认识论上的家长制实践能让我们成为更好的认识论代理人吗?

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Giada Fratantonio
{"title":"认识论上的家长制实践能让我们成为更好的认识论代理人吗?","authors":"Giada Fratantonio","doi":"10.1111/edth.12623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Can epistemic paternalistic practices make us better epistemic agents? While a satisfying answer to this question will ultimately rest at least partly on empirical findings, considering the epistemological discussion on evidence, knowledge, and epistemic virtues can be insightful. In this paper, Giada Fratantonio argues that we have theoretical reasons to believe that strong epistemic paternalistic practices may be effective at mitigating some evidential mistakes, in fostering true belief, and even for allowing the subject of the intervention to gain knowledge. However, we have reasons to expect that these practices will not be able to make the subject of the intervention an overall better epistemic agent at the dispositional level. She then considers weak epistemic paternalistic practices, e.g., epistemic nudging, and provides some reasons for optimism. Finally, Fratantonio considers the implications that these theoretical considerations have for education.</p>","PeriodicalId":47134,"journal":{"name":"EDUCATIONAL THEORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/edth.12623","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Epistemic Paternalistic Practice Make Us Better Epistemic Agents?\",\"authors\":\"Giada Fratantonio\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/edth.12623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Can epistemic paternalistic practices make us better epistemic agents? While a satisfying answer to this question will ultimately rest at least partly on empirical findings, considering the epistemological discussion on evidence, knowledge, and epistemic virtues can be insightful. In this paper, Giada Fratantonio argues that we have theoretical reasons to believe that strong epistemic paternalistic practices may be effective at mitigating some evidential mistakes, in fostering true belief, and even for allowing the subject of the intervention to gain knowledge. However, we have reasons to expect that these practices will not be able to make the subject of the intervention an overall better epistemic agent at the dispositional level. She then considers weak epistemic paternalistic practices, e.g., epistemic nudging, and provides some reasons for optimism. Finally, Fratantonio considers the implications that these theoretical considerations have for education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EDUCATIONAL THEORY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/edth.12623\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EDUCATIONAL THEORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edth.12623\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EDUCATIONAL THEORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edth.12623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认识论上的家长式做法能让我们成为更好的认识论主体吗?虽然对这个问题的满意答案最终将至少部分取决于实证研究结果,但考虑一下关于证据、知识和认识论美德的认识论讨论也会很有启发。在本文中,吉亚达-弗拉坦托尼奥(Giada Fratantonio)认为,我们有理论上的理由相信,强有力的认识论家长式做法可以有效地减少一些证据错误,促进真正的信仰,甚至让干预对象获得知识。然而,我们有理由认为,这些做法并不能使干预对象在处置层面上成为一个整体上更好的认识论主体。然后,她考虑了弱认识论家长式做法,如认识论引导,并提供了一些乐观的理由。最后,弗拉坦托尼奥探讨了这些理论考虑对教育的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can Epistemic Paternalistic Practice Make Us Better Epistemic Agents?

Can epistemic paternalistic practices make us better epistemic agents? While a satisfying answer to this question will ultimately rest at least partly on empirical findings, considering the epistemological discussion on evidence, knowledge, and epistemic virtues can be insightful. In this paper, Giada Fratantonio argues that we have theoretical reasons to believe that strong epistemic paternalistic practices may be effective at mitigating some evidential mistakes, in fostering true belief, and even for allowing the subject of the intervention to gain knowledge. However, we have reasons to expect that these practices will not be able to make the subject of the intervention an overall better epistemic agent at the dispositional level. She then considers weak epistemic paternalistic practices, e.g., epistemic nudging, and provides some reasons for optimism. Finally, Fratantonio considers the implications that these theoretical considerations have for education.

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
EDUCATIONAL THEORY
EDUCATIONAL THEORY EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The general purposes of Educational Theory are to foster the continuing development of educational theory and to encourage wide and effective discussion of theoretical problems within the educational profession. In order to achieve these purposes, the journal is devoted to publishing scholarly articles and studies in the foundations of education, and in related disciplines outside the field of education, which contribute to the advancement of educational theory. It is the policy of the sponsoring organizations to maintain the journal as an open channel of communication and as an open forum for discussion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信