El jueves, 24 de octubre, a las 12.30, en la Sala de Juntas de Filosofía, tendrá lugar una nueva sesión, en este caso doble, del TeC-Filolab, con dos investigadores de la Universidad Jaguelónica de Cracovia (Polonia): J. P. Grodniewicz, Profesor Asistente de Filosofía en el Copernicus Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, y Elena Popa, investigadora posdoctoral en el Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics.
A continuación podéis encontrar el título y un resumen de cada charla, así como una breve nota sobre el trabajo de cada ponente.
*
J.P. Grodniewicz: Understanding oneself
Abstract:
What does it take to understand oneself? I argue that it involves grasping coherence-making relations between constituents of a body of information about oneself. Thus, self-understanding is best characterized as a kind of holistic understanding of a subject domain, often referred to as «objectual understanding.» What is special about self-understanding is the domain—oneself. I suggest that this characterization captures our intuitions about understanding oneself and enables us to give a fine-grained and multi-dimensional account of what it means to deepen one’s self-understanding. Moreover, it allows us to recognize that self-understanding is a sui generis epistemic good, irreducible to either self-knowledge or self-narrative.
Bio:
J.P. Grodniewicz is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Copernicus Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of the Jagiellonian University. He works in the philosophy of mind, epistemology, and the philosophy of psychiatry and psychotherapy.
*
Elena Popa: Epistemic Trust Injustice in Public Health Context
Abstract:
Epistemic trust injustice obtains in circumstances where groups subject to oppression or marginalization have good reasons to doubt the credibility of science due to its involvement in historical injustices. In this paper, I will first argue that this is a challenge for public health because the success of interventions such as vaccination programs or following health advice require a trusting relationship between the public and the health authorities and/or scientists. If vulnerable groups do not participate in these programs due to warranted distrust, this may exacerbate existing health disparities. In this context, solutions such as supplying the public with additional knowledge or rhetoric focused around countering misinformation neglect the political underpinnings of particular groups having legitimate concerns whether public health truly works in their interests.
I will then explore two alternate ways of ameliorating epistemic trust injustice: acknowledging and highlighting structural issues regarding health disparities and providing medical and public health professionals with skills to spot them when working with patients and engage in advocacy. Regarding the former focusing public health approaches around social determinants of health and upstream causes of illness would emphasize issues such as poverty, experiences of discrimination or oppression, lack of access to education or decent living conditions, all of which are relevant for health outcomes. This would help draw attention to the health problems vulnerable populations face and perhaps, if these are addressed, also increase trust with time. Regarding providing medical and public health practitioners with the skill of structural competence, this would enable them to recognize cases of epistemic trust injustice and engage in advocacy regarding meeting the needs of patients subject to it.
Bio:
Elena Popa is post-doctoral researcher at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow and PI of the project ‘Values, Trust and Decision Making in Public Health’. She works on causality and causal reasoning and values in science, with special emphasis on cultural and social issues in medicine, particularly psychiatry and public health. Her work has been published in journals such as Synthese, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science: Part C, and Philosophy & Technology.