认知侵入

Knowing Our Limits Pub Date : 2019-09-19 DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0008

N. Ballantyne

{"title":"认知侵入","authors":"N. Ballantyne","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many controversial questions are properly explored using tools from multiple fields of inquiry. We risk “epistemic trespassing” when we hold controversial views on the basis of evidence and skills drawn from only some of the relevant fields. This chapter contends that once we learn we have trespassed, we should often lower our level of confidence in our controversial opinions.","PeriodicalId":345622,"journal":{"name":"Knowing Our Limits","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic Trespassing\",\"authors\":\"N. Ballantyne\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many controversial questions are properly explored using tools from multiple fields of inquiry. We risk “epistemic trespassing” when we hold controversial views on the basis of evidence and skills drawn from only some of the relevant fields. This chapter contends that once we learn we have trespassed, we should often lower our level of confidence in our controversial opinions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":345622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knowing Our Limits\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"55\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knowing Our Limits\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowing Our Limits","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190847289.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 55

摘要

许多有争议的问题是适当地探索使用工具从多个领域的调查。当我们仅根据来自某些相关领域的证据和技能持有有争议的观点时，我们就冒着“认知侵入”的风险。本章认为，一旦我们知道我们已经越界了，我们就应该经常降低我们对自己有争议的观点的信心。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Epistemic Trespassing

Many controversial questions are properly explored using tools from multiple fields of inquiry. We risk “epistemic trespassing” when we hold controversial views on the basis of evidence and skills drawn from only some of the relevant fields. This chapter contends that once we learn we have trespassed, we should often lower our level of confidence in our controversial opinions.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Knowing Our Limits

自引率

0.00%

发文量