Do you believe in "epistemic advantage" as defined here?

[chair jockey]

"Epistemic advantage" means that, if two people disagree, there can be something about those two people that gives one a better chance to be right, or even means 100% for sure that they are right.

Example 1: Person A is bigender. Person B is agender. They disagree about gender. Is either of them more likely to be right because of their gender?

Example 2: Person A has a degree in chemistry. Person B doesn't have a degree but has read 10 times more books on chemistry than Person A. They disagree about chemistry. Is either of them more likely to be right because she has a degree or has read more books?

But these are just examples and the question is general.

IMPORTANT ADDENDUM: If the term "epistemic advantage" is claimed by a specific group, please ignore the term and instead rely on the definition offered in the original post.

[Cimmerian]

Hmm, that term caught my attention because of the root, which I'd assume comes from the word meaning "the study of the theory of knowledge". If it simply meant that the one with more knowledge of a situation (as judged objectively in an all-knowing scenario) is more likely to be right, then I'd agree, but I've seen this used and abused too often by certain groups (most especially in the case of disagreements) to agree with it in practical or everyday usage. Someone simply "being" something doesn't necessarily mean they actually have more knowledge about the topic, it's just a presumption that they should. For example, if someone is rich you might presume that they are correct in an argument about how to make money because they have a lot of it and presumably the experience (since most arguments occur between two people with only the most superficial of knowledge about the other such as female/male, rich/poor, political view or sexuality), but they might have simply been raised in a rich family without actual, practical knowledge of how to make money.

In other words, I think knowledge wins out over simple characteristics of the individuals in the disagreement. (The problem I see is the confusion between experience and knowledge, because you can have the second without the former in some cases.)

Edit: I also liked your examples. :P

[sophy38]

As I know epistemic advantage, is about searching for the experiences of individuals who are in a situation that should be described; to achieve knowledge. It's a feminist approach and assume that being native in culture or being in class, gender, ... can help to see and describe the circumstances better than an outsider researcher who may neglect them unintentionally. It's also about the view point of the dominants that may neglect the minorities.

Wiki description is useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_advantage

So, It can be assumed that an insider sees what an outsider neglects. But I believe sometimes the outsider can have a picture that the insider is unaware of it (like the fish that don't know what is water, cause of it was always in water!).

In my opinion, we need both insider and outsider views to have a complete picture.

[chair jockey]

If the term "epistemic advantage" is claimed by a specific group, please ignore the term and instead rely on the definition offered in the original post.

[Skycaptain]

I voted neither, because in my view there are other variables to any discussion. If a question has an absolute answer either person could know it. If a theoretical question then both can be right or wrong.

[Grumpy Alien]

I honestly have no idea

[Jockey]

Your examples are not representative of the problem. If two people disagree, there's often one who's more likely to be right because one of them has a degree in the subject and the other person has merely watched a television special- not read ten books on it.

[binary suns]

I don't really believe in "right" tbh there is a sense of rightness we may feel but even something considered factual is based off of at least observation, deduction, or the establishment of some structured understanding. if things were different, then the conclusion may be instead incorrect. I only really would say a conclusion can be valid, in the sense that the conclusion follows the established structure based off an assumption.

[AshenPhoenix]

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organization, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to re-start new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

 

AshenPhoenix, Census Forum Moderator