The highest-level AoS2 skill is the interplay between AoS1 set texts and AoS2 case studies — not just applying one to the other, but showing how each illuminates the other in both directions:
- The set texts provide the conceptual vocabulary and argumentative framework for understanding the case studies
- The case studies test, extend, and sometimes challenge the arguments made in the set texts
VCAA uses the word “interplay” deliberately — it suggests a dynamic, two-way relationship, not one-way application.
Set text claim: Testimonial injustice occurs when speakers are assigned less credibility than they deserve because of identity prejudice.
Case study application: Cancel campaigns can function as reverse testimonial injustice — assigning excessive negative credibility to a speaker based on one controversial claim or one dimension of identity. Fricker’s framework shows this is both an epistemic wrong (distorting credibility) and an ethical wrong.
Illumination: Fricker’s framework helps us see cancel campaigns not merely as social phenomena but as epistemic practices — with specific epistemic properties that can be evaluated against standards of credibility assessment.
Set text claim: It is wrong to believe (or spread belief) on insufficient evidence, because beliefs drive actions and those actions affect others.
Case study application: The spread of vaccine misinformation on social media is a large-scale instantiation of Cliffordian epistemic negligence — people sharing false health claims without checking the evidence.
Extension: Clifford’s framework was developed for individual belief-formation. The case study extends it to institutional and platform actors: if individuals are epistemically responsible for their beliefs, platforms that architect environments enabling mass epistemic negligence may bear institutional epistemic responsibility.
Set text debate: Should we trust testimony by default (Reid) or only when grounded in experience of reliability (Hume)?
Case study application: Public trust in COVID expertise can be evaluated through this lens. Those who maintained trust in public health authorities throughout (even as advice changed) were following something like Reid’s default trust position. Those who lost trust because specific defeaters arose (apparent contradictions in advice) were following something like Hume’s calibrated trust.
Illumination: The case study shows that both approaches are present in real epistemic life — and that neither, applied mechanically, is sufficient. The appropriate response required contextual judgment that neither framework fully specifies.
Case study challenge: Both the conciliationist and steadfast positions on peer disagreement assume that the disagreeing parties are genuine epistemic peers — equally well-informed and rational.
Challenge from case study: In echo chambers, apparent peer disagreement is systematically manufactured to look like disagreement between equals when it is not. The “peer” who disagrees with scientific consensus may have been epistemically corrupted by the echo chamber. Standard peer disagreement models do not account for manufactured epistemic communities.
Extension of set text: The set texts need to be extended with an account of what makes someone a genuine epistemic peer vs. an apparent one — the case study makes this gap visible.
Case study challenge: Fricker focuses on testimonial injustice as deflation of credibility (giving less credibility than deserved). But cancel culture sometimes involves inflation of credibility to accusers — who may have strong incentives to make accusations without adequate evidence.
Challenge: Is there a form of testimonial injustice that consists in over-crediting accusers rather than under-crediting the accused? Fricker’s framework needs extension to capture this.
Case study challenge: Clifford locates epistemic responsibility in the individual who forms beliefs. But misinformation spreads through algorithmic systems that shape what information individuals encounter — making it genuinely difficult to proportionate beliefs to evidence when the evidence presented is systematically biased.
Challenge to Clifford: If the epistemic environment is systematically corrupted, holding individuals responsible for believing on insufficient evidence may be unfair. Clifford’s framework assumes a reasonably well-functioning epistemic environment; the case study shows environments can be deliberately degraded.
For any case study × set text combination:
1. One-way application: How does the set text’s argument apply to the case?
2. Extension: Does the case require extending the argument beyond its original scope?
3. Challenge: Does the case challenge an assumption of the argument?
4. Refined conclusion: What is the most defensible position on the issue, having done both?
KEY TAKEAWAY: Interplay is a two-way relationship. The best AoS2 responses not only apply set text arguments to case studies but show how case studies push back on, extend, or complicate those arguments.
VCAA FOCUS: The word “interplay” in the study design signals that VCAA expects this two-way relationship. A response that only goes one-way — only applying set texts to cases — will not achieve the highest marks.
EXAM TIP: For each combination of set text argument and case study, practise writing one paragraph of “application” and one paragraph of “challenge” or “extension.” This will prepare you for the interplay questions.
