We Should Move on from Signalling-Based Analyses of Biological Deception

Erkenntnis:1-21 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper argues that extant signalling-based analyses cannot explain a range of cases of biological (and psychological) deception, such as those in which the deceiver does not send a signal at all, but that Artiga and Paternotte’s (Philos Stud 175:579–600, 2018) functional and my (Krstić in The analysis of self-deception: rehabilitating the traditionalist account. PhD Dissertation, University of Auckland, 2018: §3; Krstić and Saville in Australas J Philos 97:830–835, 2019) manipulativist analyses can. Therefore, the latter views should be given preference. And because we still do not have a satisfactory definition of manipulation, the functional analysis, according to which a state is deceptive iff its function is to mislead and it misleads, is currently our best theory of deception. This is not to argue that the signalling-based analyses have no value but only that they should not be used in general analyses of biological deception. We need to move on to some other interesting issues.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,907

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Deception (Under Uncertainty) as a Kind of Manipulation.Vladimir Krstić & Chantelle Saville - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (4):830-835.
The Meaning of Biological Signals.Marc Artiga, Jonathan Birch & Manolo Martínez - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 84:101348.
Manipulation and Deception.Shlomo Cohen - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (3):483-497.
I—Learning about Deception from Lawyers.Seana Valentine Shiffrin - 2019 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 93 (1):69-90.
Photographic Manipulation and Photographic Deception.Zsolt Batori - 2018 - Aisthesis. Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi Dell’Estetico 11 (2):35-47.
Skyrms on the Possibility of Universal Deception.Don Fallis - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (2):375-397.
Self-deception.Eric Funkhouser - 2019 - New York, NY: Routledge.
Behavioural Deception and Formal Models of Communication.Gregory McWhirter - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (3):757-780.
Deception: a functional account.Marc Artiga & Cédric Paternotte - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (3):579-600.
Defining self-deception.Jennifer Radden - 1984 - Dialogue 23 (1):103-120.
Self-deception vs. self-caused deception: A comment on professor Mele.Robert Audi - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):104-104.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-07-14

Downloads
166 (#119,065)

6 months
87 (#57,764)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Vladimir Krstic
United Arab Emirates University

Citations of this work

A Functional Analysis of Human Deception.Vladimir Krstić - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association:1-19.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Signals: Evolution, Learning, and Information.Brian Skyrms - 2010 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Convention: A Philosophical Study.David Lewis - 1969 - Synthese 26 (1):153-157.
Propositional Content in Signalling Systems.Jonathan Birch - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 171 (3):493-512.
Content in Simple Signalling Systems.Nicholas Shea, Peter Godfrey-Smith & Rosa Cao - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (4):1009-1035.

View all 21 references / Add more references