Rules of Engagement

"We would be wrong in writing off epistemology as an ivory tower pursuit with no implications for our daily practices. Epistemology can help understand and address issues such as the polarization of political debates, the rise of conspiracy theories, and the challenges of clinical communication. Together with experts from other disciplines, and other areas within philosophy, epistemologists have a significant role to play in understanding and improving how we interact with each other when we produce and share knowledge."

"One of the problems facing social interactions is that we tend to pathologize ways of thinking that are different from ours. When a person's perspective clashes with ours, we may stop considering that person as a potential collaborator and exclude them from shared epistemic projects. We see their behavior no longer as a manifestation of agency but as a sign that something is seriously wrong with them."

"Having a psychiatric diagnosis and experiencing mental health issues make it harder for a person to have their testimony taken seriously. Dismissing, reconstruing, or challenging a person's testimony-without engaging with it first-signals that we lack confidence in the capacity of that person to exercise their epistemic agency. As a result, not only is the person excluded from shared epistemic projects, but we also miss an opportunity to learn from them."

Epistemology has practical implications for everyday interactions by helping to diagnose and address polarization, the rise of conspiracy theories, and clinical communication challenges. People often pathologize differing viewpoints, excluding others from collaborative epistemic projects and interpreting behavior as evidence of malfunction rather than agency. Such dismissals are used to justify disengagement from disagreement, for example by labeling climate change denialists as "delusional" or politicians as "out of their minds." Epistemic injustice, driven by power asymmetries and identity prejudices, reduces the credibility of testimony, especially for those with psychiatric diagnoses. Excluding testimonial contributions not only harms individuals but also forfeits opportunities for learning.

Read at Apaonline