Evidential Preemption

Abstract

As a general rule, whenever a hearer is justified in forming the belief that p on the basis of a speaker's testimony, she will also be justified in assuming that the speaker has formed her belief appropriately in light of a relevantly large and representative sample of the evidence that bears on p.1 Typically, we may take it that p and q are in some kind of apparent tension, so that the speaker can rely on the hearer to recognize that rational commitment to one proposition would prima facie exclude rational commitment to the other (e.g., "My opponents will tell you that I am too young and inexperienced to be a leader, but I say, this country is ready for change.").

Civility, Trust, and Responding to Echo Chambers

“…Suppose a leader or some other member of an echo chamber wants to make a claim, p. Before making this claim, that person will predict that outsiders will say not-p for such and such reasons. Thus, not-p, and various arguments and reasons in not-p's favour will have been predicted and taken into account by the echo chamber's background beliefs, and thus outsiders' claim, not-p, is neutralized in its epistemic force (Begby, 2021;Nguyen, 2020). Furthermore, this prediction by echo chamber insiders will reinforce members' trust towards insiders and their beliefs while also reinforcing distrust towards outsiders (Begby, 2021;Nguyen, 2020).…”

“…Thus, not-p, and various arguments and reasons in not-p's favour will have been predicted and taken into account by the echo chamber's background beliefs, and thus outsiders' claim, not-p, is neutralized in its epistemic force (Begby, 2021;Nguyen, 2020). Furthermore, this prediction by echo chamber insiders will reinforce members' trust towards insiders and their beliefs while also reinforcing distrust towards outsiders (Begby, 2021;Nguyen, 2020). As Nguyen points out, the disagreement-reinforcement mechanisms present in echo chambers can explain why the beliefs of some members of, for example, anti-vax echo chambers seem to be entirely impervious to widely accepted scientific evidence.…”

“…Moreover, echo chambers can contain what Nguyen calls a "disagreement-reinforcement mechanism," which are mechanisms by which the presentation of contrary beliefs and evidence from outsiders lead to a reinforcement of the echo chamber members' beliefs (Nguyen, 2020, p. 147). Nguyen's concept of a disagreement-reinforcement mechanism is influenced by Endre Begby's analysis of "evidential preemption" (Begby, 2021), which works roughly as follows. Suppose a leader or some other member of an echo chamber wants to make a claim, p. Before making this claim, that person will predict that outsiders will say not-p for such and such reasons.…”

Hermeneutical Injustice: Distortion and Conceptual Aptness

“…16 Cf. Endre Begby's analysis of evidential preemption in the context of testimonial exchange, especially what he calls "epistemic grooming" (Begby 2020). 17 Ishani Maitra outlines different ways in which concepts might be distorting using the concepts statutory rape and sexual harassment as case studies (Maitra 2018).…”

The Seductions of Clarity

“…This explanation performs a kind of intellectual judo. As Endre Begby (2020) points out, such a belief system transforms apparently contrary evidence into confirmations of the belief system – a process which he calls ‘evidential pre-emption’. If Limbaugh predicts that the liberal media will accuse him of falsifying information, then when his followers hear such accusations from the liberal media, they will have reason to increase their trust in Limbaugh – since his predictions have been fulfilled!…”