This week at The Junkyard, we’re hosting a symposium on Bence Nanay’s recent book Mental Imagery (Oxford University Press, 2023). See here for an introduction from Bence. Commentaries and replies will follow Tuesday through Thursday.

* * *

Commentary from Daniel Munro

Bence Nanay’s Mental Imagery is a pleasure to read. It’s an impressively wide-ranging book, bringing together large swathes of research from philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. It does so in a way that’s admirably accessible to readers of all stripes.  

The book’s breadth isn’t just due to how much existing scholarship it brings together. It’s also because of the wide range of mental phenomena Bence discusses, all while aiming to convince us mental imagery is fundamental for understanding each.

A post by Daniel Munro

Thi Nguyen (2021) describes a strategy someone with nefarious motives might use to manipulate people into believing misinformation. This strategy involves presenting falsehoods in ways that induce an illusory sense of clarity—a mere feeling of possessing understanding and insight when really one lacks them. This feeling can stop someone from subjecting a piece of information to scrutiny or attempts to verify it, since one already feels as if one has understanding.

Nguyen describes several methods for inducing a false sense of clarity. For one thing, work in psychology shows that we often use fluency and ease of processing as heuristics to show when we’ve successfully understood an idea. In other words, how quickly and easily we cognitively process some information correlates with how likely we are to feel we’ve understood it. While this heuristic is often a good, rough-and-ready guide, it means that presenting misinformation in a way that merely seems familiar, intuitive, and easy to grasp can lead to the illusion of understanding.

Nguyen also argues that manipulators can induce illusions of clarity by triggering thought processes that feel like understanding itself. While possessing knowledge merely involves the possession of individual facts, understanding involves grasping explanatory connections amongst a body of information. So, for example, it’s one thing to merely know the isolated fact that World War II began in 1939, but it’s another thing to understand why the war began, in the sense that one grasps the causal relations between various events that led up to it. So, a manipulator could induce a sense of understanding in her audience by presenting them with a set of falsehoods that seem explanatorily connected to one another, such that the audience feels as if they grasp these connections.

In what follows, I want to unpack how thinking about the imagination can help us better understand effective strategies for producing illusory feelings of understanding. I’ll argue that manipulators can effectively induce such feelings by capturing their audience members’ imaginations in the right way.

A post by Daniel Munro

During testimonial knowledge transmission between subjects, a testifier who knows something verbally conveys it to a listener, who comes to know that same thing by trusting what the testifier has said. Things go epistemically awry when a listener trusts a testifier who intentionally or unintentionally says something false, in which case the listener forms a testimonial belief that doesn’t amount to knowledge.

One question we can ask about the epistemology of testimony concerns the basis of testimonial knowledge: when knowledge is transmitted from testifier to listener, what is the evidential or justifying basis of the knowledge the listener acquires?