Knowledge,safety, and Gettierized lottery cases: Why mere statistical evidence is not a (safe) source of knowledge

The lottery problem is the problem of explaining why mere reflection on the long odds that one will lose the lottery does not yield knowledge that one will lose. More generally, it is the problem of explaining why true beliefs merely formed on the basis of statistical evidence do not amount to knowledge. Some have thought that the lottery problem can be solved by appeal to a violation of the safety principle for knowledge, i.e., the principle that if S knows that p, not easily would S have believed that p without p being the case. Against the standard safety‐based solution, I argue that understanding safe belief as belief that directly covaries with the truth of what is believed in a suitably defined set of possible worlds forces safety theorists to make a series of theoretical choices that ultimately prevent a satisfactory solution to the problem. In this way, I analyze several safety principles that result from such choices—the paper thus gives valuable insights into the nature of safety—and explain why none solves the lottery problem, including their inability to explain away Gettierized lottery cases. On a more positive note, I show that there is a viable solution in terms of safety if we get rid of the unquestioned assumption that safe beliefs directly track the truth. The alternative is a conception of safe belief according to which what safe beliefs directly track is the appropriateness of the circumstances and, indirectly, the truth. The resulting safety principle, I argue, explains why mere statistical evidence is not a safe source of knowledge.     

Animalizing the disadvantaged,mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socio‐economic status and attribution of humanity

Differences between groups in socio‐economic status (SES) are becoming more salient nowadays. In this context, we examined the animalistic and mechanistic dehumanization that both low and high‐SES groups may experience respectively by conducting three studies. In study 1, we manipulated the SES of two fictitious groups (low vs. high‐SES) and measured the humanity ascribed to them. Results showed that the low‐SES group was animalized in comparison with the high‐SES group, which was mechanized. In study 2, we manipulated the humanity of two fictitious groups by describing them as animals or machines and measured the perceived SES of the groups. Participants tended to attribute lower SES to the group described as animals and higher SES to the group described as machines. Finally, in study 3, we used an Implicit Association Test to replicate the results of studies 1 and 2. Taken together, these studies show that low‐SES groups are considered as animal‐like whereas high‐SES groups are seen as robot‐like. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to the justification of income inequality within our society.     

Parent–child attachment as a mediator of the relationship between parenting style and gelotophobia among adolescents

Fear of being laughed at and family interaction are highly related. Parental over‐control and over‐protection influence children's excessive anxiety over being laughed at. Conversely, parental attachment is an important index of the parent–child relationship and is closely correlated to children's gelotophobia. However, is it the style of parenting or the outcome of parenting (i.e. attachment) that influences a child's gelotophobia? To answer this question, the present study analysed the relationships between gelotophobia, perceived parenting of children and parent–child attachment, as well as the mediating role of attachment between parenting and children's gelotophobia, using a sample of 373 high‐school students. The results show that being highly communicative and close attachment completely weakened the negative correlation between warm, caring parenting and the child's gelotophobia; moreover, being highly communicative and close attachment, together with over‐protective and over‐controlling parenting, influence children's gelotophobia. In sum, this study indicates that parent–child attachment has a direct and indirect influence on perceived parental care and protection and children's fear of being laughed at.     

The power of one reinforcer: The effect of a single reinforcer in the context of shaping

During shaping, if the organism is engaged in behaviors other than the current approximation, the amount of time between reinforcers increases. In these situations, the shaper may resort to what is referred to as a “desperation‐driven click.” That is, after a period of no reinforcement, the shaper delivers one reinforcer for a nontarget approximation. Reports from professional animal trainers suggest that the animal may continue performing this new behavior, even if it is reinforced only once. This study attempted to model this phenomenon with college students. Results from the study demonstrated that a desperation‐driven click situation can be reliably produced in a controlled setting. When participants received one reinforcer for interacting with a new object following a period of no reinforcement, they interacted with the new object for a longer or equal amount of time as compared to an object that had a longer history of reinforcement. The results of this study have implications for the understanding of how reinforcement controls behavior.