Analyzing blameworthiness in the bubble and chamber

Clicks: 2
ID: 287045
2024
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #2,632 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Tracing back to how false beliefs are acquired and exacerbated by victims who are inside the epistemic bubble and echo chamber environments, it seems like these victims have no control over the acquisition and corruption of their belief structures. This is especially true for echo chamber victims because of the combination of the constant polarization and credibility manipulation that they experience. This results in the cultivation of implicit biases over beliefs inside the chamber. Now, can we say that these victims are epistemically blameworthy for having false beliefs? Furthermore, are these victims all the same in terms of their traits and blamelessness or blameworthiness? In this paper, I examine and emphasize the differences between victims of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers through the lens of epistemic blameworthiness. I argue that epistemic bubble and echo chamber victims have different traits, statuses, and epistemic responsibilities. By identifying their epistemic blameworthiness, the epistemic profiles enumerate six types of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. This proves that not all victims of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers are similar. They have different profiles which will be used to prove their epistemic blamelessness and blameworthiness, thereby, creating a preliminary basis for the criteria for the degrees of epistemic blameworthiness for epistemic bubble and echo chamber victims.
Reference Key
persistent_1760660422_68f18bc6951cc Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Uri, Angel Yvette G
Journal Malay Journal
Year 2024
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_philo/13
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.