Threading the Needle: Can We Respect Local Knowledge While Resisting Misinformation?

"It's common knowledge that we are awash in misinformation that can have severe negative consequences for society. When people hold false beliefs about the safety of vaccines, the outcomes of elections, or the causes of climate change, it is much more difficult for them to make responsible decisions on behalf of their families and communities. It is tempting to respond to this challenge by insisting that expert scientists know best and to dismiss those who challenge the experts."

"Scholarship by philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science suggests that this solution is too simple. There are numerous cases where nonspecialists have drawn on "local knowledge" gleaned from their own life experiences in order to challenge erroneous or misleading claims made by expert scientists. This sometimes occurs when community members identify threats from environmental pollution that experts initially dismiss, such as in Flint, Michigan or Woburn, Massachusetts."

"In some cases, the dismissal of nonspecialist perspectives could even qualify as a form of epistemic injustice, in which people are wronged in their capacity as knowers. This can happen when someone's knowledge claims are not given the credibility they deserve because of prejudice against them. This could occur, for example, if the testimony of women or disabled patients is summarily dismissed by medical professionals or if the concerns raised by marginalized ethnic or racial groups about environmental pollution in their communities is ignored by public health experts."

Misinformation undermines responsible decision-making about vaccines, elections, and climate change. Nonspecialists sometimes use local knowledge from life experiences to identify hazards or to contest expert claims, as when communities detect environmental pollution or when patients question medical diagnoses and treatments. Dismissing such perspectives can amount to epistemic injustice by denying credibility due to prejudice, particularly against women, disabled patients, or marginalized racial and ethnic groups. Distinguishing legitimate local insights from confusion is challenging. Methods that integrate local knowledge with expert assessment are necessary to avoid harm and improve public health and policy responses.

Read at Apaonline