floresophize.bsky.social
Philosopher @ UC Santa Cruz. Interested in belief, evidence-resistance, social identities, ideology, ignorance, delusions. ||Pronouns they/she || Daydreaming of a socialist utopia || Languages: EN, PT, ES || www.carolinaflores.org for papers
63 posts
586 followers
1,758 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Thank you!!
comment in response to
post
Yay thanks Devin!
comment in response to
post
<3 What I felt when I found your paper on evidential oppression!
comment in response to
post
Also especially indebted to @danwphilosophy.bsky.social's, Maxime Lepoutre's, Thi Nguyen's and Jon Ellis's work, and @elisewoodard.bsky.social's and Jennifer Lackey's feedback!
comment in response to
post
TL;DR: Identity-protective reasoning isn’t inherently bad. It can correct biases in the evidence, empower marginalized and counter-hegemonic groups, and serve as collective epistemic insurance. Let’s rethink it as a tool for democratic resilience, not just a source of dysfunction. 9/
comment in response to
post
And a different risk emerges: the capture of identities. We find ourselves in a permanent "arms race" of epistemic methods, any of which can be captured in a context of unequal epistemic power. 9/
comment in response to
post
Then a radically different picture emerges: Identity-protective reasoning "from below" can be a tool in resisting the elite capture of the total evidence, allowing for more accurate views in face of misleading evidence. 8/
comment in response to
post
Identity-protective reasoning can entrench polarization. For those who think polarization is The Big Risk for democracies, this makes it the enemy. But, what if, as @samuel-bagg.bsky.social and @olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social suggest, we should worry more about elite capture? 7/
comment in response to
post
Notice that this does not generalize to all kinds of identity-protective reasoning. The idea is that its epistemic value is indexed to social position: it can entrench ignorance, but, when the evidence is systematically distorted, it can provide pockets of escape from dominant distortion 6/
comment in response to
post
In fact, from marginalized positions, identity-protective reasoning isn’t just a defense against distorted evidence—it’s a tool for resisting dominant ideologies and developing resistant standpoints. Tying beliefs to identities can provide an epistemic advantage 5/
comment in response to
post
Individually (and less often noted!), it can correct for distortions caused by ideologically biased evidence. This is especially crucial for marginalized groups, who often face evidence that devalues their identities, beliefs, and practices. (@catsaintcroix.bsky.social on evidential oppression!) 4/
comment in response to
post
Collectively, it acts as a kind of epistemic insurance policy. By enabling groups to test divergent beliefs, it creates a division of cognitive labor. This helps guard against the risk that the total evidence might be misleading. (Cf lots of phil of science, from Lakatos to @kevinzollman.com) 3/
comment in response to
post
I argue identity-protective reasoning can play a positive epistemic role, both individually and collectively. And this epistemic role matters especially in contexts where we should worry more about elite capture of our informational context rather than polarization. 2/
comment in response to
post
Also totally unrelated: I loved your article on evidential oppression!!
comment in response to
post
Thanks so much MJ!! ☺️
comment in response to
post
Come along!!!
comment in response to
post
Yay!! Very glad to hear that. And we need more queer epistemology!
comment in response to
post
Credit for that goes to @carolhay.bsky.social!
comment in response to
post
Tagging my co-organizer @n1c0n1c0.bsky.social and some of the participants who are on this site: @quillkukla.bsky.social, @rimabasu.bsky.social, @dpayton.bsky.social, @cdkg.bsky.social.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for continuing to circulate this! :)
comment in response to
post
Thanks so much!! ☺️
comment in response to
post
Outra teoria/filosofia: capitalismo gore; utopia no es una isla; all things are too small; good economics for hard times; moving up without losing your way
(Não me vem nada à cabeca de tecnologia que não seja um bocado óbvio!)
comment in response to
post
Tenho uma lista grande para ti!
- História e cidades: city living; beyond the wall; secondhand time
- Cuidados e feminismo: care: the highest stage of capitalism; the argonauts; who cares? How to reshape a democratic politics; neuroqueer heresies; data feminism; we are not born submissive
comment in response to
post
Why does this matter? Having this space is needed so that we can love and learn and be transformed by each other. (I had some philosophical gripes and points where I wanted more detail - excited to spend longer with this when the written version is published!) #Philsky
comment in response to
post
And also a novel and subtle argument for how gender-critical feminists reinforce patriarchal norms around privacy, and some final points on how trans people exist, period. Grateful for Talia and for my trans colleagues bringing clarity into a field that doesn't always want to see reality.
comment in response to
post
It also includes excellent reflections on gender critical "feminism" as right-wing ideology, on how "when an asymmetry in vulnerability is created it becomes more difficult for the vulnerable to speak, and to have what they say, if they can say it, taken seriously at all" 2/3
comment in response to
post
Thanks Stephen! I’ll look at their guidelines!
comment in response to
post
Thanks! Might be too leftist, but could be worth a shot! (It’s the right length etc.)