Online research in philosophy

As noticed recently by Winsberg (2003), how computer models and simulations get their epistemic credentials remains in need of epistemological scrutiny. My aim in this paper is to contribute to fill this gap by discussing underappreciated features of simulations (such as “path-dependency” and plasticity) which, I’ll argue, affect their validation. The focus will be on composite modeling of complex real-world systems in astrophysics and cosmology. The analysis leads to a reassessment of the epistemic goals actually achieved by this kind of modeling: I’ll show in particular that its realistic ambition and the possibility of empirical confirmation pull in opposite directions.

Representing an epistemic situation involving several agents obviously depends on the modeling point of view one takes. We start by identifying the types of modeling points of view which are logically possible. We call the one traditionally followed by epistemic logic the perfect external approach, because there the modeler is assumed to be an omniscient and external observer of the epistemic situation. In the rest of the paper we focus on what we call the internal approach, where the modeler is one of the agents involved in the situation. For this approach we propose and axiomatize a logical formalism based on epistemic logic. This leads us to formalize some intuitions about the internal approach and about its connections with the external ones. Finally, we show that our internal logic is decidable and PSPACE-complete.

Standard epistemology takes it for granted that there is a special kind of value: epistemic value. This claim does not seem to sit well with act utilitarianism, however, since it holds that only welfare is of real value. I first develop a particularly utilitarian sense of "epistemic value", according to which it is closely analogous to the nature of financial value. I then demonstrate the promise this approach has for two current puzzles in the intersection of epistemology and value theory: first, the problem of why knowledge is better than mere true belief, and second, the relation between epistemic justification and responsibility.

Standard epistemology takes it for granted that there is a special kind of value: epistemic value. This claim does not seem to sit well with act utilitarianism, however, since it holds that only welfare is of real value. I first develop a particularly utilitarian sense of "epistemic value", according to which it is closely analogous to the nature of financial value. I then demonstrate the promise this approach has for two current puzzles in the intersection of epistemology and value theory: first, the problem of why knowledge is better than mere true belief, and second, the relation between epistemic justification and responsibility.

I distinguish between two senses in which feminists have argued that the knower is social: 1. situated or socially positioned and 2. interdependent. I argue that these two aspects of the knower work in cooperation with each other in a way that can produce willful hermeneutical ignorance, a type of epistemic injustice absent from Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice. Analyzing the limitations of Fricker's analysis of the trial of Tom Robinson in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird with attention to the way in which situatedness and interdependence work in tandem, I develop an understanding of willful hermeneutical ignorance, which occurs when dominantly situated knowers refuse to acknowledge epistemic tools developed from the experienced world of those situated marginally. Such refusals allow dominantly situated knowers to misunderstand, misinterpret, and/or ignore whole parts of the world.

We study a generalization of the Muddy Children puzzle by allowing public announcements with arbitrary generalized quantifiers. We propose a new concise logical modeling of the puzzle based on the number triangle representation of quantifiers. Our general aim is to discuss the possibility of epistemic modeling that is cut for specific informational dynamics. Moreover, we show that the puzzle is solvable for any number of agents if and only if the quantifier in the announcement is positively active (satises a form of variety).

Serious thinking about the computational aspects of situation theory is just starting. There have been some recent proposals in this direction (viz. PROSIT and ASTL), with varying degrees of divergence from the ontology of the theory. We believe that a programming environment incorporating bona fide situation-theoretic constructs is needed and describe our very recent BABY-SIT implementation. A detailed critical account of PROSIT and ASTL is also offered in order to compare our system with these pioneering and influential frameworks.

Serious thinking about the computational aspects of situation theory is just starting. There have been some recent proposals in this direction (viz. PROSIT and ASTL), with varying degrees of divergence from the ontology of the theory. We believe that a programming environment incorporating bona de situation-theoretic constructs is needed and describe our very recent BABY-SIT implementation. A detailed critical account of PROSIT and ASTL is also o ered in order to compare our system with these pioneering and in uential frameworks.

Situation theory is a mathematical theory of meaning introduced by Jon Barwise and John Perry. It has evoked great theoretical interest and motivated the framework of a few `computational' systems. PROSIT is the pioneering work in this direction. Unfortunately, there is a lack of real-life applications on these systems and this study is a preliminary attempt to remedy this deficiency. Here, we solve a group of epistemic puzzles using the constructs provided by PROSIT.

Standard epistemology has it that there is a particularly epistemic type of value. A belief might be disastrous in many other ways; it might bring about great misery, and be horribly ugly to contemplate, and even cause you to forget many other important things. If that belief is an instance of knowledge, though, then it is valuable in at least one important way—epistemically.1 That such special epistemic value exists is a normative claim, and it had better be consonant with one’s overall theory of value. If one is a Kantian about value, it is easy to make room for an epistemic dimension; epistemic value is (roughly) from forming correct intentions with respect to believing. It is also easy to accommodate epistemic value if one is an Aristotelian; epistemic value inheres in stably virtuous epistemic habits. Both such pictures of epistemic value have dedicated proponents.2 According to what we might call “classical” act-utilitarianism, though, the only thing of value is welfare, and individual acts are only good instrumentally, insofar as they contribute to it. Thus it seems impossible for such a utilitarian to account for particularly epistemic value. If some belief brings about more misery than happiness, it is of disvalue, however true, justified, etc. it may be. Nonetheless, I think the utilitarian can do epistemology. In fact, I think a utilitarian account of epistemic value provides a powerful approach to puzzles that arise on the other two pictures. I sketch such an account and its potential implications here.