Miljan Vasić | University of Belgrade (original) (raw)
Papers by Miljan Vasić
Virtues and Vices - Between Ethics and Epistemology, Edited by Nenad Cekić , 2023
"The thematic focus of the collection Virtues and Vices - Between Ethics and Epistemology success... more "The thematic focus of the collection Virtues and Vices - Between Ethics and Epistemology successfully summarizes recent debates on the relationship between virtues and vices. Whether from the perspective of ethics or epistemology, this collection of papers represents a significant contribution to both academic and non-academic communities by providing answers to questions that occupy us daily but for which we never seem to have enough time. A stimulating journey through the diverse articles in this collection inspires reflection on common human experiences and encourages us to strive to transcend the bundle of everyday practices and habits."
Prof. dr Vojislav Božičković
Theoria, Beograd, 2018
My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet?s jury theorem is, and to examine its central a... more My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet?s jury theorem is, and to examine its central assumptions, its significance to the epistemic theory of democracy and its connection with Rousseau?s theory of general will. In the first part of the paper I will analyze an epistemic theory of democracy and explain how its connection with Condorcet?s jury theorem is twofold: the theorem is at the same time a contributing historical source, and the model used by the authors to this day. In the second part I will specify the purposes of the theorem itself, and examine its underlying assumptions. Third part will be about an interpretation of Rousseau?s theory, which is given by Grofman and Feld relying on Condorcet?s jury theorem, and about criticisms of such interpretation. In the fourth, and last, part I will focus on one particular assumption of Condorcet?s theorem, which proves to be especially problematic if we would like to apply the theorem under real-life conditions; namely, the as...
Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another, withou... more Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another, without prior consultation and for the sake of her epistemic good. We will examine two main types of epistemic paternalism: eudaimonic and strict. In the case of eudaimonic epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is used only as a means to achieve non-epistemic benefits. In the case of strict epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is valued as a good in itself. The main objection against each type of epistemic paternalism is that this practice leads to a violation of personal autonomy. We will defend a more moderate form of strict epistemic paternalism which is motivated by both epistemic and non-epistemic benefits. At the same time, this moderate form leads to the development of specific epistemic virtues, which results in an increase rather than a violation of personal autonomy. We will show that the question of the justification of epistemic paternalism is especially relevant in ...
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play imp... more The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncritically accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes are influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher’s degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants'...
Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 2020
The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play imp... more The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncriti-cally accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes are influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher's degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritar-ianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants' readiness to question the scientific method. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship between epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism on the one hand, and career stage and sociopolitical views on the other hand. Interestingly, our study found only small correlations between the participants' degree of conservatism and their epistemic attitudes. This suggests that political views, against common argumentation, actually do not play an important role in one's scientific decisions. Moreover, social scientists scored higher on the epistemic tolerance and lower on the epistemic authoritarianism scale than natural scientists. Finally, the results indicate that natural scientists question the scientific method less than social scientists.
Virtues and Vices - Between Ethics and Epistemology, Edited by Nenad Cekić , 2023
"The thematic focus of the collection Virtues and Vices - Between Ethics and Epistemology success... more "The thematic focus of the collection Virtues and Vices - Between Ethics and Epistemology successfully summarizes recent debates on the relationship between virtues and vices. Whether from the perspective of ethics or epistemology, this collection of papers represents a significant contribution to both academic and non-academic communities by providing answers to questions that occupy us daily but for which we never seem to have enough time. A stimulating journey through the diverse articles in this collection inspires reflection on common human experiences and encourages us to strive to transcend the bundle of everyday practices and habits."
Prof. dr Vojislav Božičković
Theoria, Beograd, 2018
My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet?s jury theorem is, and to examine its central a... more My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet?s jury theorem is, and to examine its central assumptions, its significance to the epistemic theory of democracy and its connection with Rousseau?s theory of general will. In the first part of the paper I will analyze an epistemic theory of democracy and explain how its connection with Condorcet?s jury theorem is twofold: the theorem is at the same time a contributing historical source, and the model used by the authors to this day. In the second part I will specify the purposes of the theorem itself, and examine its underlying assumptions. Third part will be about an interpretation of Rousseau?s theory, which is given by Grofman and Feld relying on Condorcet?s jury theorem, and about criticisms of such interpretation. In the fourth, and last, part I will focus on one particular assumption of Condorcet?s theorem, which proves to be especially problematic if we would like to apply the theorem under real-life conditions; namely, the as...
Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another, withou... more Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another, without prior consultation and for the sake of her epistemic good. We will examine two main types of epistemic paternalism: eudaimonic and strict. In the case of eudaimonic epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is used only as a means to achieve non-epistemic benefits. In the case of strict epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is valued as a good in itself. The main objection against each type of epistemic paternalism is that this practice leads to a violation of personal autonomy. We will defend a more moderate form of strict epistemic paternalism which is motivated by both epistemic and non-epistemic benefits. At the same time, this moderate form leads to the development of specific epistemic virtues, which results in an increase rather than a violation of personal autonomy. We will show that the question of the justification of epistemic paternalism is especially relevant in ...
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play imp... more The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncritically accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes are influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher’s degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants'...
Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 2020
The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play imp... more The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncriti-cally accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes are influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher's degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritar-ianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants' readiness to question the scientific method. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship between epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism on the one hand, and career stage and sociopolitical views on the other hand. Interestingly, our study found only small correlations between the participants' degree of conservatism and their epistemic attitudes. This suggests that political views, against common argumentation, actually do not play an important role in one's scientific decisions. Moreover, social scientists scored higher on the epistemic tolerance and lower on the epistemic authoritarianism scale than natural scientists. Finally, the results indicate that natural scientists question the scientific method less than social scientists.