Alessandra Tanesini

In a recent and provocative paper, Matthew Fisher, Mariel Goddu and Frank Keil (2015) have argued, on the basis of experimental evidence, that ‘searching the internet leads people to conflate information that can be found online with knowledge “in the head”’ (2015, 675), specifically, by inclining us to conflate mere access to information for personal knowledge (2015, 674). This chapter has three central aims. First, we briefly detail Fisher et al.’s results and show how, on the basis of recent work in virtue epistemology (e.g., Tiberius and Walker 1998; Roberts and Wood 2007; Tanesini 2016), their interpretation of the data supports the thesis that searching the internet is conducive to the vice of intellectual arrogance. Second, we argue that this arrogance interpretation of the data rests on an implicit commitment to cognitive internalism. Thirdly, we show how the data can be given a very different explanation in light of the hypothesis of extended cognition (e.g., Clark and Chalmers 1998; Clark 2008) – one which challenges the extent to which Fisher et al. are entitled to insist that subjects are actually conflating access to knowledge for personal knowledge in the first place. We conclude by suggesting how, against the background of extended cognition rather than cognitive internalism, we have some reason to think that searching the internet might actually foster (in certain circumstances) virtuous intellectual humility.

Is traditional virtue epistemology a kind of idealised epistemology? Is that a bad thing? Some supporters of the virtue epistemology of liberatory virtues seem to answer these questions affirmatively. H. Battaly also argues that to avoid idealization virtue epistemologists should adopt a kind of normative contextualism according to which one and the same character trait is a virtue in some contexts, and a vice (or at least not a virtue) in other contexts. In this paper, I defend traditional virtue epistemology against some, but not all, of these charges. I argue that the examples that motivate its critics are best explained by invoking particularism about actions rather than normative contextualism about character traits. I also show that a particularist virtue epistemology of inquiry provides an account of the difference that social circumstances and power relations make to epistemically virtuous (and vicious) conduct that is superior to those that can be offered by resorting to normative contextualism.

ABSTRACT In this precis of The Mismeasure of the Self I summarise and motivate the attitudinal framework adopted in the book. I defend an account of intellectual humility as a virtue of self-evaluation based on attitudes to the self motivated by the need for knowledge. I provide brief descriptions of some intellectual vices of inferiority and superiority and explain that they are underpinned by attitudes serving either ego-defensive or social adjustive functions. Finally, I detail some of the harms caused by these vices, defend the view that people are responsible for them, and describe an intervention designed to ameliorate vice.

: In this chapter I argue that fanaticism is characterized by an orientation to value. I identify three distinctive features of this way of committing to one’s values. First, it is wholehearted. Second, it involves a perception that the values one has chosen are at risk of being rendered unintelligible. Third, the choice of the values to which the fanatic commits wholeheartedly is based on emotional appraisals or moral testimony rather than on reflection. I also argue that these appraisals are often constituted by group-based emotions. Contra Katsafanas (2019), I show that fanaticism is not necessarily a rational failing or a moral pathology. However, fanaticism often exhibits these shortcomings because it is a product of affective polarization by means of emotional contagion. I support this claim by showing that polarizing processes tend to produce emotions that are not fitting.

Human beings change the world in order to know it more easily and reliably. That is, we construct social and material environments, or 'epistemic niches', and develop cognitive tools to better acquire, transmit, or store information. A queue, for example, is an environment where information about the order of arrival is conveyed by a spatial configuration. Queues are niches that transform an arduous memory task into a simpler perceptual one. In this important book, Alessandra Tanesini argues that knowledge and ignorance always occur within epistemic niches and that neither can be properly described or evaluated independently of the niches within which it is found. She explores two dominant themes. First, epistemic niches in the Global North and, increasingly, elsewhere are quantified niches that promote transforming the world into aggregates of data that are suitable for classification, measurement, ranking, standardisation, and automation. These niches carry distinctive epistemic benefits and disadvantages. Second, some epistemic niches are in the service of ignorance and oppression rather than knowledge. Tanesini offers analyses of some environments that promote epistemic exploitation, appropriation, cultural imperialism, and epistemic extractivism. _Social Epistemology: The Niches for Knowledge and Ignorance_ is a groundbreaking work for students and scholars of philosophy, political theory, social psychology, and related disciplines.

This chapter has two main aims. The first is to defend a virtue-theoretical characterisation of what makes a conversation good as a conversation. According to this view, excellent conversations are conversations that are carried out in the way in which virtuous conversationalists would execute them. The second is to sketch out accounts of some character traits that make a distinctive contribution to the epistemology of conversations. Two of these traits (wit and justice) are virtues that contribute to the success of conversations as vehicles for the exchange of information and to the strengthening of bonds of trust. Another trait (pomposity) is an obstacle to these kinds of conversational success. Finally, curiosity is a trait that promotes both conversational failings and successes.

In this precis of The Mismeasure of the Self I summarise and motivate the attitudinal framework adopted in the book. I defend an account of intellectual humility as a virtue of self-evaluation based on attitudes to the self motivated by the need for knowledge. I provide brief descriptions of some intellectual vices of inferiority and superiority and explain that they are underpinned by attitudes serving either ego-defensive or social adjustive functions. Finally, I detail some of the harms caused by these vices, defend the view that people are responsible for them, and describe an intervention designed to ameliorate vice.

Is traditional virtue epistemology a kind of idealised epistemology? Is that a bad thing? Some supporters of the virtue epistemology of liberatory virtues seem to answer these questions affirmatively. H. Battaly also argues that to avoid idealization virtue epistemologists should adopt a kind of normative contextualism according to which one and the same character trait is a virtue in some contexts, and a vice (or at least not a virtue) in other contexts. In this paper, I defend traditional virtue epistemology against some, but not all, of these charges. I argue that the examples that motivate its critics are best explained by invoking particularism about actions rather than normative contextualism about character traits. I also show that a particularist virtue epistemology of inquiry provides an account of the difference that social circumstances and power relations make to epistemically virtuous (and vicious) conduct that is superior to those that can be offered by resorting to normative contextualism.

The study of intellectual humility (IH), which is gaining increasing interest among cognitive scientists, has been dominated by a focus on individuals. We propose that IH operates at the collective level as the tendency of a collective’s members to attend to each other’s intellectual limitations and the limitations of their collective cognitive efforts. Given people’s propensity to better recognize others’ limitations than their own, IH may be more readily achievable in collectives than individuals. We describe the socio-cognitive dynamics that can interfere with collective IH and offer the solution of building intellectually humbling environments that create a culture of IH that can outlast the given membership of a collective. We conclude with promising research directions.

Intellectual humility, which entails openness to other views and a willingness to listen and engage with them, is crucial for facilitating civil dialogue and progress in debate between opposing sides. In the present research, we tested whether intellectual humility can be reliably detected in discourse and experimentally increased by a prior self-affirmation task. Three-hundred and three participants took part in 116 audio and video-recorded group discussions. Blind to condition, linguists coded participants’ discourse to create an intellectual humility score. As expected, the self-affirmation task increased the coded intellectual humility, as well as participants’ self-rated prosocial affect (e.g., empathy). Unexpectedly, the effect on prosocial affect did not mediate the link between experimental condition and intellectual humility in debate. Self-reported intellectual humility and other personality variables were uncorrelated with expert-coded intellectual humility. Implications of these findings for understanding the social psychological mechanisms underpinning intellectual humility are considered.

Self- affirmation techniques can help reduce arrogant behaviour in public debates. This chapter consists of three sections. The first offers an account of what speakers owe to their audiences, and of what hearers owe to speakers. It also illustrates some of the ways in which arrogance leads to violations of conversational norms. The second argues that arrogance can be understood as an attitude toward the self which is positive but defensive. The final section offers empirical evidence why we should expect self-affirmation to reduce defensiveness and thus the manifestation of arrogance in debate.

This article argues that intellectual character vices involve non‐instrumental motives to oppose, antagonise, or avoid things that are epistemically good in themselves. This view has been the recent target of criticism based on alleged counterexamples presenting epistemically vicious individuals who are virtuously motivated or at least lack suitable epistemically bad motivations. The paper first presents these examples and shows that they do not undermine the motivational approach. Finally, having distinguished motivating from explanatory reasons for belief and action, it argues that our epistemic practice of vice attribution supplies evidence in favour of motivational accounts of vice.

In this paper I offer an innovative interpretation of Nietzsche's metaethical theory of value which shows him to be a kind of constitutivist. For Nietzsche, I argue, valuing is a conative attitude which institutes values, rather than tracking what is independently of value. What is characteristic of those acts of willing which institute values is that they are owned or authored. Nietzsche makes this point using the vocabulary of self‐mastery. One crucial feature of those who have achieved this feat, and have consequently become agents, is that they possess a diachronic or long will and are consequently capable of the rational governance of future behaviour. The possession of a will of this sort is crucial because it is a necessary condition for engaging in temporally unified activities which are a requisite of authorship. Nietzsche, I argue, makes these points in his doctrine of eternal recurrence which provides a test that acts of will must pass to count as laws. In the final section of the paper I argue for the superiority of this interpretation over some of its competitors.

In the article I argue that intellectual arrogance can be an individual, collective and even corporate vice. I show that arrogance is in all these cases underpinned by defensive positive evaluations of epistemic features of the evaluator in the service of buttressing its illegitimate social dominance. Individual arrogance as superbia or as hubris stems from attitudes biased by the motive of self-enhancement. Collective arrogance is underpinned by positive defensive attitudes to a one’s social identity that seeks to maintain its unwarranted social dominance. Finally, corporations are arrogant when their attitudes are the aggregation of the arrogant dispositions of its managers or when these corporations have inherited structures and policies that are defensive of its illegitimately dominant social status.

In this chapter I show that idealizing assumptions can obscure conversational dynamics because they neglect power differentials that are crucial enablers of the successful performance of some speech acts (see, Sbisà, 2020). I examine how silencing is promoted by conversational norms that would defeasibly entitle linguistic agents to presume that silence indicates acceptance. I focus on Goldberg’s (2020) discussion of these phenomena. Goldberg argues in support of a norm of no silent rejections claiming that silencing is partly the result of the misapplication of this norm. He further defends the view that the norm itself is part of the solution to the problem of silencing. In the chapter I argue that Goldberg is mistaken on these points. Instead, drawing inspiration from Sbisà (2020), I argue that norms of no silent rejection are temporarily enacted by means of speech acts that function as exercitive assertions.

In this precis of The Mismeasure of the Self I summarise and motivate the attitudinal framework adopted in the book. I defend an account of intellectual humility as a virtue of self-evaluation based on attitudes to the self motivated by the need for knowledge. I provide brief descriptions of some intellectual vices of inferiority and superiority and explain that they are underpinned by attitudes serving either ego-defensive or social adjustive functions. Finally, I detail some of the harms caused by these vices, defend the view that people are responsible for them, and describe an intervention designed to ameliorate vice.