pam-mentations.com

I’m suggesting a novel portmanteau, at least in as far as a cursory Google search tells me: Gossepistemology. Gossip + Epistemology.

(*Google provides links to myriad articles on gossip & epistemology.)

In Philosophy, epistemology is the branch concerned with the study of knowledge. A classical concern of epistemology is the distinction between opinion and knowledge (justified true belief). And a troubling area of epistemic practice concerning this distinction is just the way humans roll, through testimony.

By testimony is meant, simply stated, that you tell me something [x] and I believe [x]. So it seems to me that gossip is a species of testimony. A distinction between testimony and gossip might be sussed out by providing the indexical for each; i.e., testimony about what or whom? Gossip about what or whom? It would be strange to call the statement There’s a sale at Dandy Tires gossip. But not if we call it testimony.

I’d say the distinction appears to be that the indexical of gossip is social, a whom, but that doesn’t follow. Jan and Jan were married last Friday is testimony. Didja hear the Jans had a shot-gun wedding?, gossip. Me telling my friends I saw in the newspaper that the plant is closing is testimony. But telling them Johnny Piper, the janitor, says he heard the bigwigs say the plant is closing, gossip.

So maybe the distinction between testimony and gossip is the mode of transmission, e.g. formal versus informal. Or maybe it’s the manner, reporting-voice versus dishing-voice. But all of these distinctions seem liable to die the death of a thousand qualifications if pressed. One might ring the bells three times to warn townsfolk of an impending invasion, but those bells might also lead the invaders to the townsfolk. Hence, discretion is the better part of valour. But discretion can also be a little bit underhanded. Just as gossip.

It might be that testimony is more reliable than gossip. But that’s an empirical question. At first blush, testimony might have more promise of reliability because it can, in a formal situation, be subject to more evidentiary checks. But a gaggle of gossips can be ruthless scrutinisers, especially if one stands sentry at the garden gate with her iPhone.

Anyway. I can’t call this piece a Thoughtlet if I keep writing. (Which is a dog whistle for my dogs, who are letting me know I’m spending too much time in my study.)

Word on the street is that I will be back with more to say on this topic.