Epistemology

In recent years, several philosophers have argued that the a priori/a posteriori distinction is a legitimate distinction but does not carve at the epistemological joints and is theoretically unimportant. In this paper, I do two main things. First, I respond to the most prominent recent challenge to the significance of the a priori/a posteriori distinction – the central argument in Williamson (2013). Second, I discuss the question of what the theoretical significance of the a priori/a posteriori distinction is. -/- I (...) first present the a priori/a posteriori distinction as it is typically developed. I then turn to Williamson’s challenge to the significance of the distinction. Williamson points out that we often use the same cognitive mechanisms in coming to have a priori and a posteriori knowledge. So how could it be, asks Williamson, that there is a “deep epistemological difference” between the two? In response to this challenge, I argue that there is an important disanalogy between Williamson’s central example of a case of a priori knowledge and his central example of a case of a posteriori knowledge. Although the beliefs in the two cases are formed in similar ways, the ways in which their justification can be defeated are different. This suggests that there is an important epistemological difference between the two cases, one that cannot be captured in terms of the cognitive mechanisms used to form the beliefs. -/- Although Williamson’s argument is unsuccessful, there remains the question of just what the theoretical significance of the a priori/a posteriori distinction is. I argue that the point of the distinction is not to enable us to represent some joint in nature, but rather to help us to identify epistemological problem cases. We understand – more-or-less – the epistemology of simple perceptual knowledge. The epistemology of non-perceptual knowledge is far less clear. The purpose of labeling a case of knowledge as a priori is to claim that its epistemology should not be assimilated to the epistemology of perception. Instead, it is something of a puzzle case. -/- This proposal has an important implication. There are several ways in which a case of knowledge can be different from a simple case of perceptual knowledge. Two differences are perhaps the most important: (i) the justification of the belief does not involve phenomenality, and (ii) the belief does not stand in a causal relation to what the belief is about. When beliefs about some subject matter fit either (i) or (ii), an epistemological puzzle arises. So there is more than one kind of epistemological puzzle to solve. This suggests that there is an important theoretical role for (at least) two distinctions in the ballpark of the traditional a priori/a posteriori distinction. (shrink)

Recent work by Marchisella exposed a gap in the literature on causal non-monotonic reasoning: what is needed is an approach whose primary motivation is the formal representation of the way in which humans typically reason with cause and effect. We extend the work of Marchisella, and propose a new type of causal non-monotonic reasoning, _Plausible Causal Reasoning_, which fills the gap in the literature. We propose some new principles which help characterise Plausible Causal Reasoning, and suggest a family of non-monotonic (...) logics which provides a suitable starting point for its formalisation. (shrink)

The Eucharist as a pillar of Christian life and faith stands at the center of the Mass. It carries multi-dimensional meanings and functions, each of which addresses different aspects of the Christian life and mindset. The main question that we will attend to is what happens to the rational framework of the believer or non-believer as s/he affirms or denies that the consecrated bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. Following Edward Schillebeeckx’s phenomenological approach, it will be argued that (...) such a reformulation of the rational framework accords with Heidegger’s reevaluation of the question of Being. The present reading limits itself to the encounter between the mind and the phenomenon and does not proceed to the meaning of the Eucharist as part of the Mass and the crucifixion of Christ. As such this study is not a historical study nor a sociological or anthropological one. (shrink)

Doing Practical Ethics is a skills-focused textbook suitable for a variety of Ethics courses. Much as Logic textbooks teach argument skills by demonstrating and then giving students exercises to practice, Doing Practical Ethics provides carefully scaffolded demonstrations and practice opportunities for many of the component argument skills required for engaging in practical ethics. Most chapters of Doing Practical Ethics have 3 components: (1) a clear explanation (with many examples) of a specific skill for analyzing, evaluating, or constructing moral arguments; (2) (...) Demonstration Exercises with sample solutions that students can use to check their comprehension; and (3) additional Practice Exercises (which instructors can assign as homework) that help students further hone their skills. The book can be assigned in skills-focused courses as a standalone text. Pairing it with an anthology will greatly increase your students' ability to engage successfully with the arguments made in assigned readings. The skills covered are relevant to a variety of Ethics courses, from Intro to Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems to Business Ethics, Bioethics, and Environmental Ethics. We've found that using the book not only helps our students build important reasoning skills -- it also makes class more fun by letting us focus on engaging activities that let students practice productively thinking about and discussing contentious issues. (shrink)

Resumen En este artículo propongo un análisis crítico de varias tendencias filosóficas contrarias al uso de la noción de verdad en el ámbito epistemológico, especialmente la de Rorty. En particular, sostengo que la verdad es un concepto clave para el estudio del conocimiento, especialmente el científico, en cuanto toma una forma concisa en los procedimientos experimentales de carácter probatorio-empírico. Gracias a este enfoque, busco socavar varias tesis de los enfoques de la ‘posverdad’ por medio del uso de un conjunto de (...) procedimientos científicos de obtención de evidencias en varios campos vinculados a la disciplina práctica de la medicina.In thispaper, I present a critical analysis of several philosophical tendencies that go against the use of the notion of truth in epistemology, especially Rorty’s one. Particularly, I claim that truth is a key conceptfor the study of knowledge, especially the scientific knowledge, as it takes a concise form through the experimentalprocedures for eliciting evidences. With the help of this analysis, I seek to undermine some ‘post-truth’ theses by means of analyying some scientific procedures to get evidences in severalfields related to the practical discipline of medicine. (shrink)

Contemporary epistemologists of education have raised concerns about the distorting effects of some of the processes and structures of contemporary academia on the epistemic practice and character of academic researchers. Such concerns have been articulated using the concept of epistemic corruption. In this paper, we lend credibility to these theoretically-motivated concerns using the example of the research impact agenda during the period 2012-2014. Interview data from UK and Australian academics confirms the impact agenda system, at its inception, facilitated the development (...) and exercise of epistemic vices. As well as vindicating theoretically-motivated claims about epistemic corruption, inclusion of empirical methods and material can help us put the concept to work in ongoing critical scrutiny of evolving forms of the research impact agenda. (shrink)

In this paper, I spell out a descriptive account of agnosticism that captures the intuitive view that a subject enters the mental state of agnosticism via an act or event called suspension. I will argue that agnosticism is a complex mental state, and that the formation of an attitude is the relevant act or event by which a subject commits to indecision regarding some matter. I will suggest a `two-component analysis' that addresses two aspects that jointly account for the settled (...) state of agnosticism: (1) the subject’s de facto indecision and (2) the subject’s commitment to her indecision. Unlike meta-cognitivist or sui generis accounts, I do not take the agnostic’s commitment to indecision as constitutive for her indecision but rather as an evaluation or qualification of the indecision that she already exhibits. Agnosticism, thus, is a settled form of indecision that marks the end of inquiry. (shrink)

How should we talk to Angry Uncle, or attempt to persuade any very ignorant audience? This paper discusses several strategies, including fact dumping, consistency checking, pandering, and just bein...

In philosophical thought experiments, as in ordinary discourse, our understanding of verbal case descriptions is enriched by automatic comprehension inferences. Such inferences have us routinely infer what else is also true of the cases described. We consider how such routine inferences from polysemous words can generate zombie intuitions: intuitions that are ‘killed’ (defeated) by contextual information but kept cognitively alive by the psycholinguistic phenomenon of linguistic salience bias. Extending ‘evidentiary’ experimental philosophy, this paper examines whether the ‘zombie argument’ against materialism (...) is built on zombie intuitions. We examine the hypothesis that contextually defeated stereotypical inferences from the noun ‘zombie’ influence intuitions about ‘philosophical zombies’. We document framing effects (‘zombie’ vs ‘duplicate’) predicted by the hypothesis. Findings undermine intuitions about the conceivability of ‘philosophical zombies’ and address the philosophical ‘hard problem of consciousness’. Findings support a deflationary response: The impression that principled obstacles prevent scientific explanation of how physical processes give rise to conscious experience is generated by philosophical arguments that rely on epistemically deficient intuitions. (shrink)

Did we get Aquinas’ Epistemology right? St. Thomas is often interpreted according to Kantian principles, particularly in Transcendental Thomism. When this happens, it can appear as though Aquinas, too—along with Kant—had made the “turn to the subject”; as if Aquinas were no longer the Aristotelian “believer” who thinks nature is what it is but, instead, the Kantian “thinker” who holds that nature is what we think of it; as if St. Thomas, like Kant, had concluded that nature is intelligible not (...) only when we think of it, but because we think of it. After much struggle with this problem, the challenge seemed obvious to me: to show the radical difference between Aquinas and Kant. Kant had reasons to make his turn, his Copernican revolution. Could I explain those reasons, could I pinpoint the problem leading Kant to think in those terms? Could I show Aquinas facing the same problem and clearly taking a different direction in his proposed solution? That is what I have tried to do in this book. This book provides an interpretation of Aquinas’ agent intellect focusing on Summa Theologiae I, qq. 75-89, and proposing that the agent intellect is a metaphysical rather than a formal a priori of human understanding. A formal a priori is responsible for the intelligibility as content of the object of human understanding and is related to Kant’s epistemological views, whereas a metaphysical a priori is responsible for intelligibility as mode of being of this same object. We can find in Aquinas’ text many indications that the agent intellect is not productive of the intelligible object but is, rather, productive of the abstracted or intelligible mode of being of this object. This is because for Aquinas the universal as nature, which is the object of human understanding, is present in the things themselves but with a different mode of being. In this four-chapter book, Chapter 1 is intended to establish the fact which requires for Aquinas an agent intellect, and provides two very important principles: one is that the object of human understanding (the universal as nature) is present in the things themselves and, the other, that it is not in the things themselves with a mode of being which makes it available to the intellectual eye. These two principles lead us to the main point of Chapter 2, namely the distinction between the intelligible object and its intelligible mode of being. Now, because knowing is receptive of the intelligible object (Chapter 3), which is present in the things themselves (Chapter 1), the agent intellect is productive not of the object’s intelligible content, but of its abstracted or intelligible mode of being (Chapter 4). (shrink)

Fake news is a topic that we all know well, and that continues to play a prominent role in the social harms besieging the globe today. From the recent storming of the Capitol Hill in the United States to the siege of Red fort over Farm-laws in India, online disinformation via social media platforms was the main driving force catapulting the protestors far and wide. In the backdrop of such social harms, this Research Article examines the epistemic, legal and regulatory (...) discourse surrounding the disinformation bubble in India and asks for the deployment of ‘Lessig’s Decentred Regulatory Model’ — the potential Framework solution to regulate social media platforms in order to curb the menace of ‘fake news’. (shrink)

Testimony by disabled people concerning the relationship between their experiences and overall well-being has long been an object of social scientific and humanistic study. Often discussed in terms of “the disability paradox,” these studies contrast the intuitive horribleness of certain impaired states against the testimonial evidence suggesting that people in such states do not in fact experience their lives as horrible. Explanations for why such testimonial evidence is suspect range from claims about adaptive preferences to issues of qualitative research methodology. (...) In this paper, I argue that the problem lies not with the evidence, but the intuitions in question. Using the disability paradox as a case study, I further argue against the use of the concept of intuitive horribleness in social epistemology and beyond. I contend that testimonial and hermeneutical injustices are baked into most deployments of the concept, and even if one were to justify its use in select cases, it should be accompanied with prima facie suspicion. In conclusion, I discuss the implications of this analysis for the literature on transformative experience and also for the stakes of multi-cultural, historically informed philosophical inquiry more generally. (shrink)

C. Thi Nguyen's (2020) recent account of echo chambers as social epistemic structures that actively exclude outsiders’ voices has sparked debate on the connection between echo chambers and epistemic injustice (Santos 2021; Catala 2021; Elzinga 2021).In this paper I am mainly concerned with the connection between echo chambers and testimonial injustice, understood as an instance whereby a speaker receives less epistemic credibility than they deserve, due to a prejudice in the hearer (Fricker 2007). In her reconstruction of the types of (...) testimonial injustice, Catala implicitly equates incidental testimonial injustice as resulting from epistemic prejudice and systematic testimonial injustice as resulting from identity prejudice. As I will argue, there as certain cases that fall in between these interpretations, namely instances of incidental testimonial injustice, whereby the impact on the speaker is localized, but where the credibility deficit nevertheless results from identity prejudice. One example of how this can manifest is the structural distrust against health-care experts in anti-vaccination echo-chambers, wherein said experts’ testimony is dismissed due to unwarranted assumptions regarding their motives qua their social type. To understand the importance and severity of the testimonial injustices in echo chambers, we need to look beyond the specific harms that are done to the targeted speakers and the immediate loss of knowledge, but also take into account the consequences for fairness in public deliberation—the latter being a fundamental condition for procedural democratic legitimacy. (shrink)

The following is an interpretation of Aquinas’ agent intellect focusing on Summa Theologiae I, qq. 75-89, and proposing that the agent intellect is a metaphysical rather than a formal a priori of human understanding. A formal a priori is responsible for the intelligibility as content of the object of human understanding and is related to Kant’s epistemological views; whereas a metaphysical a priori is responsible for intelligibility as mode of being of this same object. We can find in Aquinas’ text (...) many indications that the agent intellect is not productive of the universal as content but is, rather, productive of the abstracted or intelligible mode of being of the universal nature. This is because for Aquinas the universal nature, which is the object of human understanding, is present in the things themselves but with a different mode of being. Chapter 1 is intended to establish the fact which requires for Aquinas an agent intellect, and provides two very important principles: one is that the object of human understanding (the universal nature) is present in the things themselves and, the other, that it is not in the things themselves with a mode of being which makes it available to the intellectual eye. These two principles lead us to the main point of Chapter 2, namely the distinction between the intelligible object and its intelligible mode of being. Now, because knowing is receptive of the intelligible object (Chapter 3), which is present in the things themselves (Chapter 1), the agent intellect is productive not of the object’s intelligible content, but of its abstracted or intelligible mode of being (Chapter 4). (shrink)

David Chalmers’ two-dimensionalism is an ambitious philosophical program that aims to “ground” or “construct” Fregean meanings and restore “the golden triangle” of apriority, necessity, and meaning that Kripke seemingly broke. This paper aims to examine critically what Chalmers’ theory can in reality achieve. It is argued that the theory faces severe challenges. There are some gaps in the overall arguments, and the reasoning is in some places somewhat circular. Chalmers’ theory is effectively founded on certain strong philosophical assumptions. It is (...) concluded that it is unclear whether the theory can deliver all it promises. (shrink)

Verbal disputes are often seen as closely related to a lack of substantivity. However, a systematic and comprehensive investigation of how verbalness relates to substantivity is still missing. The present paper attempts to close this gap. In addition to offering different conceptions of verbalness, the paper further develops Sider’s (2011) notion of substantivity. Ultimately, I argue for a more careful choice of terminology when it comes to assessing a dispute as “(merely) verbal” or “nonsubstantive”. While the paper shows that there (...) is no strict logical relation between mere verbalness and nonsubstantivity construed along the lines set out by Sider, it also demonstrates that further notable notions of (mere) verbalness and substantivity are in fact closely intertwined. (shrink)

The epistemological chasm between how we perceive or imagine the actual world and how we think of its underlying entities has motivated perhaps the most disconcerting impasse in human thought: the explanatory gap between the phenomenal and physical properties of the world. Here, I advocate a combination of philosophical skepticism and simplicity as an informed approach to arbitrate among theories of consciousness. I argue that the explanatory gap is rightly a gap in our understanding, but one that is not surprising; (...) and we being observers biased by our first-person perspective and our existence may both hinder and assist our reasoning. Further, I unfold the concept of observer into two distinct notions based on its functional and phenomenal aspects, and exploit this device to elucidate the subject-observer relationship. Then, I proceed to analyze the philosophical zombie dilemma. Lastly, I contend that from a skeptical viewpoint, panpsychism is the most parsimonious doctrine accounting for the explanatory gap, and suggest that it would be possible to make headway in the hard problem of consciousness by uncovering non-trivial causal relationships between qualia states and functional states, if routine and controlled manipulation of neural circuits were easily available. (shrink)

The ideas I suggest and will attempt to explore can be expressed and conceptualized in many ways. -/- Wittgenstein suggested that there are things that cannot be talked about. -/- I suggest that we most likely have ideas, attitudes, words, conceptions, notions, values, standards, opinions, etc when we approach any work of art or perceive anything as art or aesthetic. Just as we have notions, ideas etc concerning spirituality and spiritual phenomena. -/- But during the interaction with those things, when (...) having a direct experience or consciousness, an awareness of them we do not employ words, ideas or concepts. -/- Of course we can and most likely will reflect on those experiences and the things we have or had experiences of. At that stage we will use concepts in those contexts we will use notions and verbalize things - after the experiences, after the event. We will also, most likely, reflect on those phenomena and experiences. -/- I then continue to place this state or stage of pre- or non- or not yet conceptual/ity in the larger contexts of consciousness, anthropocentered socio-cultural practices and the universe or multiverse. (shrink)

There are few who would deny that P. F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1962) ranks among the most significant contributions to modern moral philosophy. Although any number of essays have been devoted to it, Pamela Hieronymi’s 'Freedom, Resentment, and the Metaphysics of Morals' is the first book-length study. The aim of Hieronymi’s study is to show that Strawson’s “central argument” has been “underestimated and misunderstood.” Hieronymi interprets this argument in terms of what she describes as Strawson’s “social naturalism”. Understood this (...) way, Hieronymi maintains, “the argument is powerful”. In what follows I argue that while Hieronymi’s discussion is stimulating and provides valuable insights into “Freedom and Resentment,” neither the interpretation advanced nor the social naturalist position that it describes is convincing. (shrink)

Brentano claims to have taken his idea of intentionality from scholastic thought. However, in St. Thomas Aquinas, intentionality is not just the mark of knowledge, although some scholastics have interpreted it this way, even during Brentano’s lifetime. Moreover, to elaborate his idea of intentional presence, the German philosopher was not only inspired by him, but also by Francisco Suárez. In an unpublished manuscript from his legacy, Brentano understands Suarez’s objective concept as a representation of the thing in the psyche. Thus, (...) even before writing his definitive doctoral thesis, Brentano maintained that the object of thought is not the external thing but its mental copy. In short, modern philosophy seems to have been more decisive than scholasticism in shaping the substance of his theory of intentionality. (shrink)

This paper compares and contrasts the epistemologies of Rawls and Dworkin, both usually presented as either Kantian or pragmatist. It considers in particular the main pragmatist theses underlying their work, namely anti-metaphysics, anti-skepticism, fallibilism and objectivity as conditioned by practice, as well as their account of truth.It then examines an approach which takes Rawls’ epistemology as “anti-foundationalist” and argues that, to the extent that this qualification is connected to deliberative democracy, it should not be accepted without reservation as an adequate (...) account of the views of either philosopher. (shrink)

The Pyrrhonian skeptic’s stance as described by Sextus Empiricus is in good part defined by his suspending judgment or belief about all the matters he has so far investigated. Most interpreters of Pyrrhonism maintain that it is a mistake to use the notion of doubt to describe the Pyrrhonian stance because suspension as conceived of by the Pyrrhonist is incompatible with doubt. The aim of this article is to assess the correctness of that standard view. If we take Pyrrhonism to (...) be a live philosophical option, then gaining an accurate understanding of Pyrrhonian suspension and its connection with doubt, or lack thereof, is of more than historiographical interest. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend the view that self-deception is a moral failure. Instead of saying that self-deception is bad because it undermines our moral character or leads to morally deleterious consequences, as has been argued by Butler, Kant, Smith, and others, I argue the distinctive badness of self-deception lies in the tragic relationship that it bears to our own values. On the one hand, self-deception is motivated by what we value. On the other hand, it prevents us from valuing (...) those things properly. I argue that we owe it ourselves to take seriously our own values, by striving to properly value them. This gives us both prudential and moral reasons to avoid self-deception. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that there is a significant but often overlooked metaphysical distinction to be made between contextualism and contrastivism. The orthodox view is that contrastivism is merely a form of contextualism. This is a mistake. The contextualist view is incompatible with certain naturalist claims about the metaphysical nature of concepts within whichever domain is being investigated, while the contrastivist view is compatible with these claims. So, choosing one view over the other will involve choosing to affirm or (...) deny a significant metaphysical claim. As such, a demarcation ought to be put in place between contextualism and contrastivism. (shrink)

Philosophers who take rationality to consist in the satisfaction of rational requirements typically favour rational requirements that govern mental attitudes at a time rather than across times. One such account has been developed by Broome in Rationality through reasoning. He claims that diachronic functional properties of intentions such as settling on courses of actions and resolving conflicts are emergent properties that can be explained with reference to synchronic rational pressures. This is why he defends only a minimal diachronic requirement which (...) characterises forgetting as irrational. In this paper, I show that Broome’s diachronically minimalist account lacks the resources to explain how a rational agent may resolve incommensurable choices by an act of will. I argue that one can solve this problem by either specifying a mode of diachronic deliberation or by introducing a genuinely diachronic requirement that governs the rational stability of an intention via a diachronic counterfactual condition concerning rational reconsideration. My proposal is similar in spirit to Gauthier’s account in his seminal paper ‘Assure and threaten’. It improves on his work by being both more general and explanatorily richer in its application with regard to diachronic phenomena such as transformative choices and acts of will. (shrink)

El presente trabajo es un ensayo sobre lo que, en los últimos años, se ha empezado a llamar "lógica filosófica". La lógica filosófica se origina como consecuencia del progresivo rigor formal de la lógica tradicional. Este rigor ha conducido, en contra de lo que se esperaba, a problemas de significado filosófico fundamental y de profundidad abismal. Son muchos los problemas que interesan a la lógica filosófica, pero, en opinión del autor, el más importante apenas ha sido abordado. Este problema es (...) la relación entre la lógica y la razón. La tradición siempre ha considerado la lógica como una disciplina preeminentemente racional, que se constituye sobre estructuras fundamentales del pensamiento racional. Ahora bien, si se intenta saber cuáles son estas estructuras, se encuentra un grave problema: en los últimos años han proliferado nuevos sistemas de lógica, algunos de los cuales parecen no tener ninguna relación entre sí y con la lógica clásica. Esto da la impresión de que no tiene mucho sentido hablar de "razón humana", es decir, de una facultad que funciona mediante principios necesarios y universales organizados en un sistema unitario. La única manera de abordar este problema es comenzar con un análisis de los sistemas lógicos que difieren del modelo clásico (como, por ejemplo, las lógicas polivalentes y paraconsistentes). A estos sistemas el autor los denomina "lógicas heterodoxas". Una vez analizado el significado y las características de estas lógicas, es posible ver si realmente expresan el hecho de que la razón no puede ser concebida como un sistema de principios o si esta creencia es sólo una consecuencia de un enfoque superficial. La opinión del autor es que, a pesar de la multiplicidad de sistemas lógicos heterodoxos, es posible encontrar un criterio de unidad en el cumplimiento común de ciertas condiciones necesarias de logicidad y la posesión común de algunas condiciones suficientes. La razón no funciona, por supuesto, como creían los clásicos, pero su funcionamiento está determinado por un complejo invariable de principios necesarios y universales. Este funcionamiento es más flexible que el concebido por la lógica tradicional; la razón humana puede prescindir de algunos principios clásicos, pero no de todos, y, por el contrario, puede encontrar nuevos principios basados en evidencias que no habían sido previamente analizadas lógicamente. Pero en ambos casos, siempre presupone un complejo invariable de principios. (shrink)

Is reality the basis of everything or has reality itself an other basis? What makes reality – not the real things – to be active, to exist? The question of what is real seems to be an easy question, because in our daily lives we are and must be naive realists. We ourselves, the things around us, the world, the facts, all that is real. there must be several concepts of reality if we want to say that not only physical (...) or material things of everyday life are real, e. g. numbers, π, Dr. Faustus, thoughts, emotions and other things. On the other hand, given the difference of classical physics and modern physics, we see that even that form of knowledge, which seems to be most responsible for reality, natural science, cannot give the desired uniqueness in terms of what itself wants or needs to understand as real. Alternatively, when we see that nothing can be and nothing can be real without being in a world, and when we understand the world as the order of things, which I call worldI , then this leads us to the speculative answer that it is exactly the “unreal” worldI which is the reason why the everyday reality, worldI I , is real. The worldI is the basis for the reality of our empirical worldI I . The considerations presented here have nothing to do with the idealistic conception of possibility, founded in the power of the subject, nor with the existential concept of potentiality, founded in the Entwurf des Daseins. (shrink)

The present paper is an essay on what, in the last years, has begun to be called, "philosophical logic". Philosophical logic originates as a consequence of the progressive formal rigour of traditional logic. This rigour had led, contrary to what was excepted, to problems of fundamental philosophical meaning and of abysmatic depth. There are many problems which are of interest to philosophical logic, but, in the author's opinion, the most important one has hardly been approached. This problem is the relation (...) between logic and reason. The tradition has always considered logic as a preeminently rational discipline, which constitutes itself upon fundamental structures of rational thought. Now, if one tries to know which are these structures, one finds a grave problem: new systems of logic have proliferated in recent years, some of which seem to have no relations among them and with classical logic. This gives the impression that it does not make much sense to talk about "human reason", that is, about a faculty that functions through necessary and universal principles organized in a unitary system. The only way to tackle this problem is to begin with an analysis of the logical systems that differ from the classical model (such as, for example, the polyvalent and paraconsistent logics). These systems the author calls "heterodox logics". Once the meaning and the characteristics of these logics are analysed, it is possible to see if they really express the fact that reason cannot be conceived as a system of principles or if this belief is only a consequence of superficial approach. The author's opinion is that, in spite of the multiplicity of heterodox logical systems, it is possible to find a criterium of unity in the common fulfilment of certain necessary conditions of logicity and the common posssesion of some sufficient conditions. Reason does not function, of course, as the classical believed, but none the less its functioning is determined by an invariant complex of necessary and universal principles. This functioning is more flexible than the functioning conceived by traditional logic; human reason can do away with some classical principles but not with all of them, and, contrarywise, it can find new principles based on evidences that had not been previously logically analysed. But in both cases, it always presupposes an invariant complex of principles. (shrink)

While practitioners think highly of randomized studies, some philosophers argue that there is no epistemic reason to randomize. Here I show that their arguments do not entail their conclusion. Moreover, I provide novel reasons for randomizing in the context of interventional studies. The overall discussion provides a unified framework for assessing baseline balance, one that holds for interventional and observational studies alike. The upshot: practitioners’ strong preference for randomized studies can be defended in some cases, while still offering a nuanced (...) approach to evidence-appraisal, one where not all non-randomized studies are treated equally. (shrink)

When involved in a disagreement, a common reaction is to tell oneself that one is privy to personal information that justifies one’s confidence that one’s view is correct. Conversely, either one lacks the same kind of information about one’s opponent or, if one does possess it, it is clearly inferior in both amount and quality. Building on this natural reaction to disagreement, some contributors to the debate on its epistemic significance have claimed that one can stick to one’s guns by (...) relying in part on personal information, i.e., information about one’s first-order evidence and the normal functioning of one’s cognitive capacities. I argue that such a manoeuvre to settle controversies encounters both the problem that all the disputants can make use of it and the problem that it is a live possibility that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, a great many of our beliefs are the product of epistemically distorting factors. I also argue that even if we grant that personal information is reliable, when it comes to real-life rather than idealized disagreements, the extent of the unpossessed information about one’s opponent’s epistemic standing provides a reason for doubting that personal information can function as a symmetry breaker. (shrink)

The safety condition is supposed to be a necessary condition on knowledge which helps to eliminate epistemic luck. It has been argued that the condition should be globalized to a set of propositions rather than the target proposition believed to account for why not all beliefs in necessary truths are safe. A remaining issue is which propositions are relevant when evaluating whether the target belief is safe or not. In the literature, solutions have been proposed to determine the relevance of (...) propositions. This paper examines a case of luckily true belief一thus a case of ignorance一and a case of knowledge. It argues that no solution in the literature offers a correct verdict in either case. Therefore, the strategy to globalize safety remains unsatisfactory. (shrink)

This paper articulates in formal terms a crucial distinction concerning future contingents, the distinction between what is true about the future and what is reasonable to believe about the future. Its key idea is that the branching structures that have been used so far to model truth can be employed to define an epistemic property, credibility, which we take to be closely related to knowledge and assertibility, and which is ultimately reducible to probability. As a result, two kinds of claims (...) about future contingents—one concerning truth, the other concerning credibility—can be smoothly handled within a single semantic framework. (shrink)

According to a rich tradition in philosophy of action, intentional action requires practical knowledge: someone who acts intentionally knows what they are doing while they are doing it. Piñeros Glasscock (2020) argues that an anti-luminosity argument, of the sort developed in Williamson (2000), can be readily adapted to provide a reductio of an epistemic condition on intentional action. This paper undertakes a rescue mission on behalf of an epistemic condition on intentional action. We formulate and defend a version of an (...) epistemic condition that is free from any luminosity commitments. While this version of an epistemic condition escapes reductio, it comes with substantive commitments of its own. In particular, we will see that it forces us to deny the existence of any essentially intentional actions. We go on to argue that this consequence should be embraced. On the resulting picture, intentional action is not luminous. But it still entails practical knowledge. (shrink)

This article offers a distinctive way of grounding the regulative duties held by social media companies (SMCs). One function of the democratic state is to provide what we term the right to democratic epistemic participation within the public sphere. But social media has transformed our public sphere, such that SMCs now facilitate citizens’ right to democratic epistemic participation and do so on a scale that was previously impossible. We argue that this role of SMCs in expanding the scope of what (...) counts as fair democratic epistemic participation, and in becoming the providers of access to the digital public sphere, brings with it duties of regulation. (shrink)

A short essay that discusses whether it is possible for AI to do philosophy in its true sense of the word.

Deep moral disagreements exist between Christians and non-Christians. I argue that Christians should resist the temptation to pin all such disagreements on the irrationality of their disputants. To this end, I develop an epistemological framework on which both parties can be rational—the key being that their beliefs are formed from different perspectives and, hence, on the basis of different sets of evidence. I then alleviate concerns that such moral perspectivalism leads to relativism or skepticism, or that it prohibits rational discourse. (...) I end by exploring new avenues for resolving deep moral disagreements opened up by the perspectivalist approach. (shrink)

Research on healthcare disparities outside the field of epistemology tend to miss the true origins of oppressions imposed on marginalized individuals by the U.S healthcare system. This happens because of the false belief that these oppressions are reducible to social or political oppressions. By employing the perspective of a standpoint epistemologist, we can better identify the origins of these oppressions and subsequently consider more appropriate solutions. The standpoint epistemologist’s perspective provides an intuitive case for the role individuals’ schemas play in (...) the evaluation of what healthcare professionals know; situates medical knowledge within epistemology, leading us to the determination of the system’s recalcitrance; and lastly, provides us with new and appropriate diagnostic tools for addressing these distinctively epistemic oppressions. The standpoint epistemologist’s perspective is our only saving grace, because when we fail to consider medical knowledge as an epistemological system, we fail to understand the origins of these healthcare oppressions altogether. (shrink)

The Problems of Viewing Performance challenges long-held assumptions by considering the ways in which knowledge is received by more than a single audience member, and breaks new ground by, counterintuitively, claiming that viewing performance is not a shared experience. Given that viewers come to each performance with differing amounts and types of knowledge, they each make different assumptions as to how the performance will unfold. Often modified by other viewers and often after the performance event, knowledge of performance is made (...) more accurate by superimposing the experiences and justified beliefs of multiple viewers. These differences in the viewing experience make knowledge surrounding a performance intersubjective. Ultimately, this book explains the how and the why audience members have different viewing experiences. -/- The Problems of Viewing Performance is important reading for theatre and performance students, scholars and practitioners, as it unpacks the dynamics of spectatorship and explores how audiences work. -/- . (shrink)

Physicalism is the default position in science and in the philosophy of mind, but it should not be, I argue, because of two errors. By its epistemological error, physicalism tries to explain theoretically what is evident. Only what I experience in first person is certain, so pain does not need a theoretical explanation. Physics itself is based on first person perception, avoiding the epistemological error, and then physics can progress, even changing its own ontology. However, physicalism imposes the ontology of (...) physics on every science, and in physics everything is causal. By its ontological error, physicalism tries to explain causally what is intentional. And it happens that causality and intentionality are mutually exclusive, showing that the ontology of physics is insufficient wherever intentions are present. This ontological insufficiency prevents that physicalism can repeat the success of physics with any science where intentions play a rôle, and thus it is blocking the advance of both the social sciences and the philosophy of mind. To overcome this obstacle, I propose to go back to the essentials: we should consider again the transcendental problem raised by Descartes and its solutions by Hume and Kant. On top of this subjectivist solution, we should take advantage of Darwin and Turing, and we should extend our ontology beyond causality to include intentionality, and here my proposal is problem solving. Then you could join our Post-Kantian subjectivism and say with me: The world is not a huge machine, as physicalism proposes, but an enigmatic problem. (shrink)

This paper explores the principle that knowledge is fragile, in that whenever S knows that S doesn't know that S knows that p, S thereby fails to know p. Fragility is motivated by the infelicity of dubious assertions, utterances which assert p while acknowledging higher order ignorance of p. Fragility is interestingly weaker than KK, the principle that if S knows p, then S knows that S knows p. Existing theories of knowledge which deny KK by accepting a Margin for (...) Error principle can be conservatively extended with Fragility. (shrink)

It is becoming more common that the decision-makers in private and public institutions are predictive algorithmic systems, not humans. This article argues that relying on algorithmic systems is procedurally unjust in contexts involving background conditions of structural injustice. Under such nonideal conditions, algorithmic systems, if left to their own devices, cannot meet a necessary condition of procedural justice, because they fail to provide a sufficiently nuanced model of which cases count as relevantly similar. Resolving this problem requires deliberative capacities uniquely (...) available to human agents. After exploring the limitations of existing formal algorithmic fairness strategies, the article argues that procedural justice requires that human agents relying wholly or in part on algorithmic systems proceed with caution: by avoiding doxastic negligence about algorithmic outputs, by exercising deliberative capacities when making similarity judgments, and by suspending belief and gathering additional information in light of higher-order uncertainty. (shrink)

We argue that there is a tension between two monistic claims that are the core of recent work in epistemic consequentialism. The first is a form of monism about epistemic value, commonly known as veritism: accuracy is the sole final objective to be promoted in the epistemic domain. The other is a form of monism about a class of epistemic scoring rules: that is, strictly proper scoring rules are the only legitimate measures of inaccuracy. These two monisms, we argue, are (...) in tension with each other. If only accuracy has final epistemic value, then there are legitimate alternatives to strictly proper scoring rules. Our argument relies on the way scoring rules are used in contexts where accuracy is rewarded, such as education. (shrink)

A principal crítica do internismo a teorias externistas é que elas parecem fazer o conhecimento o resultado de processos que permanecem inacessíveis ao sujeito. Epistemologias externistas buscaram acomodar esta exigência, como é o caso da epistemologia de Sosa. A incorporação das exigências internistas não se faz sem tensões – no caso de Sosa, os mecanismos reflexivos podem ser inacessíveis ao sujeito. Na medida em que buscamos compreender como podemos conhecer e refletir sobre nossas próprias crenças, encontramos mecanismos externos ao sujeito (...) que não podem ser internalizados: a dinâmica conversacional e o conhecimento científico dos mecanismos de funcionamento da cognição. A externalização do saber se estende para o conhecimento cientifico de maneira muito ampla. Uma pessoa que só tomasse como verdadeiro aquilo que pode provar (ou mesmo que pode compreender) seria alguém que recusaria boa parte do saber humano. Para todo leigo – isto é, para todo mundo, num ou noutro domínio –, assumir o que é produzido pela cultura é tomar como verdadeiras crenças cujo conteúdo resta opaco. Como exige um internista, o funcionamento interacional da razão não envolve mecanismos cegos à perspectiva do sujeito e não conceitualizados, mas, ao contrário, leva precisamente à articulação e à tomada de consciência das teses apresentadas. Este conhecimento não pode, contudo, ser internalizado. A externalização do conhecimento é um traço profundo do conhecimento e, mais geralmente, da cultura humana. No contexto de uma teoria evolutiva da cultura, muitos autores defendem, de diferentes modos, que a cultura humana é essencialmente social. O que talvez não seja tão usual seja conectar teorias mais gerais da evolução da cultura com preocupações tradicionais da epistemologia. Espero mostrar que este é um caminho frutífero. (shrink)