Abstract

Considering the phenomenon of epistemic echo chambers the paper analyses the features of closed knowledge communities, both their disadvantages and cognitive and social functions. Particular attention is paid to the attempts to treat their obvious flaws (such as isolation, dismissal of counter-arguments, prejudice) as advantages that, in certain cases, provide protection and access to information for marginalized communities. This change of focus implies a rejection of idealized normative understanding of epistemology. Instead, some of the provisions of the so-called “non-ideal epistemology” are used. It is suggested that non-ideal epistemology is the most radical and “honest” form of social epistemology, since it not only postulates a certain dependence of epistemic subjects on various social contexts, but also allows for a substantial revision of epistemic obligations depending on the social status and position.