AoS2 is not a separate unit from AoS1 — it is an application of AoS1 concepts and arguments to real-world cases. VCAA explicitly requires students to trace the connection between the general questions explored in AoS1 and the specific epistemological issues arising from the case studies.
The four AoS1 general questions function as lenses through which to analyse each case study.
Application to misinformation case study:
- The flat earth community and anti-vaccine movements both represent pathological relationships with expertise: mainstream scientific consensus is treated as untrustworthy, and fringe claims are elevated.
- AoS1 asks: when should we defer to expertise? Hume’s reductionism suggests: only when expertise has a verified track record. Reid’s anti-reductionism suggests: by default, unless specific defeaters arise.
- The case study reveals: in digital environments, the normal mechanisms for establishing track records and generating specific defeaters have broken down — algorithmic curation manufactures the appearance of reliability without the substance.
Connection: The misinformation case study is directly generated by the conditions under which AoS1 Question 1 arises. If testimony and expertise are our primary sources of knowledge, then manipulating the mechanisms of testimony and expertise strikes at the foundations of knowledge itself.
Application to cancel culture case study:
- Cancel campaigns involve at least two parties: the person being cancelled (whose past speech acts are judged) and the people who campaign (who are exercising influence over others’ beliefs about the target’s credibility).
- AoS1’s Cliffordian framework asks: did the campaigners form their beliefs about the target responsibly? Did they proportion their belief to available evidence?
- AoS1’s framework of epistemic responsibility to others applies: spreading damaging beliefs about a person without adequate justification is an epistemic wrong.
Connection: AoS1 Question 2 directly illuminates the ethical dimensions of cancel culture — it is not just a social or political phenomenon but an epistemic one, involving responsibilities in belief formation and transmission.
Application to trust/expertise case study:
- The COVID-19 pandemic raised urgent questions about when to trust public health authorities. When advice changed, many people lost trust — but was this epistemic loss rational?
- AoS1’s criteria for trust (competence, sincerity, track record, transparency, incentive alignment) can be applied: public health authorities had domain competence, were mostly sincere, had a track record, and — when transparent about uncertainty — gave appropriate grounds for trust.
- The erosion of trust was partly driven by political misinformation and poor institutional communication (failing the transparency criterion), not by the underlying epistemic failures of the science.
Connection: AoS1’s analysis of the conditions for trust explains why trust eroded (some criteria failed or appeared to fail) and evaluates whether that erosion was epistemically justified.
Application to echo chamber case study:
- Echo chambers represent a failure to engage with peer disagreement — they are structured to dismiss or ignore counter-voices. From a conciliationist perspective, this is an epistemic failure: disagreement from even apparently unreliable sources should prompt reflection.
- From a steadfast perspective: if the community has good reasons to distrust mainstream sources (e.g., a history of institutional deception), their dismissal of counter-evidence is more defensible.
- But the echo chamber case reveals a pathological version of the steadfast view: the community refuses to revise even in the face of overwhelming evidence because its epistemic norms have been corrupted.
Connection: AoS1’s peer disagreement debate has direct application to echo chambers — it explains both why the disagreement arises (epistemically isolated communities form different belief norms) and how it should be addressed (genuine epistemic humility requires engaging seriously with counter-evidence, not merely dismissing it).
| AoS1 Question | Case Study Context | Specific Connection |
|---|---|---|
| Role of experience/testimony/expertise | Truth, trust, credibility | When is expertise a legitimate basis for trust? |
| Responsibilities re: belief formation | Silencing/cancelling | Are campaigners forming beliefs responsibly? |
| When to trust others’ assertions | All three contexts | Standards for trust vary by context and stakes |
| Peer disagreement | Echo chambers | Echo chambers pathologise disagreement responses |
KEY TAKEAWAY: AoS2 case studies are not separate from AoS1 — they are the testing ground for AoS1 ideas. Every epistemological issue in a case study should be explicable using AoS1 concepts and should connect to at least one of the four general questions.
EXAM TIP: When writing about case studies, explicitly signal the connection to AoS1: “This is an instance of the problem AoS1 Question 3 raises about trusting assertions — specifically, the question of whether the conditions for trust are met here.”
COMMON MISTAKE: Students sometimes describe case studies at length without connecting them to AoS1. This will not earn high marks. Every paragraph in an AoS2 response should contain an explicit reference to an AoS1 concept, question, or thinker.
