Adversarial Social Epistemology for Assemblies of Humans and Large Language Models

We outline an adversarial social epistemology (ASE) for densely interactive communicative landscapes in which public assertions are scaffolded by chains of testimony, inference, institutional certification, and tacit trust. In such landscapes, agents have incentives and affordances to distort, color, omit, fabricate, or strategically under-specify information for private, reputational, rhetorical, or material gains. We argue that these phenomena are not adequately captured by familiar descriptions of epistemic bubbles, echo chambers, or misinformation diffusion. What requires explanation is how communicative agents exploit the commitments and entitlements that normally make scaffolded assertions trustworthy. We provide language that delivers the requisite analysis, outline mechanisms that subvert trust in scaffolded public communications, and outline machinery for auditing and redressing trust breaches arising from subverting the auditability of inferential chains, drawing on epistemic networks, enriched with an inferentialist semantics for interpreting assertions.

Paper

References (35)

06A demagogical bait is crafted to draw sufficient endorsements that a false appearance of consensus can be enactedS addresses P to R with the intent of causing {O} to react in ways that demonstrate to R and perhaps to other {O} ’ s, the degree to which
07Does it retreat from an auditable claim to an unauditable “ vibe/pattern ” while keeping the insinuation?
08e 21 | or subverted to the detriment of veritistic objectives of a of communicationTable 1 summarizes the mechanisms sequence
09Does it introduce many weakly relevant claims such that none can be cleanly checked?
10A rabbit hole elevates micro-disputes and red herrings into the conversational space until they consume the time-bandwidth budget of the interaction.S amplifies features and details of R ’ s responses that S believes or knows will attract the
11Does it dump large volumes of loosely connected material that obscure the key inferential step?
12Does it rely on status or “ everyone says ” in place of evidence (social-proof substitution)?

Scroll for more · 23 remaining

Similar papers

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC