Alex Davies

The widespread use of English in the field of philosophy facilitates international collaboration but may also pose significant challenges in understanding, analyzing, or producing information for both native (NES) and non-native English speakers (NNES). These challenges have not yet been systematically investigated. We conducted an international survey of philosophers (_N_ = 1,615), comparing NES and NNES, while controlling for their academic position (e.g., student, staff, etc.) and other relevant variables. Responses indicated that NNES needed up to twice as long as NES to read English articles and nearly twice as long to prepare English presentations. Additionally, even NNES with the highest English proficiency reported significantly more English manuscript rejections, greater avoidance of attending or asking questions at philosophy events in English, and more frequent feelings of ridicule for their English use. No statistically significant difference was observed in the reported time required to complete an English draft, but NNES tended to report shorter times, possibly reflecting greater reliance on external assistance to detect linguistic errors. Finally, while extensive use of English may help NNES overcome difficulties with English, 88% of NNES respondents reported that it also reduced their ability to discuss philosophy in their native language. This study provides the first systematic, quantitative evidence of English-related epistemic challenges that many NNES may face in philosophy, highlighting significant linguistic inequities.

The widespread use of English in the field of philosophy facilitates international collaboration but may also pose significant challenges in understanding, analyzing, or producing information for both native (NES) and non-native English speakers (NNES). These challenges have not yet been systematically investigated. We conducted an international survey of philosophers (N = 1,615), comparing NES and NNES, while controlling for their academic position (e.g., student, staff, etc.) and other relevant variables. Responses indicated that NNES needed up to twice as long as NES to read English articles and nearly twice as long to prepare English presentations. Additionally, even NNES with the highest English proficiency reported significantly more English manuscript rejections, greater avoidance of attending or asking questions at philosophy events in English, and more frequent feelings of ridicule for their English use. No statistically significant difference was observed in the reported time required to complete an English draft, but NNES tended to report shorter times, possibly reflecting greater reliance on external assistance to detect linguistic errors. Finally, while extensive use of English may help NNES overcome difficulties with English, 88% of NNES respondents reported that it also reduced their ability to discuss philosophy in their native language. This study provides the first systematic, quantitative evidence of English-related epistemic challenges that many NNES may face in philosophy, highlighting significant linguistic inequities.

There is a correlation between positions taken on some scientific questions and political leaning. One way to explain this correlation is the cultural cognition hypothesis (CCH): people's political leanings are causing them to process evidence to maintain fixed answers to the questions, rather than to seek the truth. Another way is the different background belief hypothesis (DBBH): people of different political leanings have different background beliefs which rationalize different positions on these scientific questions. In this article, I argue for two things. I argue that two attempts by proponents of the CCH to discredit the DBBH fail. And I argue that this matters, because while the CCH makes epistemic paternalistic interventions seem called for (as some philosophers have argued compellingly), the DBBH does not. The DBBH makes it much easier to stay closer to an ideal of deliberative democracy.

Bystander information is information about others’ attitudes towards a text (i.e. about whether they agree or disagree with it). Social media platforms force bystander information upon us when we read posts thereon. What effect does this have on how we respond to what we read? The dominant view in the literature is that it changes our minds (the so-called “bandwagon effect”). Simplifying a little: if we see that most people agree (disagree) with what a post says, we are more likely to agree (disagree) with what it says. This paper argues that we should take seriously a competitor view and care about the difference between it and the dominant view. The competitor view proposes that bystander information changes what a text seems to us to say: although bystander information may lead us to change what attitude we express toward a post, that’s not because we’ve changed our attitude toward any fixed content (i.e. fixed thing that the post says). This paper argues that, if this competitor view is correct, then social media is likely to be an especially hazardous place for the practice of sharing content.

This thesis has two parts. In Part I there is an argument for the conclusion that a linguistic phenomenon known as (radical) context-sensitivity is to be expected given the limitations of those who use language to reason about empirical states of affairs. The phenomenon arises as a consequence of a process that must be performed to use language to reason validly. In Part II it is explained why the phenomenon, understood in light of the discussion of Part I, does not threaten the possibility of communication. Some potential readers might be interested to know that in Part I there's a fair amount of exegesis of arguments for the existence of (radical) context-sensitivity put forward by Charles Travis. Some potential readers might be interested to know that in Part II use is made of work by Erving Goffman and some conversation analysts.

Infallibilism is commonly rejected because it is apparently subject to easy counter-examples. I describe a strategy that infallibilists can use to resist this objection. Because the sentences used in the counter-examples to express evidence and belief are context-sensitive, the infallibilist can insist that such counter-examples trade on a vacillation between different readings of these sentences. I describe what difficulties await those who try to produce counter-examples against which the proposed strategy is ineffective.