, 200 pp.
    3. 

  3. Cusick, C.M. “Testifying Bodies: Testimonial Injustice as Derivatization”, Social Epistemology, 2019, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 111‒123.
    4. 

  4. Davidson, D. “Radical Interpretation”, Dialectica, 1973, no. 27, pp. 314‒328.
    5. 

  5. Davidson, D. “What Metaphors Mean”, Critical Inquiry, 1978, vol. 5, no. 1: Special Issue on Metaphor, pp. 31‒47.
    6. 

  6. Dreyfus, H.L. “Why Computers Must Have Bodies in Order to Be Intelligent”, The Review of Metaphysics, 1967, no. 21, (1). pp. 13‒32.
    7. 

  7. Eyal, G. The Crisis of Expertise. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019, 208 pp.
    8. 

  8. Fricker, M. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 198 pp.
    9. 

  9. Ihde, D. Embodied Technics. Copenhagen: Automatic Press/VIP, 2010, 96 pp.
    10. 

  10. Laudan, L. “Nauka i tsennosti” [Science and Values], in: Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki: Khrestomatiya [Modern Philosophy of Science: Anthology]. Moscow: Logos, 1994, pp. 197‒230. (in Russian)
    11. 

  11. Popova, O.V. “Tsena i tsennost': problema kommodifikatsii tela v nauchnom poznanii” [Human’s Price And Value: The Problem of Body Commodification in the Context of Scientific Knowledge], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2016, no 3 (49), pp. 140‒157. (In Russian)
    12. 

  12. Steers-McCrum, A.R. “Don’t Put Words in My Mouth: Self-appointed Speaking-for Is Testimonial Injustice Without Prejudice”, Social Epistemology, 2019.[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691728.2019.1682710?journalCode=tsep20, accessed on 24.02.2020]
    13. 

  13. Stoliarova, O.E. “Tret'ya volna issledovanij nauki kak filosofskoe obosnovanie STS” [The Third Wave of Science Studies as a Philosophical Justification of STS], Logos, 2018, no. 5, pp. 31‒52. (in Russian)
    14. 

  14. Vidal, F. “Phenomenology of the Locked-In Syndrome: an Overview and Some Suggestions”, Neuroethics, 2018. Published online. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152‒018‒9388‒1, accessed on 20.02.2020]
    15. 

  15. Williams, L.D.A. & Moore, S. “Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise”, Science as Culture, 2019, iss. 28(3), pp. 251‒276.
    16.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate