Knowledge & Power
I'm deciding how much of you to believe before you finish.
The question
There's a woman I work with who, for two years, said the building was making her sick. Headaches, the same cough going round her end of the floor. And I'll be honest about what I did, because I didn't do nothing — I did something worse than nothing. I filed her. Quietly, without ever deciding to. She's the anxious one, I thought. She always thinks something's wrong. And I went on trusting the facilities email that said the air was fine, because that's the source you trust, that's the grown-up source. I wasn't being cruel. I was just doing the thing I do a hundred times a day without noticing — sorting people into the ones whose word I take and the ones whose word I discount.
Then they found the mould. Behind her wall, exactly where she'd been pointing the whole time. And the strange thing — the thing I can't put down — wasn't guilt, quite. It was vertigo. Because I sat there and tried to work out how I'd decided she was the unreliable one and the email was the reliable one, and I realised I hadn't decided it at all, not with evidence. It came pre-decided. She came pre-discounted, and the email came pre-believed, before either of them said a word. And then the cold part: if that was running the whole time and I couldn't feel it running — how many people am I doing it to right now? And I genuinely cannot tell. From in here, my discounting feels exactly like being right.
The episodes
Each episode builds on the one before, and the finale hands the question back to you sharper, not settled.
9 of 9 transcripts are readable now — audio is coming.
-
1
The anxious one
A colleague said for two years that the building was making her ill, and was filed as the anxious one — until the mould was found exactly where she had pointed. The first episode locates the judgment that did the filing, made before any evidence arrived, and sets the series' task — to catch the map of who is credible that no one remembers drawing.
Read transcript → -
2
Just follow the evidence
The strongest case for the view most of us already hold — Alvin Goldman's veritism, on which credibility should track exactly one thing, reliability, and a track record built from real mistakes is doing precisely the job a track record is for. The case is built to win and left standing, with Miranda Fricker's own concession noted — not every low mark is an injustice.
Read transcript → -
3
When you're not believed
Miranda Fricker's testimonial injustice — the wrong of being disbelieved for who you are rather than for what you said, as when a doctor reads the patient before reading the pain. The veritist rejoinder stays in the room — show that the discounting tracked prejudice and not a real difference in reliability — and in the hard cases no one can easily tell.
Read transcript → -
4
When there are no words for it
A year of failure at work with no name for what was happening, until four words — you were managed out — reorganise everything. Fricker's hermeneutical injustice, the experience that lacks a shared concept, alongside Sandra Harding's strong objectivity, W. E. B. Du Bois's double consciousness and Patricia Hill Collins's outsider-within — the claim that where you stand can yield less partial knowledge, not more biased.
Read transcript → -
5
Say who you discounted
The listener's own act of discounting, named in the first episode, is brought back into the open, and Fricker's distinction is held against it — justified low credibility, or prejudice? The episode shows that from the inside the two feel identical, because the map that did the discounting is the only instrument available for checking it.
Read transcript → -
6
There is no outside. (power/knowledge)
The last exit — check the map against the plain truth of who is reliable — and Michel Foucault closes it, arguing that what counts as reliable is itself produced by a regime of truth. The objection that genealogy saws off its own branch is kept open against him, and Longino and Anderson's reformist answer — objectivity as an improvable social achievement — enters as the standing counter. No one is crowned.
Read transcript → -
7
How the map got made. (propaganda, echo chambers, networks)
The machinery itself. Jason Stanley on propaganda that borrows your ideals rather than lying, C. Thi Nguyen on the echo chamber that works by telling you whom to distrust, and O'Connor and Weatherall on how false belief spreads through networks regardless of any individual's rationality. The findings sharpen both sides of the argument and crown neither.
Read transcript → -
8
Ignorance as an achievement
Charles Mills's "White Ignorance" — some not-knowing is produced and maintained, held in place by the rules of what counts as evidence and whose word is heard, so that certain questions never become askable. The deflationary rejoinder is kept standing — ignorance may be mere absence, and a produced ignorance risks being impossible to check.
Read transcript → -
9
Which one were you following?
The final episode brings all six positions into one room — veritism, Fricker, the standpoint theorists, Foucault, Mills, and the reformist middle — and crowns none of them. "Do your own research" is examined and found to be no outside at all. The question handed back — when reliability and power point in different directions, which one were you following, and how would you ever know?
Read transcript →
Thinkers
The thinkers and traditions this series draws on: