Postponed: Higher-Order Evidence in Epistemology, Ethics, and Aesthetics V Event

This workshop has been postponed until further notice

First-order considerations include evidence for and against the truth of a proposition, reasons for and against acting, and features of a work that contribute to its being admirable or disadmirable. Higher-order evidence includes considerations that bear (i) on a person's ability to assess or respond to first-order considerations, (ii) on what first-order considerations are available or forthcoming, and (iii) on the bearing of the first-order considerations. Some examples:

• The clues support the verdict that the butler did it. But the detective knows they are exhausted and under stress, factors that might compromise their ability to evaluate the clues. Is it rational for the detective to think that the butler did it?
• A hiring committee is deciding whether to appoint a person. The CV, interview, presentation, etc., suggest that they are the best candidate. But the committee has evidence that they are subject to bias in their assessment of the evidence. Should they appoint the person?
• A person admires a film that is in fact admirable. But they have evidence that their admiration is motivated by snobbishness. Is it reasonable for the person to continue to admire the film?
• Having read and carefully considering Quine's "Two Dogmas", a philosopher is convinced that the analytic/synthetic distinction is false. They are then reminded that their education in the US is likely to have pre-disposed them to this verdict. Should the philosopher reduce their confidence?
• A student is deciding whether to visit their grandparents or go to a party. The former will bring the grandparents pleasure but not the student. The latter will bring the student pleasure but not the grandparents. By the lights of the true moral theory, the student should visit their grandparents. But their philosophy professor tells them (falsely) that egoism is the true moral theory. What should the student decide?
• A person prefers the Beatles to the Stones. As it happens, the Beatles are better. But, according to the testimony of critics, the Stones are better. Should the person revise their preferences?

The issues higher-order evidence raises include but are not limited to the following: what bearing does higher-order evidence have on the status of our actions and attitudes? What difference, if any, does it make to what a person is right/justified/rational
to believe/feel/decide? If it makes a difference, how and in what way?

This is the last in a series of workshops on Higher-Order Evidence in Epistemology, Ethics, and Aesthetics supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/S006338/1).

Organiser
Daniel Whiting

Invited speakers
Anna-Maria Eder (Cologne)
Joshua DiPaolo (California State)
Maria Lasonen-Aarnio (Helsinki)
Fabienne Peter (Warwick)
Michael Rush (Birmingham)
Mattias Skipper (Aarhus)
Ema Sullivan-Bissett (Birmingham)

Call for papers
There will be up two open sessions. Papers should be suitable for presentation in no more than 45 minutes. They will be selected on the basis of abstracts (750 words max.).
To submit an abstract for consideration, send it as an attachment to Tracy Storey ( [email protected] ). Ensure it is suitable for blind review. In the body of the email, include contact details and affiliation.
The deadline for submission is Tues 3 March 2020.
The project will cover the costs of up to 3 nights' accommodation and meals on the days of workshop.
Submissions from under-represented groups are strongly encouraged and warmly welcomed.

Registration
The workshop is free to attend but a limited number of places are available. To register, please email Tracy Storey ( [email protected] ) with your name and affiliation by Tues 17 March 2020.

Further information
The event is organised in accordance with the BPA-SWIP best practice scheme. If you require information about childcare, please contact Tracy Storey ( [email protected] ).

Accessibility information:

• We can provide a hearing loop if it is required.
• We will permit service animals to attend.
• All sessions will take place in the same location.
• We can provide a quiet room if it is required.
• The venue will have available seating.
• There will be parking nearby. To park, you will require a permit, so please notify the organiser in advance.
• The schedule is TBC but there will be refreshment breaks between each session.
• Funding may be available for delegates whose needs incur additional costs. Please get in touch with the organiser at the earliest possible stage and they will look into available support.
• The room is wheelchair accessible and accessible toilets are a short distance away on the same floor.
• We will permit questions during Q&A to be written down rather than spoken out loud.

Please do not hesitate to contact the organiser if there is any further information you require.