pp 1–26 | Cite as

The word of a reluctant convert

  • Joshua DiPaoloEmail author


Recent political events suggest that there is more political, religious, and moral division than many had previously realized. Since people on all sides think they’re in the right, mitigating division is in everyone’s interest. But overcoming division requires changing minds, and changing minds requires advocacy. These considerations raise important questions in the epistemology of advocacy. In particular, who are the best advocates? After making some general remarks about the epistemology of advocacy, I explore the thought, found in Berkeley’s dialogue Alciphron, that an important variable to consider when assessing advocates is whether they are converts. I argue that this is indeed an important variable to consider, as certain kinds of converts can avoid some attempts to dismiss advocates. However, non-converts score better than converts in other respects. I conclude by suggesting that empirical work must be done to assess the role conversion plays in assessing advocates.


Advocacy Conversion Social epistemology Authority Trust Bias Resistance 



Thanks to Jon Herington and Robert Simpson for helpful discussion and to several anonymous referees for comments that helped improve the paper. Thanks also to Katia Vavova, Pete Graham, Luis Pinto de Sa, John Schwenkler, Daniel Fogal, Rosa Terlazzo, Lisa Cassell, and Mike Titelbaum.


  1. Alexander, M. (2010). The new jim crow. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2010). The imperative of integration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J. (1963). The fire next time. New York City: Dial Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, E. (2016). Minority Body. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkeley, G. (1732). Alciphron, or the minute philosopher. Accessed Aug 4, 2017.
  6. Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cialdini, R. (1984). Influence. New York City: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, J., Bennett, E., & Sukel, H. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do juries make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiPaolo, J. (MS) Epistemic self-licensing.Google Scholar
  13. DiPaolo, J., & Simpson, R. (2016). Indoctrination anxiety and the etiology of belief. Synthese, 193, 3078–3098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douthat, R. (2007). The zeal of a convert. In The Atlantic. Accessed April 6, 2018.
  15. Downing, D. (2002). The most reluctant convert. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eagly, A., Chaiken, S., & Wood, W. (1981). An attribution analysis of persuasion. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New direction in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 37–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Nous, 41, 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldman, A. (2010). Systems-oriented social epistemology. In Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 4).Google Scholar
  20. James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience. London & Bombay: Longmans, Green, & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jamieson, K., & Capella, J. (2008). Echo chambers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, J., Gimbel, S., & Harris, S. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports. Scholar
  23. Lewis, C. S. (1955/2012). Surprised by joy: The shape of my early life. New York: First Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, C. S. (1963). The seeing eye. In The timeless writings of C. S. Lewis (pp. 290–296). New York: Inspirational Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: Effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKinnon, R. (2016). Epistemic injustice. Philosophy Compass, 11(8), 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merrit, A., et al. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michaelian, K. (2013). The evolution of testimony. Episteme, 10, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nguyen, C. T. (2018). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme. Scholar
  30. Pascal, B. (1670/1958). Pensees. New York: E. Dutton & Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Petty, R., Tormala, Z., & Rucker, D. (2004). Resisting persuasion by counterarguing: An attitude strength perspective. In J. Jost, M. Banaji, & D. Prentice (Eds.), Perspectivism in social psychology: The yin and yang of scientific progress (pp. 37–51). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petty, R., Wells, G., Heesacker, M., Brock, T., & Cacioppo, J. (1983). The effects of recipient posture on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petty, R., Wheeler, S., & Tormala, Z. (2003). Persuasion and attitude change. In I. B. Weiner, H. A. Tennen, & J. M. Suls (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (pp. 353–382). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Russell, B. (1945). A history of western philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  36. Saul, J. (2003). Feminism: Issues and arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shieber, J. (2012). Against credibility. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, S., & Shaffer, D. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1051–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Somin, I. (2013). Democracy and political ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tormala, Z. (2008). A new framework for resistance to persuasion: The resistance appraisals hypothesis. In W. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 213–234). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tormala, Z., Clarkson, J., & Petty, R. (2006). Resisting persuasion by the skin of one’s teeth: The hidden success of resisted persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tormala, Z., & Petty, R. (2002). What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tormala, Z., & Petty, R. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vavova, K. (2015). Moral disagreement and moral skepticism. Philosophical Perspectives, 28, 302–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright, P. (1973). The cognitive processes mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal Marketing Research., 10, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wright, P. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal Consumer Research., 2, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zollman, K. (2015). Modeling the social consequences of testimonial norms. Philosophical Studies, 172, 2371–2383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zuwerink Jacks, J., & Cameron, K. (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations