Higher-Order Evidence in Epistemology, Ethics, and Aesthetics

认识论、伦理学和美学中的高阶证据

• 批准号: AH/S006338/1
• 负责人: Daniel Whiting
• 金额: $ 4.56万
• 依托单位: University of Southampton
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2019
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2019 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FS006338%2F1
• 关键词: Higher; Order; Evidence; Epistemology; Ethics

What difference does higher-order evidence make to what it is rational to think, feel or do? This project assembles an international team to explore answers to this question and the issues they raise.First-order evidence indicates or makes it likely that a claim is (not) true. Higher-order evidence is evidence about one's evidence or ability to assess it. Suppose that a detective is investigating a murder. The evidence the clues provide - concerning motives, access to the gun, etc. - suggests that the butler did it. This is first-order evidence. The butler belongs to a minority ethnic group. This does not make it more or less likely that the butler did it but might suggest that the detective's assessment of the evidence is biased. It is higher-order evidence.Some claim that higher-order evidence generates rational dilemmas. If the detective thinks that the butler did it despite the risk of bias, they are irrationally overconfident. If the detective does not think this, they are ignoring the clues. It is puzzling to think that there are cases in which there is no reasonable way to respond to a body of evidence. Others argue that higher-order evidence can make it rational to believe against one's better judgement. Given the clues, it is rational for the detective to believe that the butler did it. Given the risk of bias, it is rational for them to believe that this is not rational. But this combination of beliefs seems the paradigm of irrationality - it involves a person at odds with themselves.This is a brief indication of some surprising conclusions to which reflection on higher-order evidence leads. These are issues in epistemology - the theory of knowledge or, more broadly, rational belief. Strikingly similar issues arise in ethics and aesthetics. Suppose that a philanthropist is deciding whether to donate to charity A or charity B. Their research suggests that A is best. However, their advisor in a rare lapse of judgement says that it does not suggest this. Suppose that the features of an artwork a viewer experiences make it admirable. However, they are aware that such works are in vogue, which might sway their estimation of it. In each case, the structure is the same. A person has first-order evidence that supports a response and higher-order evidence that suggests otherwise, or suggests that their response to the first-order evidence is unreliable. Given this, analogous issues arise. Does the philanthropist face a dilemma? Should the viewer admire the work against their better judgement?While there is much work on the role of higher-order evidence in ethics, aesthetics, and epistemology, there has been little work at their intersection despite the manifest parallels. As a result, lessons learned in one area are not applied elsewhere, proposals are tailored to a particular field without asking whether they extend to others, and opportunities to identify general patterns are lost. The aim of the network is to encourage research on the impact of higher-order evidence across domains. It will promote a broader perspective on higher-order evidence in another respect - by engaging philosophers in the Western tradition with presently neglected ideas from Chinese philosophy. This inclusive approach will enable researchers to assess the reach of proposals and ensure cross-pollination.The project will foster cutting-edge research through a series of workshops. It will make available its results through a high-profile publication, support future work and teaching on the topic through a state-of-the-art survey and bibliographical guide, and foster international connections, especially but not only between the UK and China.The concerns of the network are not only theoretical but of real-life significance. How should we conduct ourselves given what we know about our foibles and limitations? A further aim is to encourage engagement with the research by non-academics with a view to influencing practice.

高阶证据对理性的思考、感受或行为有什么不同？这个项目召集了一个国际团队来探索这个问题的答案和他们提出的问题。一阶证据表明或可能表明一个说法是（不）真的。高阶证据是关于一个人的证据或评估证据的能力的证据。假设一个侦探正在调查一宗谋杀案。这些线索提供的证据--关于动机、枪支的使用等--表明是管家干的，这是一级证据。管家属于少数民族。这并不意味着管家做这件事的可能性更大或更小，但可能表明侦探对证据的评估是有偏见的。这是高阶证据，有些人声称高阶证据会产生理性困境。如果侦探不顾偏见的风险而认为是管家做的，那么他们就是非理性的过度自信。如果侦探不这样认为，他们就忽略了线索。令人费解的是，在有些情况下，没有合理的方式来回应一系列证据。其他人则认为，高阶证据可以使人们理性地相信自己的判断。有了线索，侦探相信是管家做的是合理的;有了偏见的风险，他们相信这是不合理的也是合理的。但这种信念的组合似乎是非理性的范式--它涉及到一个与自己不一致的人，这是对高阶证据的反思导致的一些令人惊讶的结论的简要指示。这些都是认识论中的问题--知识理论，或者更广泛地说，理性信念。在伦理学和美学中也出现了惊人的类似问题。假设一个慈善家正在决定是向慈善机构A还是向慈善机构B捐款。他们的研究表明，A是最好的。然而，他们的顾问在一次罕见的判断失误中说，这并不意味着这一点。假设一件艺术品的特征使观众感到令人钦佩。然而，他们意识到这样的作品正在流行，这可能会影响他们对它的评价。一个人有一阶证据支持一种反应，而高阶证据则表明另一种反应，或者表明他们对一阶证据的反应是不可靠的。鉴于此，出现了类似的问题。慈善家是否面临两难境地？观众是否应该违背自己的判断欣赏作品？虽然在伦理学、美学和认识论中有很多关于高阶证据的作用的研究，但在它们的交叉点上的研究却很少，尽管它们有明显的相似之处。因此，一个领域的经验教训不适用于其他领域，建议只针对某一领域，而不问是否适用于其他领域，丧失了确定一般模式的机会。该网络的目的是鼓励研究跨领域高阶证据的影响。它将在另一个方面促进对高阶证据的更广泛的视角-通过使西方传统的哲学家与目前被忽视的中国哲学思想相结合。这一包容性办法将使研究人员能够评估各项提案的影响范围，并确保相互借鉴，该项目将通过一系列讲习班促进尖端研究。该网络将通过一份高知名度的出版物公布其研究成果，通过一份最先进的调查和书目指南支持该主题未来的工作和教学，并促进国际联系，特别是但不限于英国和中国之间的联系。该网络的关注不仅是理论上的，而且具有现实意义。在我们了解自己的弱点和局限性的情况下，我们应该如何表现自己？另一个目的是鼓励非学术界人士参与研究，以期影响实践。

项目成果

Aesthetic Reasons and the Demands They (Do Not) Make

审美原因和他们（不）提出的要求

• DOI: 10.1093/pq/pqaa045
• 发表时间: 2021
• 期刊: The Philosophical Quarterly
• 作者: Whiting D

Higher-Order Evidence

高阶证据

• DOI: 10.1093/analys/anaa056
• 发表时间: 2020
• 期刊: Analysis
• 影响因子: 1.6
• 作者: Whiting D

Admiration, Appreciation, and Aesthetic Worth

钦佩、欣赏和审美价值

• DOI: 10.1080/00048402.2021.1986556
• 发表时间: 2021
• 期刊: Australasian Journal of Philosophy
• 影响因子: 1
• 作者: Whiting D

Higher-Order Evidence in Aesthetics

美学的高阶证据

• DOI: 10.1093/aesthj/ayac073
• 发表时间: 2023
• 期刊: British Journal of Aesthetics
• 影响因子: 0.8
• 作者: Whiting D

The Range of Reasons: in Ethics and Epistemology

理由的范围：伦理学和认识论

• 发表时间: 2021
• 作者: Whiting