Interview with Dr. Cameron Boult and Dr. Nicolas Nicola on research of epistemic knowledge
On October 23, Dr. Cameron Boult was joined by Dr. Nicolas Nicola and Dr. Lorraine Mayer in a panel facilitated by Dr. Eftihia Mihelakis. Together, they discussed Dr. Boult’s new book launch, Epistemic Blame: The Nature and Norms of Epistemic Relationships (Oxford University Press, 2024), and how the research of epistemic knowledge is conducted and its significance in current society. Following the panel, I asked Dr. Boult and Dr. Nicola follow-up questions on their research into the field.
We started off the seminar by talking about the importance of epistemic conduct. In your opinion, what would count as good epistemic conduct, and, based on your own experience as a professor at BU, where do you find that standard to be lacking on campus?
Dr. Boult: My way of thinking about it is that part of the project is to champion this idea that we need to make sure we’re incorporating a lot of different perspectives from, for example, members of marginalized groups and the epistemic resources that they bring to the table as members of marginalized groups in kind of figuring out what we want as a shared understanding of good epistemic conduct.
So that's my starting point. But then I also don't think there's like a determinate answer to that. It might always be changing, actually. I think it should just always be part of a discussion. But the key thing the project argues is that we need to make sure that we are properly intending to use the resources of those that are in more marginalized positions and not just assuming the status quo of the dominant. But I do think that there are probably some things that lots of us would agree about. Like, for example, if we're figuring out whether to use a vaccine on millions of people, one way that it seems like a good idea to go into epistemic conduct and figure out whether the vaccine is safe is making sure we do enough clinical trials, do enough experimentation and follow up for where the evidence leads in a context. I also think an example of epistemic conflict is when, for example, we don't find someone credible just because, say, they've got an accent. Like when that triggers a kind of prejudice about a stereotype on how credible they might be. So watching out for that would be good epistemic conduct on campus. I really don't have much, I've got great students. Maybe one worrying thing that I see that I would say is not my favorite kind of epistemic conduct is when students are using AI. Because then they're not really like doing any thinking for themselves. And it's just like a shortcut. That’s really disappointing for me as a professor because I do see the entire point of my job here being one of teaching people. And I can just see it happening when students are using AI or they're zoning out in class and then going back to YouTube to get stuff they missed. There’s no engagement.
Dr. Nicola: There’s some very clear cases of what counts as an instance of good epistemic conduct.
So for instance, if you're listening attentively to a student when they're talking to you about their particular epistemic goals with respect to their educational goals, like that they want to get into a psych program for instance, and listen to kind of where they need areas of improvement on, that would be an example of good epistemic conduct. An instance from the teacher's perspective of good epistemic conduct would be hearing your students; taking lessons and learning from them. Now, there are also some clear cases of bad epistemic conduct. For instance, let's say in the same case, when a student comes again with me about their goals and areas of improvement, and I kind of look at them like ‘'ah', they don't know what they're talking about’, because they're just a student. And then create the curriculum or content with my way of envisioning what I think the student really needs. In that sense, I'm not really listening to the students; I'm just hearing them, but I'm not really listening; I'm just allowing them to speak and then discounting their words. Pursuing as I would even if the person hasn't spoken, I think that would count as a case of bad epistemic conduct. But what makes something good and bad, I think, is a very difficult question to answer itself. Even without having a particular definition, I think what's useful is being guided by clear cases of what counts as good versus what's bad and navigating our world in that way to make sure that we instill or form habits of knowing that are respectful of these relations that we have with students or whatever i whatever context: educational legal or the art setting and so on.
We talked a lot about the ivory tower today that the study of epistemology kind of lives in, and that a lot of that study, like much of the arts but especially philosophy, is something that has so many financial barriers to it. And we were talking about inclusivity. When you consider how the inaccessibility of the degree deeply limits inclusivity, how do you think that affects the direction of philosophical research in Canada, and how do you see that in your own classrooms?
Dr Boult: I think it affects it in really, really, really significant and awful ways. If you look at the number of PhDs doing philosophy in Canada right now, there won't be very many indigenous philosophers doing it and getting paid. Yes. There’s obviously always this question on if a PhD is important in the first place and why. But there probably are folks out there who are indigenous and want to have PhDs. But there’s an enormous, multifaceted barrier. And it's not just about not having money. I think there’s so many layers to it and what can we do to change it. I think we need a longer conversation to get into that.
Adding onto that, we were discussing the importance of the study of epistemic knowledge. Where do you think the gap lies in bridging its theoretical study with its application as a framework in repairing impaired epistemic relations?
Dr. Boult: So with the people I’m surrounded by who do the same job that I do in western analytic epistemology, I think there’s just a preconceived notion that there’s the traditional questions, and then there’s these other more social, political applied questions. It’s just kind of a sociological fact that a lot of those folks just think ‘those other ones, they’re not real epistemology’. It’s the traditional, older epistemology that is real. And so the gap is in that I think it’s an inherited preconception. And what I think we lack is conceptual resources for understanding why that's not the case. And so that's what I see my project as providing. I see epistemic relations as a theoretical tool, as a vehicle for actually talking with people like that and showing them what we're doing when we're doing epistemology. If we think of it this way, it equally encompasses the socio-political just as much as some of your favorite old traditional questions.
You mentioned that you're doing research in Johannesburg. How do you think studying colonial epistemology compares to studying the same in Canada?
Dr. Boult: That's something that I think a lot about actually. One of the main differences that I keep coming back to is where the population dynamics in the two countries differ. Gauteng, the province my wife and I are based in, is 10% white, which is a pretty large number of white people compared to other parts of South Africa. Whereas if you look at Manitoba, we' ve got the highest number with Saskatchewan of indigenous people, at about 18%.
So it's like a mirror image in terms of how many people there are who enjoy certain currencies like social power. It’s about 10% of people that are in control of 99. 9% of the wealth and, really, the power there. Although there’s officially a lot of black people in positions of political power there, there’s no economic equity in terms of what the population has shares in. Obviously that's the case in Canada too, with indigenous versus settler Canadians and white Canadians, except that there' s way more white people here, and so the dynamic is different. It makes you question, “what's going on here?” How is it that white people are controlling everything? The same applies to Canada, and why should they be just because there's more white people in Canada? That obviously doesn't mean that we should be controlling all the economic resources and controlling industries like forestry. I always go back to that.
There’s also a difference in what the national conversation is like, because in Gauteng, which is 90% black, a lot of strong black voices are being heard, except that what’s sad about South Africa is that nothing really changes very much. In comparison, there’s a lot of invisibility in Canada, and indigenous voices don’t get the same visibility here.
You were saying that some beliefs are just not okay to have because they' ve been so completely disproven, and as people with reasonable access to knowledge, especially
on the university campus, the onus is on us to know better. Where do you think that the onus of that knowledge begins and ends in terms of personal responsibility?
Dr. Boult: I don't know if there' s any kind of principle to answer with. I think that's always going to be an ongoing, changing process of where the public discourse is and where it should be, and that’s going to evolve throughout history as well.
But it does raise these interesting questions, like when you go back to historical examples of famous people who thought slavery was okay, because everybody around them thought slavery was okay. Yet there's still a sense in which we still don’t think it’s okay, but we still ask ourselves how blameworthy they are. Does the fact that nobody was thinking that way and it wasn’t the norm sort of mitigate how blameworthy they are in some ways? And so that kind of access to information and how people around you influence you - that's always gonna be this very, very complex dynamic system, and it's our job to navigate it, at least, partly if you're privileged enough to have the resources to do so.
Dr. Nicola: What's interesting about this is how people are resistant to evidence. Let’s say someone in my family believes that the Earth is flat. That’s debunked and it’s not supposed to be held, epistemically speaking, but now I present them with some evidence, and yet their beliefs are resistant. Now, it’s not that we want to be wrong; it's just that it’s our initial response and moreover about how we form habits. I think some responsibility does lie at the individual level, but it’s important to talk to them in ways that don’t make the conversation end but rather expand it and allow them to see where I'm coming from, and do so in a way that doesn't put them down. So while there's some individual level of responsibility; there are also preexisting ideologies and belief systems that are resisting the counter evidence, that aren’t solved at the individual level alone, and therefore require being addressed at collective and systemic level or systemic level. In that sense, I don’t think the onus is on a particular individual but on a community to systematically dismantle certain barriers to knowledge.
Edited for clarity
