Unit 4 AoS2 asks students to select two case studies from two of three provided contexts, then analyse the epistemological issues they raise using the concepts, questions, and arguments from AoS1. The contexts are:
- Silencing, exclusion, and cancelling
- Misinformation, disinformation, and echo chambers
- Truth, trust, credibility, and expertise
For each case study, the first skill is identifying the assumptions, arguments, and viewpoints about belief, belief formation, and justification that are embedded in the case.
Example case study: The phenomenon of “cancel culture” — the public withdrawal of support, employment, or platform from a person following perceived transgression.
Embedded assumptions to identify:
- That some speech is harmful enough to justify silencing (assumes: harm is a sufficient ground for epistemic exclusion)
- That public opinion (expressed through social media) is a legitimate mechanism for regulating speech (assumes: the court of public opinion has epistemic authority)
- That those who are cancelled have already been given adequate opportunity to be heard (assumes: the prior discursive process was fair — an assumption that Fricker would question)
- That the witnesses and accusers are reliable epistemic sources (assumes: credibility is appropriately calibrated)
Viewpoints present in cancel culture debates:
- Pro-cancellation: The silenced person abused their epistemic platform; restricting their platform corrects for prior injustice
- Anti-cancellation: No one’s epistemic access should be withdrawn without due process; the mob lacks the calibration to assess credibility fairly
Example case study: Social media algorithms promoting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.
Embedded assumptions to identify:
- That individuals are responsible for forming their own beliefs (contradicted by algorithmic manipulation of what information they see)
- That social media constitutes a neutral platform for information exchange (actually, algorithms optimise for engagement, which favours emotionally resonant misinformation)
- That correcting misinformation is simply a matter of providing accurate information (challenges a naively evidentialist view — providing evidence does not always shift beliefs)
Viewpoints:
- Libertarian: People have the right to hold and express any views, including false ones; correction must come through counter-speech, not censorship
- Paternalist: Platforms have epistemic responsibilities to prevent harm from widespread false beliefs
- Epistemic responsibility view (Clifford extended): The users who spread misinformation without checking are epistemically irresponsible; so are the platforms that enable them
Example case study: Public trust in medical expertise during and after COVID-19.
Embedded assumptions to identify:
- That scientific consensus represents the best available epistemic standard (sometimes true, sometimes challenged by the replication crisis and evolving evidence)
- That when expert advice changes (e.g., on masks early in COVID), this represents failure rather than the normal operation of science under uncertainty
- That public distrust of experts is irrational (sometimes rational given historical abuse of authority — Tuskegee; sometimes irrational motivated by political identity)
An assumption is an unstated premise that an argument depends on — it is taken for granted rather than argued for. To identify assumptions:
Example:
- Argument: “We should remove this false claim from the platform.”
- Assumption 1: The claim has been correctly identified as false (epistemic assumption about verification)
- Assumption 2: Removing speech is an appropriate response to false beliefs (political/ethical assumption)
- Assumption 3: The platform has the epistemic authority to adjudicate truth (assumption about legitimacy)
Identifying assumptions is the first step in philosophical analysis because it reveals where a position is vulnerable. An argument that relies on a false or contested assumption can be undermined by challenging that assumption.
| Case Study Element | Type of Assumption | AoS1 Connection |
|---|---|---|
| “Experts should be believed” | Authority is automatically legitimating | Expertise and trust (Hume, Reid) |
| “Peer review guarantees reliability” | Scientific process is infallible | Limits of consensus |
| “Users are responsible for misinformation” | Individual agency fully shapes belief | Fricker — social conditions matter |
KEY TAKEAWAY: Assumptions are the unstated foundations of arguments. In philosophical analysis of case studies, identifying and evaluating assumptions is the primary analytical skill.
EXAM TIP: For each case study, prepare a list of at least three assumptions embedded in the common ways of discussing it. For each assumption, identify which AoS1 concept it connects to and whether the assumption is well-founded.
VCAA FOCUS: The assessment of AoS2 case studies requires explicit connection back to AoS1 concepts and questions. Do not analyse case studies in isolation — always anchor the analysis to specific AoS1 arguments.
