In this episode, I'll be giving you an introduction to social epistemology, something not covered on the specification (though Zagzebski's virtue epistemology brushes quite closely with it) and making an argument for why it would be great to include on the A-Level spec- and why it might be a bad thing that it isn't already included.

Assessed introduction to this podcast episode as written up for my assessment below!:

'This podcast episode aims to provide an introductory insightinto social epistemology for A Level philosophy students who either may be interested in what philosophy in higher education is like or generally enjoy the subject and want to explore concepts not present on the specification. Epistemology is one of the primary four areas of philosophy studied at A Level, but focuses entirely on classic epistemology, the closest reference to social epistemology being Linda Zagzebski’s virtue epistemology, used solely as a theory of knowledge rather than as a suggestion for combatting epistemic injustice. In creating this podcast, I set out to achieve two primary ends: firstly, to provide an insight into contemporary applications of epistemology in order to try and embrace the notion of the philosophy in life aspect of this assignment by applying the assignment to an existing personal project of significant importance to me: increasing interest and engagement with philosophy on a college level and encouraging more a level students to consider taking the subject into higher education. Secondly, to use the concepts being explained to demonstrate in practise the applications of philosophy by using social epistemology to make an argument exploring not only how social epistemology might be a positive addition to the a level philosophy scheme, but how the lack of diverse representation and discussion of social applications of philosophy in the a level specification at present may be an epistemic injustice in itself that the inclusion of a social epistemology module could mediate. My argument draws from several weeks of the course’s content, with a focus on giving a varied insight into social epistemology from explaining epistemic injustice and going into more detail by defining and giving examples of types of testimonial injustices and hermeneutical injustice, to introducing the concept of epistemic privilege through standpoint epistemology to make the argument for the benefits of better representation of marginalised voices in education. I drew from Miranda Fricker for several definitions surrounding epistemic injustices as well as insight into hermeneutical justice, which lead me to also refer to two separate pieces from Patricia Hill Collins in providing examples of epistemic injustices with reference to intersectionality and connecting the concept of the outsider within with that of epistemic privilege from a marginalised standpoint, both concepts fleshed out by Briana Toole’swriting; I referenced Kristie Dotson to explain testimonial injustices and also Rae Langton to outline illocutionary acts for the purpose of better explaining how epistemic injustices occur as a failure of a speech act due to the listener’s lack of understanding (because of some factor of the speaker’sidentity). A list of full references will be given at the end of the podcast when released after assessing for the sake of demonstrating accountable research to students and providing them with further reading into the subject.'

In this episode I'll be summarising everything I've covered in the podcast so far in terms of the specification points A Level students need to know and the episodes in which you can find each little bullet point on the spec- one out of four sections of the course down!

If you have the time, I would very much appreciate you dropping a comment on any particular content you've struggled with the most, any particular episode or section of an episode in this podcast that you found a bit unclear- or alternatively any episode/section that was particularly helpful or clear to you so I can reflect on how I've explained things and collect feedback for future reviews of past content I've covered. Also, if you have any specific questions content-wise feel free to drop them too, regardless of whether I've covered it or not- just because I've gone over all this once doesn't mean I'm not willing to re-explain and go into further detail on anything I've missed or not outlined as efficiently as I could have, especially given I have a lot more experience in philosophy now than I did when I began!

You can comment directly on the spotify page or on individual episodes like this one, or feel free to send me an email at coffeenphilosophy@gmail.com if preferred. You can also DM the page on instagram (coffeenphilosophy), get in touch on threads (coffeenphilosophy) or on X (coffeenphilo) and Bluesky (coffeenphilo.bsky.social).

In this episode I will be covering empiricist responses to scepticism including that of Bertrand Russell's realist 'best hypothesis' response, Berkeleys' idealist 'no world? no problem!' response, and the reliabilist approach to the problem of scepticism.

In this episode: A run-down of Descartes' response to the problem of scepticism, including an explanation of his wax analogy for the concept of physical objects, his argument for the possibility of physical objects and, inevitably, his argument for the existence of the external world. Also, some empirical crits as well as a bonus criticism from Amanda Bryant's paper 'Keep The Chickens Cooped: The Epistemic Inadequacy of Free Range Metaphysics'.

Also also, the typical weird analogies- this time relating to iced lattes (I know, shocker, an actual reference to coffee for once), a horse with a thousand legs, and Santa Clause being honestly? A questionable idea overall.

In this episode, I will be introducing the topic of scepticism- what it is, the differences between local and global scepticism, Descartes' three waves of doubt, Hilary Putnam's version of the brain-in-a-vat sceptical problem, and a whole bundle of examples from the media, with a focus on the truman show and a horror platformer video game rendition of Alice in Wonderland.

Social Media

instagram: @coffeenphilosophy

X: @coffeenphilo

Bluesky: @coffeenphilo.bsky.social

Email: coffeenphilosophy@gmail.com

Credit: At the very end of this episode I use audio from the following youtube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBO5aO6iJlk&t=1120s .

This podcast is non-monetized so I make no financial benefit from the use of this snippet but felt it responsible to point out that this audio does not belong to me and is the property of American McGee, thus if there is any issue with my use of the audio I am happy to rectify the episode and reupload as necessary. I use the audio in the same way that the YouTuber MNHStudios - to highlight the wonderful voice acting of Roger Jackson as the cheshire cat. Also, to emphasise a point about the importance of scepticism.

In this episode I'll be going over the criticisms of the arguments explained in the last three episodes, and along the way going on some rambles involving unwarranted relationship advice, ill-advised pet names, nerdy songs, how much it sucks when a good tv show ends, and getting covered with ants.

content warning: discussion of death [12:23-15:49]

In this episode I'll be going over the ontological argument- explaining what exactly 'ontology' is with reference to sandwiches, considering some context from Descartes' fourth meditation, considering what it means for something to be true by definition, explaining the idea of existence as a perfection with the help of a side ramble about greek myths, and hopefully helping you understand why Descartes says for God to exist, he's got to be (e e e e e e), perfect.

In this episode, I will be covering Descartes' Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, provided by him as an alternative argument for God's existence in case his empirical adversaries weren't already convinced enough by the first one. Can't knock him for being thorough. Also, references to Taylor Swift's eras tour as a surprisingly helpful analogy for a life divided into independent parts, too many mentions of the c-word (cause), and mild self-directed shade in the name of demonstrating that we definitely aren't responsible for our own existence, or it's maintenance.

SOCIALS:

X: @coffeenphilo

Insta: @coffeenphilosophy

email your thoughts: coffeenphilosophy@gmail.com

TIME STAMPS:

these changed in editing so, tbd and apologies! should be out soon.