The expression “post-truth” refers to a recent phenomenon characterised by a pervasive hostility towards the standards of truth that lie behind scientific reasoning and, more generally, towards some of the most reliable methods of rational belief formation. As a result, the role of experts and expertise in the formation of scientifically sensible opinions and beliefs is severely diminished, if not ignored. Typical of post-truth societies is not simply the usual mix of public ignorance, scientific illiteracy and skepticism, but something more profound: willful ignorance. The willful ignorant is not only someone not believing what is true, but is someone who is refusing to consider new data and decide to “insulate” herself from any new ideas and evidence.
The aim of our research program is three-fold: (i) to extend some tools developed in dynamic epistemic logic, network epistemology and social network analysis to define what we call “post-truth scenarios”. In these scenarios, polarization and lemming effects within one group combine with insulation from messages coming from out of the group. (ii) To apply these results to the analysis of the phenomenon known as “vaccine hesitancy”.
Our research hypothesis will be that when communicating with vaccine hesitant individuals, there is not only a phenomenon of “information indifference” at play, but also an asymmetrical attitude towards confirming and disconfirming evidence. (iii) to elaborate a series of educational activities, directed to two specific audiences: high-school students and physicians. For the latter, the aim is to elaborate a series of “best communicative practices” to deal with the worries of vaccine-hesitant individuals. For the former, the aim is to increase their sensibility towards the acquisition of scientifically oriented opinions and the role of logic and critical thinking in the processes of rational belief formation and revision.
Dear colleagues,
the international peer-reviewed journal Inquiry will be running a special issue on the topic of impossibility.
Irene Binini (Parma) Massimiliano Carrara (Padova) and Bjørn Jespersen (Groningen), will be co-editors of this special issue.
We welcome submissions on any and all notions of impossibility, and on the history of this multi-angled concept. While all submissions must be philosophical in nature, we are interested in manuscripts that have either a predominantly conceptual, logical or historical focus.
There are several reasons for devoting a special issue to the topic of impossibility. There is currently a plurality of notions of impossibility along two axes. The first axis bears on the taxonomy of different kinds of impossibility, such as alethic, epistemic, doxastic, analytic, mathematical, logical, nomological, metaphysical, and pragmatic (in terms of practical feasibility). The other axis concerns the degrees of granularity within each category. Notoriously, possible-worlds semantics has an excessively coarse-grained notion of impossibility, which makes the framework inapplicable to a host of modalities. These include, among others, counterpossibles (unless vacuism is expressly adopted), various attitudes, knowledge, imagining, and conceivability. Also historically, the nature and the many kinds of impossibility have been discussed, often in connection with the theory of conditionals and the truth-conditions of counterpossibles. Nevertheless, the history of impossibility has received much less attention than the one devoted to its modal counterparts of possibility and necessity. This special issue seeks to help fill this lacuna.
Although there is no word limit for submissions, your submission is much more likely to be considered if it is not in excess of 10,000 words.
The deadline is May 1st, 2023.
For further information, please contact the guest editors at irene.binini@unipr.it; massimiliano.carrara@unipd.it; bjorn.jespersen@gmail.com.
Please submit your paper at impossibilityinquiry@gmail.com
The usual standards of review maintained by Inquiry apply.