Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 13, pp 2557–2571 | Cite as

Norms of assertion and communication in social networks

Article

Abstract

Epistemologists can be divided into two camps: those who think that nothing short of certainty or (subjective) probability 1 can warrant assertion and those who disagree with this claim. This paper addressed this issue by inquiring into the problem of setting the probability threshold required for assertion in such a way that that the social epistemic good is maximized, where the latter is taken to be the veritistic value in the sense of Goldman (Knowledge in a social world, 1999). We provide a Bayesian model of a test case involving a community of inquirers in a social network engaged in group deliberation regarding the truth or falsity of a proposition \(p.\) Results obtained by means of computer simulation indicate that the certainty rule is optimal in the limit of inquiry and communication but that a lower threshold is preferable in less idealized cases.

Keywords

Norms of assertion Probability Veritistic value Computer simulation Social network Bayesianism Social epistemology 

References

  1. Angere, S. (unpublished manuscript). Knowledge in a social network.Google Scholar
  2. DeRose, K. (2002). Assertion, knowledge, and context. The Philosophical Review, 111, 167–203.Google Scholar
  3. Douven, I. (2006). Assertion, knowledge, and rational credibility. The Philosophical Review, 115(4), 449–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jackson, F. (1979). On assertion and indicative conditionals. The Philosophical Review, 88, 565–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lackey, J. (2007). Norms of assertion. Noûs, 41(4), 594–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1976). Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities. The Philosophical Review, 85, 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Studies in inductive logic and probability (Vol. 2, pp. 263–293). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Olsson, E. J. (2011). A simulation approach to veritistic social epistemology. Episteme, 8(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Olsson, E. J. (2013). A Bayesian simulation model of group deliberation and polarization. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Bayesian argumentation (pp. 113–134). Synthese Library, Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weiner, M. (2005). Must we know what we say? The Philosophical Review, 114, 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Zollman, K. J. (2007). The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 74(5), 574–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations