Knowledge, Miscellaneous

Der Begriff der Glaubwürdigkeit begegnet uns heutzutage in vielen verschiedenen Kontexten. Aber wer oder was ist eigentlich glaubwürdig? Was bedeutet es, wenn wir Glaubwürdigkeit zuschreiben? Diese Fragen sollen im folgenden Beitrag im Hinblick auf die Fotografie in ihren verschiedenen Verwendungskontexten näher untersucht werden. Das Problem der Deepfakes hat im digitalen Zeitalter zu einer wahren Glaubwürdigkeitskrise geführt, wie einige Forschende anführen. Was können wir dem Einfluss solcher Bilderzeugnisse entgegensetzen? Hier werden wir auf einen Gedankengang von Catherine Z. Elgin (2025) zurückgreifen, nämlich (...) die Idee einer epistemischen Ökologie. (shrink)

This article investigates athletic expertise in elite sport as a philosophically privileged domain for the analysis of central problems in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. It argues that high-performance sport is not merely a field for the application of general philosophical theories, but a set of phenomena capable of testing, challenging, and refining traditional conceptions of agency, knowledge, and moral value. From a metaphysical perspective, the paper examines the notion of distributed agency in hybrid human-technological systems, as well as the ontological (...) status of athletic performances and records. On the epistemological level, it analyzes three forms of knowledge constitutive of athletic expertise — motor, strategic, and somatic knowledge — emphasizing their tacit character and resistance to reduction to propositional knowledge. Finally, the ethical dimension addresses issues concerning the moral responsibility of experts, the limits of technological enhancement, and demands of distributive justice regarding access to the development of athletic excellence. The article concludes that neglecting sport as an object of philosophical inquiry results in an impoverished understanding of embodiment, practice, and human excellence. | Este artigo investiga a expertise atlética no esporte de elite como um domínio filosoficamente privilegiado para a análise de problemas centrais em metafísica, epistemologia e ética. Sustenta-se que a prática esportiva de alto rendimento não constitui apenas um campo de aplicação de teorias filosóficas gerais, mas um conjunto de fenômenos capazes de testar, desafiar e refinar concepções tradicionais sobre agência, conhecimento e valor moral. Do ponto de vista metafísico, examina-se a noção de agência distribuída em sistemas híbridos humano-tecnológicos, bem como o estatuto ontológico das performances e dos recordes esportivos. No plano epistemológico, o artigo analisa três formas de conhecimento constitutivas da expertise atlética — conhecimento motor, estratégico e somático — enfatizando seu caráter tácito e sua resistência à redução ao conhecimento proposicional. Finalmente, a dimensão ética aborda questões relativas à responsabilidade moral de experts, aos limites do aprimoramento tecnológico e às exigências de justiça distributiva no acesso ao desenvolvimento da excelência atlética. Argumenta-se, em conclusão, que ignorar o esporte como objeto filosófico empobrece nossa compreensão da corporalidade, da prática e das formas humanas de excelência. (shrink)

In premodern South Asia, philosophers often claimed that memory is not a method of knowledge-acquisition. But some, especially Jaina epistemologists, dissented from this standard view. They argued that occurrent memories can help us learn novel truths about past objects and experiences. In doing so, these thinkers countenanced the possibility that we can acquire self-locating knowledge, i.e., knowledge about ourselves or our temporal location, by means of memory. In this paper, I will focus on a Nyāya philosopher, Udayana (ca. 10th-11th centuries (...) CE), who defended the standard view against this objection. I will reconstruct Udayana's account of memory, and explain how he tries to rule out the possibility of gaining purely self-locating knowledge by means of memory alone. I will then argue that Udayana's response to the Jaina objection is unsuccessful, and in fact reveals a deeper tension within the Nyāya account of memory. (shrink)

The surprise exam paradox is often treated as a contradiction in knowledge: the students seem able to prove that no surprise exam can occur, yet when the exam is given they are still taken aback. This paper argues that the paradox is manufactured by a compound misdescription. First, the teacher’s announcement already destroys surprise in the proper sense by installing the event within a fixed interval of expectation. What remains is not genuine surprise, but bounded anticipation and uncertainty of timing. (...) Second, that weakened remainder is then analysed from the wrong temporal standpoint. The students reason from a completed retrospective view of the week and project that standpoint backward into each earlier day, rather than reasoning from within the live uncertainty of time as it is actually lived. The result is an apparent paradox generated by conflating surprise with unresolved placement and by externalising a phenomenon that exists only from within temporal unfolding. The surprise exam therefore does not reveal a contradiction in knowledge. It reveals a misdescription of both surprise and time. (shrink)

It is argued that that the desire attributed to an agent, X, in sentences of the form ‘X wants to know whether P’, is not X’s overall desire for ‘X knows that P or X knows that “not P”’, but rather X’s expected conditional desire for knowing the truth about P, given the truth. An implication of this account for distributive justice is discussed.

It is often assumed that unknowability explains infelicity. That is, if it's infelicitous to assert p, and p is unknowable, then that explains the infelicity, given the knowledge norm of assertion. In Iterated Knowledge, Simon Goldstein makes a similar move in arguing for an omega-knowledge norm of assertion. In this paper, I argue against the unknowability assumption, and sketch an alternative for accounting for infelicities.

By David Cota, founder of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity Abstract This essay defends philosophy as a rational practice founded on knowledge, in contrast with approaches that confuse it with mythopoetic narrative or metaphysical speculation. Beginning with the distinction between logos and mythos, it argues that philosophy constitutes itself as a critical discipline when it refuses both the appeal to transcendence and the language impregnated with metaphysics. Through the analysis of the proposition “Evil is a cosmic force”, it demonstrates how (...) certain formulations fail when confronted with the criteria of intelligibility, criticizability, and public justification. It further maintains that the persistence of the term metaphysics, even in contemporary discourses that deny the transcendent, reintroduces through language precisely that which it seeks to refuse. As an alternative, the Ontology of Emerging Complexity is proposed as an immanent philosophical regime, capable of clarifying the real without appealing to ultimate foundations. In this framework, philosophy does not invent narratives: it offers reasons, distinguishes levels, and symbolically organizes the world out of its own complexity. (shrink)

This paper advances a critical account of language and definition as epistemic instruments rather than ontological revelations. It argues, first, that language originates not as a vehicle of metaphysical disclosure but as a pragmatic construct securing intersubjective stability within social orders. From this vantage, definitions do not disclose essences; rather, they function as epistemic constraints, semantic placeholders grounded in genesis, function, composition, or observable predicates. Human cognition, in turn, is shown to be irreducibly mediated by linguistic structures, such that thought (...) itself disintegrates without symbolic differentiation. This dependence introduces a paradox: definition necessarily limits, circumscribing what can be thought, yet these very limits estrange us from the fullness of reality. All definitional acts are perspectival renderings, bound to context and scale, producing knowledge that is situated rather than absolute. The paper further examines the psychological dimension of epistemic conservatism, suggesting that humanity’s attachment to definitional clarity arises less from ontological insight than from a fear of indeterminacy and epistemic vertigo. Ultimately, definition is revealed as a necessary fiction: the act by which we stabilize experience and render the world navigable, even as it simultaneously distances us from metaphysical truth. (shrink)

Large language models (LLMs) are often portrayed as merely imitating linguistic patterns without genuine understanding. We argue that recent findings in mechanistic interpretability (MI), the emerging field probing the inner workings of LLMs, render this picture increasingly untenable—but only once those findings are integrated within a theoretical account of understanding. We propose a tiered framework for thinking about understanding in LLMs and use it to synthesize the most relevant findings to date. The framework distinguishes three hierarchical varieties of understanding, each (...) tied to a corresponding level of computational organization: conceptual understanding emerges when a model forms “features” as directions in latent space, learning connections between diverse manifestations of a single entity or property; state-of-the-world understanding emerges when a model learns contingent factual connections between features and dynamically tracks changes in the world; principled understanding emerges when a model ceases to rely on memorized facts and discovers a compact “circuit” connecting these facts. Across these tiers, MI uncovers internal organizations that can underwrite understanding-like unification. However, these also diverge from human cognition in their parallel exploitation of heterogeneous mechanisms. Fusing philosophical theory with mechanistic evidence thus allows us to transcend binary debates over whether AI understands, paving the way for a comparative, mechanistically grounded epistemology that explores how AI understanding aligns with—and diverges from—our own. (shrink)

“Modesty Problems and Epistemic Modesty”. In Pietro Montanari (invited ed.): The Ancients and Their Knowledge. In memory of David Konstan. Diálogos, LVI, 116, May 2025, pp. 473-529. Epistemic modesty is a hermeneutic category that has sometimes been used with reference to certain authors or intellectual trends in ancient thought. In this article, I present my doubts about the concept, especially when applied to ancient theories of knowledge. I begin by highlighting two plausible determinations of epistemic modesty, the first related to (...) diatribes among philosophical schools, the second to ethics and character formation. Next, I discuss the interpretive problems that arise from attributing modesty, a psychological trait rather than a virtue, to literary and philosophical texts usually characterized by conflicting or ambiguous epistemic attitudes. I argue that an objective determination of modesty seems improbable, unless we understand modesty, as I propose somewhat paradoxically, as a way of affirming something by means of negation and dissimulation (this is my third determination of the concept). I conclude by briefly presenting some remarkable recent perspectives on epistemic modesty, mostly centered on Platonic-Socratic dialogues. This paves the way for three further determinations of the concept. They stem, however, from a modern epistemological background, whose features may turn out to be partly at odds with ancient epistemological conceptions. (shrink)

“Ancient Knowledge in Perspective: Problems of Demarcation”. In Pietro Montanari (invited ed.): The Ancients and Their Knowledge. In memory of David Konstan. Diálogos, LVI, 116, May 2025, pp. 15-54. -/- The main topic addressed in this introduction is demarcation between ancient and modern knowledge. My idea is that there are important differences between modern and ancient epistemologies, but they can hardly be treated in general terms (taking ancient epistemology as a whole and opposing it to modern). Specific differences need to (...) be evaluated almost case by case, while the hermeneutic practice itself turns the very idea of demarcation into something problematic, if not paradoxical. I analyze Lloyd Gerson's view, driven by a general intent of demarcation between ancient and modern knowledge, its strengths and weaknesses. Then I compare it with the more complex approach that David Konstan proposed for the demarcation between different cultural contexts. In the second part, I introduce the volume's contributions, placing them into three thematic groups, Theology, Praxis and Hermeneutics, which identify as many relevant points regarding the problem of demarcation. (shrink)

Pietro Montanari (Invited Ed.): The Ancients and Their Knowledge. In memory of David Konstan. Diálogos: Year LVI, no. 116, May 2025, pp. 530. ISSN-e: 2693-9339 | ISSN-L: 0012-2122. -/- A volume on ancient knowledge, in memory of a dear friend and wonderful scholar, David Konstan (1940-2024). It is the follow-up of an international workshop in which David and many other colleagues and friends took part in October 2022 at the University of Guadalajara. A huge thank you to the amazing scholars (...) who took part in this project and to the editor of the Journal, Etienne Helmer. The attached pdf contains the first pages, table of contents and preface. The complete volume is available online -/- Un volumen sobre el conocimiento de los antiguos, en memoria de un querido amigo y gran estudioso, David Konstan (1940-2024). Es la continuación de un congreso internacional en el que David y muchos otros colegas y amigos participaron en octubre de 2022 en la Universidad de Guadalajara. Un enorme agradecimiento a los increíbles académicos que participaron en este proyecto y al editor de la Revista, Etienne Helmer. El pdf adjunto contiene las primeras páginas, el índice y el prólogo. El volumen completo está disponible en línea. (shrink)

S is usually assumed to be blameworthy for harmful actions only if S knew or should have known about the harmful consequences of her actions. Since there is usually assumed to be a connection between one’s obligations and one’s capacities, expressed by the slogan that ought implies can, one’s capacities to know have an impact on one’s blameworthiness. In this paper, I will investigate this relationship between blameworthiness and knowledge in reverse order. I will first investigate the meaning of (not) (...) being in a position to know. As I will argue, persons can fail to be in a position to know in two different ways – because they are not in a position to acquire evidence or because they are not in a position to acknowledge existing evidence. I will reflect on different epistemically flawed characters, powerless inquirers, who cannot acquire evidence, psychologically stubborn persons, who fail to believe that p despite acknowledged evidence in favor of p, and misled subjectively rational persons, who form beliefs according their own false beliefs about rationality and evidence. As I will argue, people can be prima facie blamelessly ignorant in multiple ways, and major views on blameworthy ignorance confirm this heterogeneous picture. (shrink)

In the 1990s, Anton Zeilinger, a superb experimentalist “trying to understand Nature”, endeavored to elevate information to “a foundational principle for quantum mechanics”. Three decades later, upon earning the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics with Alain Aspect and John F. Clauser, Zeilinger inspired me to select this article’s name after saying: “The very fundamental question — what does this really mean in a basic way? — is unanswered and is an avenue for new research.” Albeit visibly not content with his (...) “foundational principle”, he still stated during his Nobel lecture: “Maybe, we need a Unification between the Concepts of Reality and Information”. I agree with Zeilinger against ‘many-worlds’ but utterly disagree with his vision of Information as a “foundational principle” for a theory about the physical world. QR/TOPI integrates Quantum Theory (QT) with Special Relativity (RT) by modifying their Ontology, Foundation, Structure, and Interpretation. QR/TOPI shows RT is not the ultimate account of spacetime structure, provides the “radical conceptual renewal” requested by John Bell, and answers the “very fundamental question” posed by Zeilinger. Zeilinger’s ‘Total Information Content’ is shown to be a derivative of the notion of State. Ergo, it cannot be deemed foundational. Zeilinger’s “fundamental question” is answered by reviewing several experimental epitomes of quantum ‘quirkiness’, whose physical meanings proposed to date -if not stranger than the phenomena themselves- are incoherent and overly contrived. Explanatory catchphrases like ‘wave-particle duality’, ‘interaction-free detection’, ‘availability of path-information’, ‘retrocausality’, ‘erasing the past’, ‘changing the path of a photon millions of years ago’, etc. are proven wrong. (shrink)

In this paper, I provide a characterisation of a neglected form of humility: magnanimous humility. Unlike most contemporary analyses of humility, magnanimous humility is not about limitations but instead presupposes that one possesses some entitlement in a context. I suggest that magnanimous intellectual humility (IH) consists in a disposition to appropriately refrain from exercising one's legitimate epistemic entitlements because one is appropriately motivated to pursue some epistemic good. I then shown that Magnanimous IH has an important role to play in (...) contexts of disagreement and oppression. It calls on knowing parties to refrain from pressing their epistemic entitlements to facilitate mutual understanding. And it is a virtue that oppressed persons have good reason to cultivate in order to develop meta-lucidity in themselves and others. (shrink)

Ernest Sosa (1940-) is a central figure in contemporary epistemology. He is best known for pioneering the subfield of virtue epistemology, as well as developing across four decades his own distinctive framework in this tradition. Besides providing an overview of this work, this article offers a guide to Sosa’s other contributions to epistemology, stretching back to his first publication in 1964. The organization is as follows. §1 reviews Sosa’s distinctive brand of virtue epistemology and its development since 1980. §2 provides (...) a fuller synopsis of Sosa’s contributions to epistemology in five parts, covering his work on (i) the structure of justification and knowledge, (ii) the dawning of knowledge and understanding, (iii) skepticism and the possibility of empirical knowledge, (iv) methodology and the possibility of philosophy, and (v) the relationship between mind and world. Our aim is to encourage renewed appreciation of the full scope and depth of Sosa’s epistemology. We hope the reader will benefit from (re)exploring Sosa’s work guided by the map detailed below. (shrink)

Traditionally, epistemology has been individualistic. Evidentialism fits squarely in this individualistic tradition. According to evidentialism, it is the mental states of the subject alone that fully determine what she is justified in believing. More recently, epistemology has become more and more social, moving away from this individualistic paradigm. Social epistemology examines the social nature of knowledge and rationality and thus engages in projects that are a departure from more traditional epistemology. It might be thought that social epistemology has no room (...) for the evidentialist. In this paper, I argue that one can be an evidentialist as well as a thoroughgoing social epistemologist. In section 1, I explain individualistic epistemology and evidentialism. In section 2, I highlight some of the central projects of social epistemology. In section 3, I argue that none of the projects in section 2 are in conflict with evidentialism and that many can be fruitfully pursued from within an evidentialist framework. In sections 4 – 7, I examine and respond to two challenges to a successful evidentialist social epistemology. The first, inspired by Goldberg (2010), claims that evidentialism is ill-equipped to handle the insights regarding the epistemic importance of what is happening in the minds of others. The second, inspired by Lackey (2018), claims that evidentialism is unable to address a form of epistemic injustice. I show that both challenges can be met by the evidentialist. (shrink)

Was macht wissenschaftliches Verstehen aus? Und inwiefern können visuelle Repräsentationen, wie sie vielfach in der (Ergebnis-)Präsentation (Publikationen, Vorträgen etc.) in unterschiedlichen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen Verwendung finden, zum Verstehen untersuchter Fragestellungen beitragen? Diesen Themen soll im folgenden Beitrag genauer nachgegangen werden. Den Ausgangspunkt bildet dabei Henk W. de Regts Studie (2017) zum wissenschaftlichen Verstehen. De Regt plädiert dafür, Kriterien des wissenschaftlichen Verstehens aus der aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Praxis zur Anwendung zu bringen – was auch bedeutet, ihre historische Variabilität ernst zu nehmen. Ein Punkt (...) seiner Untersuchung betrifft den Zusammenhang zwischen Visualisierbarkeit und wissenschaftlichem Verstehen. Erörtert wird von ihm die Frage, inwiefern Anschaulichkeit eine notwendige Bedingung für das Verstehen von Theorien und Phänomenen ist. De Regt bezieht dabei letztlich eine kritische Position, indem er sich gegen den Status einer solchen notwendigen Bedingung ausspricht, da sich in der Wissenschaftshistorie zeigen lasse, dass Anschaulichkeit nicht durchgängig als wesentliches Kriterium angesehen wurde. Dieses Votum contra eine notwendig bedeutungsvolle Rolle von Visualisierungen im Verstehensprozess scheint allerdings de Regts eigener Argumentation für eine Kontextabhängigkeit des Verstehens zuwiderzulaufen. Im vorliegenden Text soll diese Spannung aufgezeigt und zu Gunsten der Rolle von Visualisierungen im Prozess wissenschaftlichen Verstehens gewendet werden. Am Beispiel der maritimen Raumplanung (MRP) wird veranschaulicht, inwiefern die Redeweise von der Einsehbarkeit von Gründen mehr als eine bloße Metapher im Kontext des wissenschaftlichen Verstehens darstellen kann. (shrink)

A group is lying when it makes a statement that it believes to be untrue but wants the addressee(s) to believe. But how can we distinguish statements that the group believes to be untrue from honest group statements based on mistaken beliefs or confusion within the group? I will suggest a narrative constraint for honest group statements, made up of two components. Narrative coherence requires that a new group statement should not conflict with group knowledge on the matter, or beliefs (...) of relevant operative subgroups, unless a coherent rationale is given. Narrative intention looks at the process of gathering new evidence on the area of expertise of the group and requires that the group position behind the statement is formed in good faith. The narrative constraint will help to distinguish group lies from more innocent erroneous statements of group beliefs when there is an internal disagreement within the group, including in cases involving spokespersons. (shrink)

To Wittgenstein’s late thought is often attributed a form of cultural or epistemic relativism, according to which truths are relative to the criteria of justification valid within a linguistic community. This paper aims to show that this attribution lies largely on a misinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s ideas on the relation between language-games and forms of life. In the first section are presented the grounds for some relativist readings of Wittgenstein’s thought. In the second section, through the analysis of some passages of (...) the Tractatus and On Certainty, it is argued that, although Wittgenstein insisted on the “ungroundedness” of our language-games, he did not mean that any epistemic attitude, as long as it is endorsed by a community, is as valid as any other one. Rather, it is possible to show that some games better apply to our world and appear thus as more objective, so that there can be a difference in the validity of world-picures, contrary to what the epistemic relativist holds. In the third and final section, it is claimed that the different communities that appear in Wittgenstein’s examples are not actual or existing alternative possibilities, but an imaginary anthropology that Wittgenstein uses to enlighten how we, humans, work with our language-games. So, it is not possible to attribute him the idea that different games underly different forms of life, as some relativist authors do. It is concluded that Wittgenstein was not likely to be a cultural relativist. (shrink)

La exterioridad de una cosa o de un estado de cosas configurados por el ser humano no implica para Hegel que esa cosa o ese estado de cosas deban ya por ello ser considerados como formas del espíritu objetivo, mientras que en contrapartida las formas del espíritu absoluto estarían entonces conformadas por contenidos ideales del pensamiento. La diferencia entre espíritu objetivo y espíritu absoluto no radica en la diferencia entre lo que el espíritu humano “hace” y lo que “conoce”. En (...) efecto, las obras de arte, es decir, configuraciones exteriores hechas por el ser humano utilizando, por ejemplo, piedras, metales, colores o sonidos, son para Hegel instancias del espíritu absoluto, mientras que, por su parte, realidades que en cuanto tales no son intuibles, como, por ejemplo, los contratos o la organización estatal, son instancias del espíritu objetivo. Que Hegel considere al arte como una forma del espíritu absoluto pone de manifiesto que, a sus ojos, las cosas que intuimos en el universo son, en rigor, productos del propio sujeto que las conoce. Espontáneamente el sujeto cognoscente piensa que lo que intuye es algo que recibe desde un mundo externo; sostener que el arte es una forma de conocimiento es justamente el modo como Hegel está expresando que lo intuido es en todos los casos un contenido producido por el propio espíritu, que es, por así decirlo, una obra de arte humano. En el arte mismo, sin embargo, la producción de la cosa intuible es insuficiente, dado que el material que el espíritu utiliza para sus configuraciones conserva en mayor o menor medida, según el caso, una determinidad propia que resiste a la determinidad que el espíritu busca conferirle. Por esta razón, las obras de arte se presentan inicialmente como productos arbitrarios. Recién cuando integra sus intuiciones en la actividad de comprensión -actividad cognitiva con la que opera la filosofía- y media con ello completamente la determinidad de los contenidos intuidos, el espíritu configura finalmente un universo que le es propio y específico. El objetivo de mi ponencia es reconstruir desde el marco teórico recién expuesto el sentido y función que Hegel le atribuye al arte en su teoría del conocimiento. (shrink)

A speaker’s use of a sentence does more than contribute a content to a conversation. It also expresses the speaker’s attitude. This essay is about which attitude or attitudes are expressed by using an interrogative sentence to ask a question. With reference to eight lines of data about how questions are circulated in conversation, it is argued that a desire to know the question’s answer(s) is expressed.

В данной работе рассматриваются важнейшие вопросы о коллективном воображаемом и его отношениях с реальностью и истиной. Сначала мы рассмотрим эту тему в концептуальных рамках, а затем проведем соответствующий фактологический анализ наглядных поведенческих реалий. Мы будем опираться не только на методологию, но и, главным образом, на постулаты и положения аналитической философии, которые, безусловно, будут проявляться на протяжении всего исследования и могут быть идентифицированы по признакам, описанным Пересом : Рабосси (1975) отстаивает идею, что аналитическая философия может быть идентифицирована путем рассмотрения некоторых семейных (...) сходств. Он предлагает следующие семейные черты: позитивное отношение к научному знанию; осторожное отношение к метафизике; представление о философии как о концептуальной задаче, в которой в качестве метода используется концептуальный анализ; тесная связь между языком и философией; стремление к аргументированным ответам на философские проблемы; поиск концептуальной ясности. Эти базовые понятия включают в себя культурное, социальное, религиозное, научное, философское, моральное и политическое содержание, принадлежащее каждому и коллективному существованию. В данной статье мы не будем дискутировать и доказывать. Наша цель — не систематическая методология, не критика и не доказательство. Настоящая работа основана на аналитической рефлексии. Мы будем рассуждать как можно более полно и глубоко и излагать результаты своих размышлений. Несмотря на междисциплинарный характер темы и методологическую открытость к принятию вклада из любой области науки, данная работа относится к психологии и онтологии, или, другими словами, к социальной и онтологической психологии. Свободная методология, направляющая такие размышления, охватывает и рассматривает все, что приближается к согласованности с философской и психологической эпистемологией. Эта методология не гонится за доказательствами, а ищет взаимосвязь между существующими доказательствами любой природы и величины, выводя когерентный смысл реальных вещей. (shrink)

Adam Carter (2022) recently proposed that a successful analysis of knowledge needs to include an autonomy condition. Autonomy, for Carter, requires a lack of a compulsion history. A compulsion history bypasses one’s cognitive competences and results in a belief that is difficult to shed. I argue that Carter’s autonomy condition does not cover partially autonomous beliefs properly. Some belief-forming processes are partially bypassing one’s competences, but not bypassing them completely. I provide a case for partially autonomous belief based on processing (...) fluency effects and argue that partially autonomous beliefs only amount to knowledge in some cases. I finally suggest how to adjust the autonomy condition to capture partially autonomous belief properly. (shrink)

The received view says that possibility is the dual of necessity: a proposition is (metaphysically, logically, epistemically etc.) possible iff it is not the case that its negation is (metaphysically, logically, epistemically etc., respectively) necessary. This reading is usually taken for granted by modal logicians and indeed seems plausible when dealing with logical or metaphysical possibility. But what about epistemic possibility? We argue that the dual definition of epistemic possibility in terms of epistemic necessity generates tension when reasoning about non-idealized (...) agents and is a problem of concern for most hyperintensional epistemic logics that alleviate the problem of logical omniscience. The tension is particularly evident when knowledge is taken as a primitive to define other epistemic concepts, such as justification and belief, as done in the knowledge-first tradition. We propose a non-dual interpretation of epistemic possibility, employing a hyperintensionality filter similar to the one that makes the corresponding epistemic necessity operator hyperintensional. We employ the proposed semantics to model Stalnaker's belief as epistemic possibility of knowledge and provide a sound and complete axiomatization for a hyperintensional version of his bimodal logic of knowledge and belief. (shrink)

Templates travel because they offer a tractable format that can be used for model-building in a variety of domains. It is often because of this quality that a particular template is chosen. But one cannot assume that there are always templates ready to model a new phenomenon, and moreover, templates have also been designed at some point. A critical aspect of this designing process is the choice of the mathematical objects with which one hopes to capture this phenomenon. This means (...) that one has to assess which of the properties of different kinds of mathematical objects and which combinations of them are most appropriate. The selection of these objects is based on whether their properties enable the model to perform its function. This selection of mathematical objects is similar to the selection of materials in mechanical design. (shrink)

Revista Cunoașterea Științifică este o publicație trimestrială din domeniile științei și filosofiei, și domenii conexe de studiu și practică. -/- Cuprins: -/- EDITORIAL Cunoașterea, de Nicolae Sfetcu Cuvânt introductiv pentru (și despre) „Cunoașterea Științifică”, de Adrian Klein -/- ȘTIINȚE NATURALE Teste gravitaționale, de Nicolae Sfetcu Inside, and Beyond „Nothingness”, de Adrian Klein și Robert Neil Boyd -/- ȘTIINȚE SOCIALE Fondarea Uniunii Europene și evoluția tratatelor comunității europene, de Alexandru Cristian Istoria eugeniei, de Nicolae Sfetcu Contextul intrării României în al Doilea (...) Război Mondial, de Nicolae Sfetcu -/- ȘTIINȚE FORMALE Ontologii de intreprindere în tehnologia blockchain, de Nicolae Sfetcu -/- FILOSOFIE Platon: Biografia, de Nicolae Sfetcu -/- RECENZII CĂRȚI Lebăda Neagră, un risc asumat – Merită?, de Nicolae Sfetcu -/- ISSN 2821– 8086 ISSN – L 2821 – 8086, DOI: 10.58679/CS18266 -/- EAN 743837007520 , Cod CS11P , ID 11130 . (shrink)

Modest pessimism about philosophical progress is the view that while philosophy may sometimes make some progress, philosophy has made, and can be expected to make, only very little progress (where the extent of philosophical progress is typically judged against progress in the hard sciences). The paper argues against recent attempts to defend this view on the basis of the pervasiveness of disagreement within philosophy. The argument from disagreement for modest pessimism assumes a teleological conception of progress, according to which the (...) attainment of true answers to the big philosophical questions, or knowledge of them, is the primary goal of philosophy. The paper argues that this assumption involves a misconception of the goal of philosophy: if philosophy has a primary goal, its goal is the understanding of philosophical problems rather than knowledge of answers to philosophical questions. Moreover, it is argued that if the primary goal of philosophy is such understanding, then widespread disagreement within philosophy does not indicate that philosophy makes little progress. (shrink)

Corroborating evidence supports a proposition that is already supported by other initial evidence. It bolsters or confirms the original body of evidence. Corroboration has striking psychological and epistemic force: It potently affects how people do and should assess the target proposition. This essay investigates the distinctive powers of corroborating evidence. Corroboration does not simply increase the quantifiable probability of the adjudicated claim. Drawing on the relevant alternatives framework, I argue that corroboration winnows remaining uneliminated error possibilities. This illuminates the independence, (...) weight, and non-fungibility of corroborating evidence. I compare corroborating evidence to prudential safeguards, like fire doors, that forfend against non-epistemic harms. I thereby sketch a general, non-quantificational model of risk management. Finally, I turn to legal corroboration requirements and the epistemic significance of corroboration for legal proof. (shrink)

While we often assume that we can only know what is so, it's clear that we often speak as if we know things that aren't strictly speaking true. What should we make of this? Some would argue that we should take this talk as evidence that it's possible to know things that are strictly speaking false when, say, false representations are adequate for our purposes. I shall argue that it would be better on the whole to say (a) that knowledge (...) ascriptions might be false but felicitous when the ascription relates a thinker to a falsehood than to say (b) that the ascriptions are strictly true. First, it seems that the arguments for thinking that we can know falsehoods overgeneralise (e.g., they don't just threaten the factivity of knowledge-ascriptions but also of claims about what's true or what's a fact). Thus, the motivation for abandoning the traditional view is problematic. Second, it seems that the alternative picture inherits the problems that contextualists face in understanding how knowledge might be normative for assertion and belief. (shrink)

Mediante la apropiación consciente de la realidad objetiva, no solo conocemos el mundo que nos rodea, sino que lo valoramos desde determinadas posiciones, desde el punto de vista de unas u otras necesidades, inclinaciones, fines. La apropiación de la realidad no se reduce al descubrimiento del ser natural de los objetos existentes, independientemente de nosotros, sino que incluye la determinación del significado de ese ser para nosotros, para nuestra vida y actividad. Partiendo de la constatación de este hecho, el objetivo (...) del presente artículo consiste en el análisis de algunas ideas relacionadas con la naturaleza de la valoración y el mecanismo de su interrelación con el conocimiento. (shrink)

Диссертация на соискание ученой стеnени кандидата философских наук. Работа выnолнена в Московском государственном университете им. М.В.Ломоносова. Защита диссертации состоялась 27 января 1984 г. на заседании сnециализированного совета по философским наукам Цель диссертационного исследования состояла в том, чтобы показать природу оценочного отражения действительности и органическую связь познавательной и практической деятельности людей с деятельностью оценочной. Достижение поставленной цели предполагало решение следующих задач: 1.- определить объект оценочного отражения; 2.- раскрыть природу оценки как субъективного явления; 3.-выявить механизм взаимоотношения оценки и nознания в сруктуре человеческого (...) сознания; 4.- уточнить роль оценки в движении от практики к познанию и от познания к практике. Tesis en opción al grado científico de doctor en ciencias filosóficas. El trabajo se realizó en la Universidad Estatal de Moscú M. V. Lomonósov. La defensa de la tesis tuvo lugar el 27 de enero de 1984 en sesión del consejo especializado en ciencias filosóficas. El objetivo de la tesis consistió en mostrar la naturaleza del reflejo valorativo de la realidad y su nexo orgánico con las actividades cognoscitiva y práctica. El alcance de este objetivo presupuso solucionar las siguientes tareas: 1.- definir el objeto del reflejo valorativo; 2.- develar la naturaleza de la valoración como fenómeno subjetivo; 3.- describir el mecanismo de interrelación de la valoración con el conocimiento en la estructura de la conciencia humana; 4.- puntualizar el papel de la valoración en el movimiento de la práctica al conocimiento y del conocimiento a la práctica. (shrink)

Contemporary debate surrounding the nature of scientific progress has focused upon the precise role played by justification, with two realist accounts having dominated proceedings. Recently, however, a third realist account has been put forward, one which offers no role for justification at all. According to Finnur Dellsén’s (Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 56:72–83, 2016) noetic account, science progresses when understanding increases, that is, when scientists grasp how to correctly explain or predict more aspects of the world that they could (...) before. In this paper, we argue that the noetic account is severely undermotivated. Dellsén provides three examples intended to show that understanding can increase absent the justification required for true belief to constitute knowledge. However, we demonstrate that a lack of clarity in each case allows for two contrasting interpretations, neither of which serves its intended purpose. On the first, the agent involved lacks both knowledge and understanding; and, on the second, the agent involved successfully gains both knowledge and understanding. While neither interpretation supports Dellsén’s claim that understanding can be prised apart from knowledge, we argue that, in general, agents in such cases ought to be attributed neither knowledge nor understanding. Given that the separability of knowledge and understanding is a necessary component of the noetic account, we conclude that there is little support for the idea that science progresses through increasing understanding rather than the accumulation of knowledge. (shrink)

English is spoken all around the world as it is chosen as the second language to speak within most of the countries. However, from the ancient history of the British to come into this South Asian region, the entrance of English as a speaking language happened. Though, after some centuries, the British went out of the mainland of India, it remains the second-largest spoken language there. Here comes another fact; many words in Standard English changed its form. So, this made (...) the dialects as much as changed that many ones refer to English in India as Indian English. In this present time, though, there are hundreds of languages chosen to speak Indian English that differ in many ways. The characters playing English roles also have a dialect changing of English in somewhat ways. Though the grammars and principal terms of English are still the same for Indian English, deviations came across the spoken language in many attributes. This paper identifies the entrance of English in India, the deviation of dialect change in Indian English with examples of characters still making way to English (Both British and Hollywood) movies with the dialects of Indian English many ways. The paper studies those ways and deviations of words in English in India that they use and call it Indian English. (shrink)

Many philosophers believe that true belief is of epistemic value, but that knowledge is of even more epistemic value. Some claim that this surplus value is instrumentally valuable to the value of true belief. I call the conjunction of these claims the Instrumentalist’s Conjunction. The so-called “Swamping Problem” is meant to show that Instrumentalist’s Conjunction is inconsistent. Crudely put, the problem is that if knowledge only has surplus value to the value of true belief, and a belief is true because (...) known, then knowledge cannot be of any more value than true belief. Given the inconsistency, most philosopher reject the claim the surplus value of knowledge is instrumental to the value of true belief. This paper argues that the Swamping Problem is illusory. Once we clean up the problem and pay attention to the distinction between token/type properties, we can see that Instrumentalist’s Conjunction is perfectly coherent. (shrink)

Two major arguments have been advanced for the claim that there is a transmission failure in G. E. Moore’s famous proof of an external world. The first argument, due to Crispin Wright, is based on an epistemological doctrine now known as “conservatism.” Proponents of the second argument, like Nicholas Silins, invoke probabilistic considerations, most important among them Bayes’ theorem. The aim of this essay is to defend Moore’s proof against these two arguments. It is shown, first, that Wright’s argument founders (...) because one of its premises, viz, conservatism, invites skepticism and must therefore be rejected. Then the probabilistic argument is challenged, yet not because its formal part is dubious, but rather on the grounds that it incorporates as an implicit premise an unconvincing philosophical claim. Finally, the most promising objection to dogmatism – understood here as the negation of conservatism – is repudiated. (shrink)

Throughout his career, Keith Hossack has made outstanding contributions to the theory of knowledge, metaphysics and the philosophy of mathematics. -/- This collection of previously unpublished papers begins with a focus on Hossack's conception of the nature of knowledge, his metaphysics of facts and his account of the relations between knowledge, agents and facts. Attention moves to Hossack's philosophy of mind and the nature of consciousness, before turning to the notion of necessity and its interaction with a priori knowledge. Hossack's (...) views on the nature of proof, logical truth, conditionals and generality are discussed in depth. In the final chapters, questions about the identity of mathematical objects and our knowledge of them take centre stage, together with questions about the necessity and generality of mathematical and logical truths. (shrink)

Assertion is governed by an epistemic norm requiring knowledge. This idea has been hotly debated in recent years, garnering attention in epistemology, philosophy of language, and linguistics. This chapter presents and extends the main arguments in favor of the knowledge norm, from faulty conjunctions, several conversational patterns, judgments of permission, excuse, and blame, and from showing how. (Paired with a chapter by Peter J. Graham and Nikolaj J. L. L. Pedersen, "Knowledge is Not Our Norm of Assertion".).

This paper develops a novel, functionalist, unified account of the epistemic normativity of reasoning. On this view, epistemic norms drop out of epistemic functions. I argue that practical reasoning serves a prudential function of generating prudentially permissible action, and the epistemic function of generating knowledge of what one ought to do. This picture, if right, goes a long way towards normatively divorcing action and practical reasoning. At the same time, it unifies reasoning epistemically: practical and theoretical reasoning will turn out (...) to be governed by the same epistemic norm—knowledge—in virtue of serving the same epistemic function: generating knowledge of the conclusion. (shrink)

In this paper, I offer a conceptual framework for understanding and evaluating personal identity claims. I analyze ontological and political properties of personal identity separately, arguing that their conceptual (if not practical) separation is necessary for a proper evaluation of different identity claims. I use probability theory to bypass some of the logical difficulties in conceptualizing personal identity and discuss a case of transitional identification. Finally, I outline the guidelines for a justified liberal policy of recognition.

This articles explores Philo's variant for Anaxagoras' 21a DK fragment as an alternative for Sextus Empiricus' reading (ὄψις τῶν ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα). Philo's variant (πίστις τῶν ἀδήλων τὰ ἐμφανῆ: De vita Mosis, I, 280) is not present in the current literature on Presocratics but his reading could be a reliable form for this fragment.

Le point de vue de Michael Polanyi sur la science peut aider à comprendre le processus et le « produit » de l'analyse du renseignement. Les arguments de Michael Polanyi concernant les activités des scientifiques sont transférables dans le domaine de l'analyse du renseignement, offrant une perspective nuancée pour percevoir les défis épistémologiques et les problèmes auxquels sont confrontés les analystes. Les concepts de « connaissance tacite » et de « connaissance personnelle » de Polanyi contribuent au développement d'une compréhension (...) plus épistémologiquement efficace de certains aspects du processus et du produit de l'analyse du renseignement. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13346.56008. (shrink)

A number of philosophers have recently proposed several alleged cases of “knowledge from falsehood,” i.e., cases of inferential knowledge epistemised by an inference with a false crucial premise. This paper examines such cases and argues against interpreting them as cases of knowledge from falsehood. Specifically, I argue that the inferences in play in such cases are in no position to epistemise their conclusions.

Abstract Nowadays, there is a deep and widespread feeling of discomfort among academics due to the psychological and labor pressures that universities exert upon their researchers by demanding endless publications. In this paper, I offer numerous pieces of evidence of this crisis, which affects primarily those who inhabit academic ecologies. First, I argue that it is convenient to understand the current situation as an expression of technologies and individual apparatuses shaped by subjectivizing ideologies, and mechanisms of exclusion, stigmatization, and replacement. (...) Second, I examine two proposals against the crisis produced by the pace of academic production framed by the Slow movement. Lastly, after making explicit some of the assumptions that undergird the university’s epistemological machine, I propose to complement Ulmer and Mountz’s project with two suggestions. On the one hand, I extend an invitation to reflect on and with students as a means to redirect the university’s teleology. On the other hand, I suggest incorporating an ontogogic approach as a resistance apparatus against the pressure from the university’s production machine. The article’s point of departure is anti-dicotonegative because it is based on a summative approach rather than in an agonistic procedure. In other words, I propose two additional tools that can be put to the test to contribute to solving the university publication crisis. (shrink)

A brief idea on statistics and epistemology.

In the literature on assertion, there is a common assumption that having the knowledge that p is a sufficient condition for having the epistemic right to assert that p—call this the Knowledge is Sufficient for Assertion Principle, or KSA. Jennifer Lackey has challenged KSA based on several counterexamples that all, roughly, involve isolated secondhand knowledge. In this article, I argue that Lackey’s counterexamples fail to be convincing because her intuition that the agent in her counterexamples both has knowledge and do (...) not have the epistemic right to assert is wrong. The article will progress as follows: In section 2, I present Lackey’s argument. In section 3, I suggest some more general reasons for doubting that the agent in her counterexamples actually has knowledge. I then show that from a virtue theoretic and Edward Craig’s practical explication of knowledge perspectives the agent in Lackey’ s counterexamples does not know. Since the agent in Lackey’s counterexamples does not have knowledge, she has failed to convincingly prove that KSA is false. In section 4, I conclude by suggesting that, at most, what Lackey’s counterexamples demonstrate is a problem with a simplistic evidentialist and/or process reliabilist epistemology. (shrink)