I think that's right--if you're worried the whole time about getting credit and recognition for ideas, you get attached to them in an unhealthy way and while I am not a Buddhist I increasingly see attachment as a great source of evil (inc our unwillingness to address the climate crisis, I think). Caring foremost about the ideas and sharing credit is good. I agree! One thing I see though is that in very unequal situations, you will have people in position of power grabbing credit (this is exactly the problem you point at), at the expense of those who cannot fight back. So I can understand that people who are e.g., low in an organization, or students etc should have some concerns to receive due credit. Once you have recognition, you have to be more generous (this sort of gets at Aristotelian magnanimity--it's a virtue for those who are well off and have prestige, and this is for a reason, you can afford to be, and you need to make sure not to misuse your power to epistemically oppress others or steal their ideas).
To me being epistemically courageous is not doing the morally obvious! Was it obvious for S O'Connor to tank her career calling out abuse in the Catholic Church (long before many others did so, so that a critical mass was reached and it was acceptable to do so). I think being epistemically courageous is supererogatory. Being epistemically decent (doing the obvious thing) means in my view to make sure your views are well-supported, not knowingly transmit falsehoods, correct when you unknowingly do so, and not shout people down. The essay The Ethics of Belief by William Clifford (1871) gives in my view a good sense of what epistemic decency amounts to. Courage goes above and beyond. It's not without risks, and you can never know 100% if you are in fact right so you need to not get too attached to the ideas you passionately defend and be at least open/willing to revise them.
I think that's right--if you're worried the whole time about getting credit and recognition for ideas, you get attached to them in an unhealthy way and while I am not a Buddhist I increasingly see attachment as a great source of evil (inc our unwillingness to address the climate crisis, I think). Caring foremost about the ideas and sharing credit is good. I agree! One thing I see though is that in very unequal situations, you will have people in position of power grabbing credit (this is exactly the problem you point at), at the expense of those who cannot fight back. So I can understand that people who are e.g., low in an organization, or students etc should have some concerns to receive due credit. Once you have recognition, you have to be more generous (this sort of gets at Aristotelian magnanimity--it's a virtue for those who are well off and have prestige, and this is for a reason, you can afford to be, and you need to make sure not to misuse your power to epistemically oppress others or steal their ideas).
To me being epistemically courageous is not doing the morally obvious! Was it obvious for S O'Connor to tank her career calling out abuse in the Catholic Church (long before many others did so, so that a critical mass was reached and it was acceptable to do so). I think being epistemically courageous is supererogatory. Being epistemically decent (doing the obvious thing) means in my view to make sure your views are well-supported, not knowingly transmit falsehoods, correct when you unknowingly do so, and not shout people down. The essay The Ethics of Belief by William Clifford (1871) gives in my view a good sense of what epistemic decency amounts to. Courage goes above and beyond. It's not without risks, and you can never know 100% if you are in fact right so you need to not get too attached to the ideas you passionately defend and be at least open/willing to revise them.