Thank you for writing this, I hope it opens a discussion on the topic. I think Standpoint Epistemology really can help by making some biases explicit, and finding uses for that - sometimes there are things we can learn from biased sources only when we know their bias, whereas when the ideal is to be unbiased that doesn't necessarily lead to objectivity - sometimes it just means the bias is hidden.
Of course objectivity is a very good thing, when it can be had, but acknowledging when it's not present and dealing with that is such a strength. Sometimes when we assume we are objective is when we develop some truly absurd blind spots, after all.
I think (by my arguments about standpoint epistemology) that these stories show that the black people I asked questions of had often had bad experiences with the police, and I think the selection bias is probably weak enough that this shows that probably many black people have had bad experiences with the police. Are there any particular biases you have in mind which invalidate those conclusions?
> Moreover, in practice, statements’ truth or falsity isn’t dependent on your emotional closeness with the subject matter, but this is how SE is often used, even if that’s not ‘proper.’ With this in mind, it definitely isn’t commensurate with how rationalists conduct themselves and find truth.
That is a fair objection. Part of the point in my post is that the problem with Standpoint Epistemology is not the philosophical foundation (as e.g. described by Wikipedia), which is actually quite reasonable, so if there are problems in the application of Standpoint Epistemology, those problems are probably due to other factors interfering with its use, or due to not applying it sufficiently much or sufficiently correctly.
Thank you for writing this, I hope it opens a discussion on the topic. I think Standpoint Epistemology really can help by making some biases explicit, and finding uses for that - sometimes there are things we can learn from biased sources only when we know their bias, whereas when the ideal is to be unbiased that doesn't necessarily lead to objectivity - sometimes it just means the bias is hidden.
Of course objectivity is a very good thing, when it can be had, but acknowledging when it's not present and dealing with that is such a strength. Sometimes when we assume we are objective is when we develop some truly absurd blind spots, after all.
I think (by my arguments about standpoint epistemology) that these stories show that the black people I asked questions of had often had bad experiences with the police, and I think the selection bias is probably weak enough that this shows that probably many black people have had bad experiences with the police. Are there any particular biases you have in mind which invalidate those conclusions?
> Moreover, in practice, statements’ truth or falsity isn’t dependent on your emotional closeness with the subject matter, but this is how SE is often used, even if that’s not ‘proper.’ With this in mind, it definitely isn’t commensurate with how rationalists conduct themselves and find truth.
That is a fair objection. Part of the point in my post is that the problem with Standpoint Epistemology is not the philosophical foundation (as e.g. described by Wikipedia), which is actually quite reasonable, so if there are problems in the application of Standpoint Epistemology, those problems are probably due to other factors interfering with its use, or due to not applying it sufficiently much or sufficiently correctly.