1.
Mills CW. Alternative Epistemologies. In: Blackness Visible : Essays on Philosophy and Race [Internet]. Cornell University Press; 1998. p. 21–40. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1508193&authtype=sso&custid=s8993828&site=eds-live&scope=site
2.
Hartsock NCM. The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism. In: Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science [Internet]. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1983. p. 283–310. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uea/detail.action?docID=3035986
3.
McKinnon R. Trans*formative Experiences. Res Philosophica (preprint deposited by the author on academia.edu) [Internet]. 2015;92(2):419–40. Available from: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxlo1wqji8n4l2d/Trans_formative_Experiences%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0
4.
standpoint epistemology in podcasts | Listen Notes [Internet]. Available from: https://www.listennotes.com/search/?q=standpoint%20epistemology&sort_by_date=0&scope=episode&offset=0&language=Any%20language&len_min=0&ecount_min=0
5.
Fricker M. Hermeneutic Injustice (follow also for the whole book). In: Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing [Internet]. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 147–75. Available from: http://www.uea.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=694009
6.
Nora Berenstain. Epistemic Exploitation. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy [Internet]. 2016;3(22). Available from: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.022/--epistemic-exploitation?rgn=main;view=fulltext
7.
Jenkins K. Rape Myths and Domestic Abuse Myths as Hermeneutical Injustices. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2017 Feb;34(2):191–205.
8.
Kristie Dotson. A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 2012;33(1).
9.
Wesley Buckwalter. Epistemic Injustice in Social Cognition. Australasian Journal of Philosophy [Internet]. Available from: https://philpapers.org/rec/BUCEII
10.
28: Philosophy and #MeToo with Emily McWilliams - Examining Ethics (podcast) | Listen Notes [Internet]. Available from: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/examining-ethics/28-philosophy-and-metoo-with--ghaHy9C2Bw/
11.
Prof Miranda Fricker - Epistemic Injustice - Radical Philosophy (podcast) | Listen Notes [Internet]. Available from: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/radical-philosophy/prof-miranda-fricker-8CQ7_TV-oDh/
12.
Beeby L. A Critique of Hermeneutical Injustice. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback). 2011 Oct;111(3pt3):479–86.
13.
Stroud B. The significance of philosophical scepticism [Internet]. Oxford: Clarendon; 1984. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uea/detail.action?docID=3053315
14.
Williams M. Problems of knowledge: a critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
15.
Descartes R, Weissman D, Bluhm WT, Descartes R. Meditation One. In: Discourse on the method: and, Meditations on first philosophy [Internet]. New Haven: Yale University Press; p. 58–62. Available from: https://search-ebscohost-com.uea.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=52973&site=eds-live&scope=site
16.
Ayer AJ. The problem of knowledge. London: Penguin; 1956.
17.
Robinson H. Perception [Internet]. London: Routledge; 1994. Available from: https://uea.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203164358
18.
Austin JL, Warnock GJ. Sense and sensibilia. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1962.
19.
Fischer E, Engelhardt PE, Horvath J, Ohtani H. Experimental ordinary language philosophy: a cross-linguistic study of defeasible default inferences. Synthese. 2019 Jan 17;
20.
Blackmore SJ. Consciousness: a very short introduction. Second edition. Vol. 121. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
21.
Chalmers DJ. The conscious mind: in search of a fundamental theory [Internet]. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uea/detail.action?docID=272854
22.
Gettier EL. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis. 1963 Jun;23(6).
23.
Williams M. Problems of knowledge: a critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
24.
Fogelin RJ. Pyrrhonian reflections on knowledge and justification [Internet]. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uea/detail.action?docID=3052370
25.
Williams M. Problems of knowledge: a critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
26.
Fogelin RJ. Chapter 2: Fourth-Clause Theories. In: Pyrrhonian reflections on knowledge and justification [Internet]. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994. p. 31–40. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uea/reader.action?docID=3052370&ppg=46
27.
Keith DeRose. Introduction: Responding to Skepticism. In: Skepticism: a contemporary reader. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
28.
Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG, Holyoak KJ. A model of heuristic judgment. In: The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
29.
Alexander, JoshuaWeiburg, Jonathan M. Analytic Epistemology and Experimental Philosophy. Philosophy Compass [Internet]. 2007;2(1):56–80. Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pif&AN=PHL2103227&authtype=sso&custid=s8993828&site=eds-live&scope=site
30.
Kenneth Boyd, Jennifer Nagel. The Reliability of Epistemic Intuitions. In: Current controversies in experimental philosophy [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 2014. p. 109–27. Available from: https://uea.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203122884
31.
Berker S. THE REJECTION OF EPISTEMIC CONSEQUENTIALISM. Philosophical Issues. 2013 Oct;23(1):363–87.
32.
Singer DJ. How to be an Epistemic Consequentialist. The Philosophical Quarterly. 2018 Jul 1;68(272):580–602.
33.
Roberts P, Andow J, Schmidtke KA. Lay intuitions about epistemic normativity. Synthese. 2018 Jul;195(7):3267–87.
34.
Shaffer J, Knobe J. Contrastive Knowledge Surveyed. Noûs [Internet]. 2012; Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41682692&site=eds-live&scope=site
35.
DeRose K. Contextualism, contrastivism, and X-Phi surveys. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition [Internet]. 2011; Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41487722&site=eds-live&scope=site
36.
Buckwalter W. Knowledge Isn’t Closed on Saturday: A Study in Ordinary Language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2010 Sep;1(3):395–406.
37.
Nagel, Jennifer. The Psychological Basis of the Harman-Vogel Paradox. PHILOSOPHERS IMPRINT [Internet]. 2011; Available from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswah&AN=000208856300001&site=eds-live&scope=site
38.
Gerken M, Beebe J. Knowledge in and out of Contrast. Nous [Internet]. 2016; Available from: https://uea.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com/doi/10.1111/nous.12064
39.
Nagel J. Mindreading in Gettier Cases and Skeptical Pressure Cases. In: Knowledge ascriptions [Internet]. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 171–91. Available from: https://uea.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693702.001.0001
