Susana Siegel Summary

Susana Siegel made a convincing case how cognitive penetration (CP) may be problematic for dogmatism. Still, I feel that CP has some shortcomings. First, it is plausible that CP is out of our control – in Siegel’s terms, all cases of CP may be analogous with being “zapped”1. Second, it seems that one must be aware of CP in order for it to be problematic. If a subject has such awareness, however, CP becomes a sneaky defeater and fits the mold of dogmatism. Before proceeding, I will define dogmatism and explicate Siegel’s challenge. In the end I hope to highlight a few potential holes that, if expanded, could deflate the challenge of CP.
Dogmatism says that if a subject S has a perceptual experience with content P, then S has prima facie justification for believing P. Furthermore, S’s belief in P is immediate and does not depend on any further justified propositions. Cognitive penetration (CP) suggests that beliefs, desires, moods, expectations, etc. can influence the content of perceptual processes and/or experiences.
Siegel insists that CP threatens dogmatism. She uses a simple example to illustrate the problem2. Jill …show more content…
Take the same case of Jack and Jill. Imagine you are Jill’s closest friend. In one situation you are aware that Jill has been cognitively penetrated and unjustifiably believes Jack is angry. In a second situation you are entirely unaware of Jill’s previous belief and how it affected her. Now suppose immediately after seeing Jack, Jill laments to you about him. During her lamentation she describes exactly how he seemed – facial expressions and all. In the first situation, you would certainly think that Jill’s belief is unjustified because you are aware of her predisposition and how it affected her. In the second situation, however, it seems you would have no reason to doubt Jill’s lamentation – both you and Jill would be justified believing that Jack is