Elizabeth Anderson - Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions 

Thanks for your kind words!

but there is simultaneousness to Marias invalidity. no woman is a doctor - structural maria is a woman - subject (individual relations) maria 'tells' - signification is maria is correct (presupposition fallacy) john doesn't believe Maria - lack of evidence to infer whether it's transactional or hermeneutical. 'john is epistemically just towards maria' hasty generalization fallacy. Not all subjects are catered to an object (system). In this case, medicinal method. 'It seems that john claims that u and u= if an individual is not trained as a doctor then that individual can't know what he or she feels. But u is false.' you've conceded that it's structural. O - marina can verify whether what she is feeling is medically valid (structural) not if she subjectively feels it. all other premise conclusions are false due to you having interchange between object v subject.

@@mathguy9357 1- there's no equivocation in premice 1 and premice 2 of the argument, also if premice pr is about something structural and premice pd about an individual and x follows from pr and pd, it doesn't follow that x is invalid; if we say that Y= socrates is a man and F= no man lives in society r, it follows that socrates doesn't live in society r, and that conclusion is logically valid. Furthermore, it's not clear at all how the argument is underminef by you showing us that one premice is about society and another is about an individual. Also, the term " individual relations " is not clear at all what it has to do with the argument and the term itself is not clear what it means. 2- maria tells john that p, there's no presupposition about the truth of what maria is saying, for ( if there's such presupposition then (if I say smith told me that s and I believe that s is false then I will find what I say incoherent)) but I don't find it incoherent, so your presupposition fallacy doesn't obtain. 3- a hasty inference by the structural injustice proponent. 4- consideration of the assessibility-capacity to know and not know about something g if an individual is not trained in some field d, we have said that,maybe it's omitted by you. 5- show us how we have conceded that it's structural.

@@ahmedbellankas2549 you are misinterpreting nearly everything I've said. Your model is fundamentally flawed by many presuppositions. Just because you don't find something incoherent doesn't inflate it's quality. I am going to deconstruct it one more time. If no woman is a doctor, this is an overall system. It would be a presupposition to assume that the composition of a woman follows the inability of being a doctor. It is merely a structure that entails women NOT being doctors. If the system is designed in such a way that no women is a doctor, Maria mustn't be a doctor. Now. it is imperative we distinguish the capacities of both a doctor and a woman who is not a doctor. If Maria 'tells' a doctor that she has pain in her thigh, this doesn't necessarily mean the pain is a necessary injury. It would be a presupposition to assume that her injury is valid. However, that does not mean she does NOT have an injury. A good example of this is the following ; I wake up and my neck begins to hurt, I seek a doctor. I hadn't considered that my irregular positioning caused the pain to my neck. It's not a thyroid issue. If john doesn't believe maria, this is the first relevant theme to the video. Transactional 'bias'. However, it's also a presupposition to assume it's transactional. How can the doctor following a system ((hermeneutical) be reducible to transactional relations?. The system is the producer of those transactional relations. Following this, we cannot infer by your lack of instances whether john is just or unjust. Not believing in the patient could be an axiom of the system. A self-regulating diagnostic manual. You need an axiom to logically come to this conclusion. You made another presupposition by assuming johns conviction towards marias possible injury is motivated by his role. There is no evidence to support the reason why he disbelieves maria. After this presupposition, you embark on another barmecide logic by suggesting that she would know her injury if she were a doctor. Your whole argument is absolutely dogshit

@@mathguy9357 1- you are not following the argument, you are making your own straw man and attacking it. 2- society is not a system, you assume it's. 3- if x is p,it doesn't follow that it's necessary that x is p. 4- you didn't show that it's incoherent though, by your means ; because you find it incoherent it doesn't that it's. 5- the argument at the beginning is how a structural injustice proponent reasons actually or possibly, so you are not even responding to the whole argument. 6- individuals act, they might be motivated by how society is, but it's not society that produces their acts.

@@ahmedbellankas2549 bro what? you're literally a hypocrite. You claim I don't have sufficient evidence but then throw out claims without sustaining them. How is society not a system?.