Apt Belief Research Articles

Epistemic Explanations: A Theory of Telic Normativity, and What it Explains

<i>Epistemic Explanations: A Theory of Telic Normativity, and What it Explains</i>

Artificial Agential Intelligence

Since artificial intelligence (AI) emerged in the mid-20th century, it has incurred many theoretical criticisms (Dreyfus, H. [1972] What Computers Can’t Do (MIT Press, New York); Dreyfus, H. [1992] What Computers Still Can’t Do (MIT Press, New York); Searle, J. [1980] Minds, brains and programs, Behav. Brain Sci. 3, 417–457; Searle, J. [1984] Minds, Brains and Sciences (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA); Searle, J. [1992] The Rediscovery of the Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA); Fodor, J. [2002] The Mind Doesn’t Work that Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).). The technical improvements of machine learning and deep learning, though, have been continuing and many breakthroughs have occurred recently. This makes theoretical considerations urgent again: can this new wave of AI fare better than its precursors in emulating or even having human-like minds? I propose a cautious yet positive hypothesis: current AI might create human-like mind, but only if it incorporates certain conceptual rewiring: it needs to shift from a task-based to an agent-based framework, which can be dubbed “Artificial Agential Intelligence” (AAI). It comprises practical reason (McDowell, J. [1979] Virtue and reason, Monist 62(3), 331–350; McDowell, J. [1996] Mind and World (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)), imaginative understanding (Campbell, J. [2020] Causation in Psychology (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)), and animal knowledge (Sosa, E. [2007] A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, volume 1 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK); Sosa, E. [2015] Judgment and Agency (Oxford University Press, Cambridge, MA)). Moreover, I will explore whether and in what way neuroscience-inspired AI and predictive coding (Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., Summerfield, C., &amp; Botvinick, M. [2017] Neuroscience-inspired artificial intelligence, Neuron 95(2), 245–258) can help carry out this project.

Defeat and proficiencies

AbstractVirtue epistemology is the view that beliefs are attempts at truth (or perhaps knowledge) and, as a result, can be assessed as successful, competent, and apt. Moreover, virtue epistemology identifies central epistemic properties with normative properties of beliefs as attempts. In particular, knowledge is apt belief and justified belief is competent belief. This paper develops a systematic virtue epistemological account of defeat (of justification/competence). I provide reason to think that defeat occurs not only for beliefs but for attempts more general. The key constructive idea is that defeaters are evidence that attempting (in a certain way) isn't successful and that defeaters defeat the competence of an attempt when one stands in a certain normative relation to the defeater. I argue that while this account handles paradigm cases of defeat both within epistemology and beyond nicely, cases of external (sometimes also ‘normative’ or ‘propositional’) defeat continue to cause trouble. To handle these cases, I develop a distinctively functionalist version of virtue epistemology. This functionalist version of virtue epistemology allows me to countenance proficiencies, that is, roughly, abilities that have the function to produce successes under certain conditions. It is the normative import of proficiencies that delivers the normative relation that serves to explain defeat in cases of external defeat. In this way, the functionalist version of virtue epistemology ushers the way towards a satisfactory account even of external defeat.

BOOK SYMPOSIUM ON ERNEST SOSA’S EPISTEMIC EXPLANATIONS

In this paper, I want to discuss a problem that arises when we try to understand the connections between justification, knowledge, and suspension. The problem arises because some prima facie plausible claims about knowledge and the justification for judging and suspending are difficult to reconcile with the possibility of a kind of knowledge or apt belief that a thinker cannot aptly judge to be within her reach. I shall argue that if we try (as we should) to accommodate the possibility of this kind of knowledge, we should reject a widely held view about justification. We can correct this mistaken view about the connection between justification and knowledge by connecting justification to a kind of competence, but not the one we might have expected. In the course of this discussion, I shall flag some questions about the explanatory ambitions of the telic virtue-theoretic approach

Knowing Full Well from Testimony?

AbstractTestimony poses a challenge to systematic epistemology. I cite two kinds of testimony situation where the recipient's belief is not safe, yet intuitively counts as knowledge. Can Sosa's more sophisticated virtue reliabilism, which theorises animal knowledge as apt belief, yield the intuitively correct verdict on these cases? Sosa shows that a belief can be apt, though it is not safe, and so it may seem a quick positive answer is forthcoming. However, I explore complications in applying his AAA framework, regarding what we take as the circumstances in which the subject's attempt is made: the AAA framework does not mandate a particular choice, yet this affects whether the attempt (in particular, a believing in the endeavour to attain truth) comes out as apt or not. I conclude that Sosa's theory is subject to a familiar charge: it does not give a reductive account of knowledge, since we must deploy independent intuitions about whether knowledge is gained in a case, in order to apply it.

On behalf of a bi-level account of trust

A bi-level account of trust is developed and defended, one with relevance in ethics as well as epistemology. The proposed account of trust—on which trusting is modelled within a virtue-theoretic framework as a performance-type with an aim—distinguishes between two distinct levels of trust, apt and convictive, that take us beyond previous assessments of its nature, value, and relationship to risk assessment. While Sosa (A virtue epistemology: apt belief and reflective knowledge, volume I, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009; Judgment and agency, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015; Epistemology, University Press, Princeton, 2017), in particular, has shown how a performance normativity model may be fruitfully applied to belief, my objective is to apply this kind of model in a novel and principled way to trust. I conclude by outlining some of the key advantages of the performance-theoretic bi-level account of trust defended over more traditional univocal proposals.

Debunking and fully apt belief

One of the contentious philosophical issues surrounding the cognitive science of religion (CSR) is whether well-confirmed CSR theories would debunk religious beliefs. These debates have been contentious in part because of criticisms of epistemic principles used in debunking arguments. In this paper I use Ernest Sosa’s respected theory of knowledge as fully apt belief—which avoids objections that have been leveled against sensitivity and safety principles often used in debunking arguments—to construct a plausible debunking argument for religious belief on the assumption that religious belief is formed simply through processes theorized by CSR. But, in fact, most believers also rely on arguments of various sorts, and their beliefs are not debunked. Keywords: debunking argument, cognitive science of religion, Ernest Sosa.

Safety in Sosa

What is the relationship between virtue and safety? This paper argues that Sosa’s positions in A Virtue Epistemology and in Judgment and Agency regarding this question are, despite appearances to the contrary, in fact consistent. Moreover, Sosa’s position there is well motivated—his Virtue Epistemology explains why knowledge should require apt belief, and why aptness should imply safety. Finally, the paper shows how two kinds of safety are importantly related to Sosa’s response to the Pyrrhonian Problematic. Specifically, reflections on the modal profiles of first-order and second-order safety allow us to answer two prominent objections to Sosa’s position.

Judgment and Agency

<i>Judgment and Agency</i>

Hoops and Barns: a new dilemma for Sosa

This paper critically assesses Sosa’s normative framework for performances as well as its application to epistemology. We first develop a problem for one of Sosa’s central theses in the general theory of performance normativity according to which performances attain fully desirable status if and only if they are fully apt. More specifically, we argue that given Sosa’s account of full aptness according to which a performance is fully apt only if safe from failure, this thesis can’t be true. We then embark on a rescue mission on behalf of Sosa and work towards a weakened account of full aptness. The key idea is to countenance a distinction between negligible and non-negligible types of risk and to develop an account of full aptness according to which even performances that are endangered by risk can be fully apt, so long as the risk is of a negligible type. While this alternative account of full aptness solves the problem we developed for Sosa earlier on, there is also bad news for Sosa. When applied to epistemology, the envisaged treatment of barn façade cases as cases in which the agent falls short of fully apt belief will no longer work. We show that, as a result, Sosa faces a new version of a familiar dilemma for virtue epistemology. Either he construes full aptness as strong enough to get barn façade cases right in which case his view will run right into the problem we develop. Or else he construes full aptness as weak enough to avoid this problem but then he will not be able to deal with barn façade cases in the way envisaged.

Group virtue epistemology

According to Sosa (A virtue epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007; Reflective knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009; Knowing full well, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2011), knowledge is apt belief, where a belief is apt when accurate because adroit (competent). Sosa (Philos Perspect 24(1):465–475, 2010; Judgment and agency, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015) adds to his triple-A analysis of knowledge, a triple-S analysis of competence, where a complete competence combines its seat, shape and situation. Much of Sosa’s influential work assumes that epistemic agents are individuals who acquire knowledge when they hit the truth through exercising their own individual skills in appropriate shapes and situations. This paper explores an extension of Sosa’s framework to a social setting in which groups constitute epistemic agents over and above their individual members. The claim is that groups can be ascribed knowledge in virtue of hitting the truth through exercising their competences in appropriate shapes and situations. While knowledge at the collective level may diverge from knowledge at the individual level, the competences of groups are nothing over and above the combined competences of their members. The ensuing view thus has implications for the debate over reduction and supervenience in collective epistemology.

No achievement beyond intention

According to robust versions of virtue epistemology, the reason why knowledge is incompatible with certain kinds of luck is that justified true beliefs must be achieved by the agent (Sosa in A virtue epistemology: apt belief and reflective knowledge, 2007, Reflective knowledge: apt belief and reflective knowledge, 2009, Knowing full well, 2011; Greco in Philos Studies 17:57–69, 2007, Achieving knowledge, 2010, Philos Phenomenol Res 85:1–26, 2012). In a recent set of papers, Pritchard (The nature and value of knowledge: three investigations, 2010a, Think 25:19–30, 2010b, J Philos 109:247–279, 2012, Virtue scientia. Bridges between philosophy of science and virtue epistemology, Forthcoming) has challenged these sorts of views, advancing different arguments against them. I confront one of them here, which is constructed upon scenarios affected by environmental luck, such as the fake barn cases. My objection to Pritchard differs from those offered until now by Carter (Erkenntnis 78:253–275, 2011, Pac Philos Q, 2014), Jarvis (Pac Philos Q 94:529–551, 2013) or Littlejohn (Synthese 158:345–361, 2006) in that it is based on the claim that cognitive performances may not be properly considered as achievements beyond the scope of the agent’s intentional action—an idea that confers more explanatory power on my argument, and contributes to stregthening links between knowledge and agency.

On Metaphysical Analysis

What follows offers a solution for the problem of causal deviance in its three varieties. We consider Davidson on action, Grice on perception, and the account of knowledge as apt belief, as belief that gets it right through competence rather than luck. We take up the opposition between such traditional accounts and “disjunctivist” alternatives. And we explore how our take on the point and substance of metaphysical analysis bears on the problem and on competing reactions to it.

When Is A Belief True Because Of Luck?

Many epistemologists are attracted to the claim that knowledge possession excludes luck. Virtue epistemologists attempt to clarify this idea by holding that knowledge requires apt belief: belief that is true because of an agent's epistemic virtues, and not because of luck. Thinking about aptness may have the potential to make progress on important questions in epistemology, but first we must possess an adequate account of when a belief is true because of luck. Existing treatments of aptness assume a simple and natural view of luck attribution, according to which the success of a performance is attributable to luck if one of the principal causes of the success is a lucky event. I show that this view is false, and should be replaced. This has major implications for virtue‐theoretic accounts of knowledge, as well as the role of luck in epistemology more generally.

Acting for reasons, apt action, and knowledge

I argue for the view that there are important similarities between knowledge and acting for a normative reason. I interpret acting for a normative reason in terms of Sosa’s notion of an apt performance. Actions that are done for a normative reason are normatively apt actions. They are in accordance with a normative reason because of a competence to act in accordance with normative reasons. I argue that, if Sosa’s account of knowledge as apt belief is correct, this means that acting for a normative reason is in many respects similar to knowledge. In order to strengthen Sosa’s account of knowledge, I propose to supplement it with an appeal to sub-competences. This clarifies how this account can deal with certain Gettier cases, and it helps to understand how exactly acting for a normative reason is similar to apt belief.

Reflective Knowledge and Intellectual Assurance

AbstractIn this discussion of Sosa's second volume on reflective knowledge, I focus on the question of whether Sosa's account of knowledge is flawed for failing to capture a connection between possessing knowledge and gaining assurance of truth. In particular, I worry that if there is no more to reflective knowledge than apt belief about apt belief, where the understanding of aptness is the same at both the first and the second level, Sosa hasn't given us a way of gaining philosophically satisfying knowledge.

Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II, by Ernest Sosa.

Reflective Knowledge is the second volume of Sosa’s Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, following A Virtue Epistemology (2007). Reflective Knowledge extends his account of virtue epistemology, primarily by focusing on reflective knowledge and issues of epistemic circularity. Part one prepares the way for Sosa’s own views through a series of critical discussions of Moore, Chisholm, Strawson, Reid, Sellars, and Davidson. These are models of philosophically informed history of philosophy that engage philosophical issues but are sensitive to interpretative issues and take our understanding beyond textbook history. In part two, Sosa defends the value of reflective knowledge, and argues that virtue epistemology neither undermines knowledge nor makes it ‘too easy’. The most striking aspect of the book is the defence of an externalist analysis of the idea of a virtuous circle. Sosa argues for a form of virtue reliabilism according to which a belief is knowledge only if it is true and apt by virtue of its ‘correctness deriving from its manifesting certain cognitive virtues of the subject, where nothing is a cognitive virtue unless it is a truth-conducive disposition’ (p. 135). He is thus an externalist who criticizes Moore for thinking that ordinary perceptual knowledge requires knowing one is not dreaming, rather than simply not dreaming. However, he also distinguishes ‘reflective’ knowledge from ‘animal’ knowledge. The former requires defensibly apt belief, that is, belief about the aptness of one’s belief and a sufficiently coherent perspective on its aptness that allows one to defend it against relevant sceptical objections. So at the level of reflective knowledge, Sosa is also a coherentist, criticizing Moore for thinking that reflective knowledge requires prior knowledge that one isn’t dreaming rather than simply presupposing it in a web of mutually supporting belief that enhances the justification of all. The reflective/animal distinction, Sosa argues, corresponds to Descartes’ distinction between scientia, which Descartes enjoys once he has achieved his theological perspective on the truth-conduciveness of his clear and distinct judgements, and cognition, possessed by atheist mathematicians who lack such a reflective perspective. It is also key, Sosa thinks, to the understanding of his own epistemological project. Sosa thus rejects Reid’s criticism of Descartes’ project as viciously circular.

Intellectual Virtues: an Essay in Regulative Epistemology. By Robert C. Roberts &amp; W. Jay Wood and A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge. By Ernest Sosa

The Heythrop JournalVolume 51, Issue 2 p. 333-335 Intellectual Virtues: an Essay in Regulative Epistemology. By Robert C. Roberts & W. Jay Wood and A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge. By Ernest Sosa Richard Umbers, Richard Umbers Sydney, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author Richard Umbers, Richard Umbers Sydney, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 February 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00564_9.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume51, Issue2March 2010Pages 333-335 RelatedInformation

Apt performance and epistemic value

Ernie Sosa is without doubt one of the towering intellectual figures of contemporary epistemology. Indeed, it is difficult to think of an area of epistemology where he has not made a distinctive and highly influential contribution. Moreover, I think it is fair to say––and this is the real mark of one of the greats––that the way younger epistemologists like myself instinctively approach epistemological topics is largely informed by his contribution to the subject. Sosa’s new book, A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, the first of two volumes, covers many of the issues in epistemology that his work is associated with, and I am delighted to be able to comment on this book here. Given the breadth of topics covered in this work––from the nature of dreams, to intuitions and the problem of the criterion––I will not try to offer a critique of the book as a whole. Instead, I want to focus on one key thread, which is the important contribution that Sosa makes to the debate regarding epistemic value by appeal to a central notion in his work, that of apt performance.

Knowing full well: the normativity of beliefs as performances

Belief is considered a kind of performance, which attains one level of success if it is true (or accurate), a second level if competent (or adroit), and a third if true because competent (or apt). Knowledge on one level (the animal level) is apt belief. The epistemic normativity constitutive of such knowledge is thus a kind of performance normativity. A problem is posed for this account by the fact that suspension of belief seems to fall under the same sort of epistemic normativity as does belief itself, yet to suspend is of course precisely not to perform, certainly not with the aim of truth. The paper takes up this problem, and proposes a solution that distinguishes levels of performance norrmativity, including a first order where execution competence is in play, and a second order where the performer must assess the risks attendant on issuing a first-order performance. This imports a level of reflective knowledge that ascends above the animal level.