Without common standards for what counts as a reliable method of inquiry, we won’t be able to agree on facts, let alone on values. Since we often have to decide, jointly, what to do in the face of disagreement, we need an epistemic common currency, and we need to be able to give reasons for why only certain epistemic principles should be part of that currency. (Extracts from an article by Michael P. Lynch)
The potential impact of our work as philosophical educators is three-dimensional: politically far-reaching, socially expansive and psychologically deep. It is through collaborative inquiry and dialogic argument that students learn the communication skills that will set them up for life.
Overconfidence in poorly supported claims is rife – but epistemic humility comes at a price: you pay in tentativeness, uncertainty and sometimes indecision. Beneath the shadow that doubt casts on comfortable truths, it’s harder to know what to believe.
Knowing when to act with conviction in the face of limited information is the essence of practical wisdom. Yet hesitation is sometimes justified. It may in fact be unwise to act decisively when you don’t know whose voices are worth heeding.
We’re living at an epistemologically troubled moment in history. Entire populations have been unmoored from the kind of consensus reality that held sway in less slippery times. What happens if we ask high school students to fact-check political ads and decide which ones are truthful enough to be posted on social media?
The Philosophy Club 