Epistemic Sense Research Articles

Ability and knowledge: from epistemic transition systems to labelled stit models

It is possible to know that one can guarantee a certain result and yet not know how to guarantee it. In such cases one has the ability to guarantee something in a causal sense, but not in an epistemic sense. In this paper we focus on two formalisms used to model both conceptions of ability: one formalism based on epistemic transition systems and the other on labelled stit models. We show a strong correspondence between the two formalisms by providing mappings from the former to the latter for both the languages and the structures. Moreover, we demonstrate that our extension of labelled stit logic is more expressive than the logic of epistemic transition systems.

What Science Can't Know: On Scientific Objectivity and the Human Subject

Abstract The humanities are centrally concerned with such human subjectivity—such thinking, feeling, and wondering—as goes into the appreciation of a painting or the absorbed and responsive reading of a novel. It is often argued that the intrinsic subjectivity of these experiences renders them inaccessible to objective science, which seeks to avoid subjectivity. However, this fallacious argument confuses an ontological and an epistemic sense of the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. The subjectivity of “thinking, feeling, and wondering” describes the mode of existence of these mental states, whereas the objectivity of science describes a mode of investigation, and it is in fact very possible to investigate human mental life by means of objective methods. This article expounds the fallacy and examines its appearances in recent scholarly writings against the use of objective methods in the humanities. The fallacy, as is argued, promotes a widespread misconception that the use of objective methods in the humanities would entail a discounting, or “reduction,” of human subjectivity. By countering this misconception, this article aims to encourage humanists who are drawn to empirical methods.

EVOLUTION, CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND DESIGN

AbstractThis article represents comments arising from The Compatibility of Evolution and Design by Rope Kojonen (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021) concerning the role of chance and randomness in evolution (citations from this book are shown as page numbers in brackets). The various meanings of chance and randomness as used in descriptions of biological evolution are discussed and contrasted with their meanings in mathematics and metaphysics. The discussion relates to the role of contingency in evolution and to ideological and rhetorical extrapolations from biology into philosophical world views. Overall it is concluded that evolution is not a chance process, except in the epistemic sense of “chance.” Theologically, this has implications for the idea that God creates through “a free evolutionary process” and may also influence our perspectives on divine action and intentionality in evolutionary history.

The interdisciplinary problem: an analysis

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the concept of the interdisciplinary problem using the categories of the logic of questions. The problem is seen in a logical and epistemic sense: the problem is a meaning of the question, and the question is a formulation of the problem in a particular language. Demonstrating that the interdisciplinarity of an interdisciplinary problem is understood in terms of a particular kind of complexity, I indicate the places where it is realized in the structure of the problem-question, in the problem’s solution-answer to the question, and in the cognitive context of the problem solving - answering to the question. The paper also displays how an interdisciplinary problem is situated within the broader structure of an interdisciplinary research process. Thus, the paper provides not only a metatheoretical characterization of the interdisciplinary problem but also a general methodological tool for analyzing particular interdisciplinary problems.

Bias as an epistemic notion

Once one abandons the ideal of value-free, impartial science, the question of how to distinguish biased from legitimately value-laden science arises. To approach this “new demarcation problem”, I argue that one should distinguish different uses of “bias” in a first step: a narrow sense of bias as systematic deviation from the truth, and a wider sense that covers any kind of tendency impacting scientific reasoning. Secondly, the narrow sense exemplifies an ontological notion of bias, which understands bias in terms of a deviation from an impartial ideal outcome. I propose to replace it with an epistemic notion of bias, which understands biased research as research that we have good reasons to suspect could have been (done) systematically better. From a socio-epistemic perspective, such good reasons to expect better can be found in a lack of responsiveness to conventional standards and/or critical discourse in the scientific community. In short, bias in an epistemic sense consists in a deviation, not from truth but from current best practice. While this turns bias into something that is dependent on time and context, it allows for value-laden research to be unbiased, if there are no good reasons to expect this research to be better.

Our Epistemic Duties in Scenarios of Vaccine Mistrust

ABSTRACT What, if anything, should we do when someone says they don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change? Or that they worry that a COVID-19 vaccine might be dangerous? We argue that in general, we face an epistemic duty to object to such assertions, qua instances of science denial and science sceptical discourse, respectively. Our argument builds on recent discussions in social epistemology, specifically surrounding the idea that we ought to speak up against (epistemically) problematic assertions so as to fulfil an important epistemic obligation – namely, preventing epistemic harms in others. We show that both science denial (SD) and vaccine hesitant (VH) discourses are harmful in a distinctively epistemic sense, and as such generate an especially strong duty to voice our disagreement. As we also argue, this obligation is nonetheless defeasible: depending on the situational features of those involved, voicing an objection to VH discourse may actually end up doing more harm than good. We conclude by tracing what seems like a promising path towards restoring well-placed public trust in scientific testifiers. Doing so is key in order to guarantee equitable access to warranted beliefs about important subject matters, such as the safety of vaccines, to all segments of society.

Moral encroachment and the epistemic impermissibility of (some) microaggressions

A recent flurry of philosophical research on microaggression suggests that there are various practical and moral reasons why microaggression may be objectionable, including that it can be offensive, cause epistemic harms, express demeaning messages about certain members of our society, and help to reproduce an oppressive social order. Yet little attention has been given to the question of whether microaggression is also epistemically objectionable. This paper aims to further our understanding of microaggression by appealing to recent work on moral encroachment—the idea that knowledge is sensitive to the moral stakes of believing—to argue that microaggression can be irrational in a distinctively epistemic sense, as it can involve relying on an epistemically unwarranted belief. This view suggests that the notion of epistemic justification may come apart from the notion of epistemic blame.

The gradation puzzle of intellectual assurance

Abstract The Cartesian thesis that some justifications are infallible faces a gradation puzzle. On the one hand, infallible justification tolerates absolutely no possibility for error. On the other hand, infallible justifications can vary in evidential force: e.g. two persons can both be infallible regarding their pains while the one with stronger pain is nevertheless more justified. However, if a type of justification is gradable in strength, why can it always be absolute? This paper explores the potential of this gradation challenge by rejecting Fumerton's recent ‘semantic decision' solution. On Fumerton's suggestion, the putative gradation of infallible justifications is essentially semantic. It concerns only how we use the relevant term but not how well we perceive the truth. Regardless of its intuitive appeal, Fumerton's solution does not cover all the related situations. There is an irreducibly epistemic sense in which infallible justifications vary in degrees.

Objectified Women and Fetishized Objects

There are at least three senses of sexual objectification: the moral sense of treating a person as if she were primarily a sexual object, the political sense in which women socially count as instruments for men’s sexual pleasure, and the epistemic sense of forming a belief that a person is as one sexually desires them to be. These different senses have been treated as rivals, competing about what the correct account of sexual objectification is, or they have been treated as entirely different projects. I argue for a third relation between them: each sense grasps an aspect of the existing social phenomenon of sexual objectification. Each further points out a wrong involved in sexual objectification. And the three aspects interact—we cannot fully explain any one sense of sexual objectification without the other two. To properly understand this interrelation I lean on an analogy: commodity fetishism as described by Marx helps make sense of the complex social reality of sexual objectification.

Fallibilism and Consequence

Alex Worsnip argues in favor of what he describes as a particularly robust version of fallibilism: subjects can sometimes know things that are, for them, possibly false (in the epistemic sense of ‘possible’). My aim in this paper is to show that Worsnip’s argument is inconclusive for a surprising reason: the existence of possibly false knowledge turns on how we ought to model entailment or consequence relations among sentences in natural language. Since it is an open question how we ought to think about consequence in natural language, it is an open question whether there is possibly false knowledge. I close with some reflections on the relation between possibly false knowledge and fallibilism. I argue that there is no straightforward way to use linguistic data about natural language epistemic modals to either verify or refute the fallibilist thesis.

DOING WITHOUT ACTION TYPES

AbstractThis paper explores the analysis of ability, where ability is to be understood in the epistemic sense—in contrast to what might be called a causal sense. There are plenty of cases where an agent is able to perform an action that guarantees a given result even though she does not know which of her actions guarantees that result. Such an agent possesses the causal ability but lacks the epistemic ability. The standard analysis of such epistemic abilities relies on the notion of action types—as opposed to action tokens—and then posits that an agent has the epistemic ability to do something if and only if there is an action type available to her that she knows guarantees it. We show that these action types are not needed: we present a formalism without action types that can simulate analyzes of epistemic ability that rely on action types. Our formalism is a standard epistemic extension of the theory of “seeing to it that”, which arose from a modal tradition in the logic of action.

What Makes Epistemic Injustice an “Injustice”?

What Makes Epistemic Injustice an “Injustice”?

Remembering: Epistemic and Empirical

The construct “remembering” is equivocal between an epistemic sense, denoting a distinctive ground for knowledge, and empirical sense, denoting the typical behavior of a neurocognitive mechanism. Because the same kind of equivocation arises for other psychologistic terms (such as believe, decide, know, judge, decide, infer and reason), the effort to spot and remedy the confusion in the case of remembering might prove generally instructive. The failure to allow these two senses of remembering equal play in their respective domains leads, I argue, to unnecessary confusion about memory externalism, the possibility of episodic memory in non-human species, and the thesis of memory continuism. By distinguishing these equivocal senses of remembering, we thus gain leverage on understanding how the distinctive epistemic norms that define many of our psychologic terms are more plausibly related to the capacities studied by empirical science, given that neither identity nor elimination are possible.

Realism and the logic of conceivability

On their alethic reading, formulas (T), (D), and (K) codify three of the most basic principles of possibility and its dual (necessity). This paper discusses these formulas on a broadly epistemic reading, and in particular as candidate principles about conceivability and its dual (inconceivability of the opposite). As will be shown, the question whether (T) and its classical dual equivalent, as well as (D) and (K) hold on this reading is not only a logical one but involves a distinctively metaphysical controversy between realist and antirealist views on the relation between truth on the one hand and various cognitive conditions such as knowability, conceivability, and thinkability on the other. It will be argued that the stance we take with regard to the metaphysical dispute has consequences for our assessment of the plausibility not only of (T) and its classical equivalent, but also of (D) and—when that stance is combined with a structural account of propositions—potentially of (K) as well; with all four taken in the above epistemic sense. A second upshot will be that the same sensitivity to metaphysical background commitment also applies to our view as to whether or not inconceivability of the opposite coincides with, or even entails, apriority.

Kinds of Determinism in Science

Determinism is a doctrine or assumption best defined in the realm of the natural sciences. In this paper I explain in detail the four senses of determinism, from the most fundamental metaphysical sense, to the most complex epistemic (predictive) sense. I take as a starting point the analysis of determinism offered by Stephen Kellert. Each of these senses is then expounded and commented with a view to explore some of the implications of each of them in theoretical physics. The most important of my tasks in this paper is to differentiate between the metaphysical and epistemic consequences of the deterministic assumption. My objective is to show that determinism as an ontological tenet is capable of withstanding criticism, even though predictive determinism is likely to be false.

Epistemically blameworthy belief

When subjects violate epistemic standards or norms, we sometimes judge them blameworthy rather than blameless. For instance, we might judge a subject blameworthy for dogmatically continuing to believe a claim even after receiving evidence which undermines it. Indeed, the idea that one may be blameworthy for belief is appealed to throughout the contemporary epistemic literature. In some cases, a subject seems blameworthy for believing as she does even though it seems prima facie implausible that she is morally blameworthy or professionally blameworthy. Such cases raise the question of whether one can be blameworthy for a belief in a specifically epistemic sense rather than in some already recognised sense, such as being morally or professionally blameworthy. A number of authors have recently argued that there is a moral or social sense in which one ought to conform one’s beliefs to the evidence (e.g. Goldberg, Graham, Vanderheiden). In this paper, I argue that even while accepting that there are moral and social norms governing belief, there are cases in which a subject is blameworthy for a belief but isn’t plausibly morally or socially blameworthy. If this latter view is correct, then we may need to develop a new account of blame which can be applied to beliefs which are not morally or socially blameworthy.

Modal Usage of Advanced Korean EFL Learners, Young Korean EFL Learners, and Native English Speakers: A Corpora Comparison Study

Building on Seog and Choi’s (2018) documentation of the early to intermediate interlanguage development of Korean learners’ English modal use, the current paper focuses on the highly advanced Korean learners and sheds light on the spectrum of interlanguage of Korean EFL learners in acquisition of the English modal verbs. For investigation and analyses, two learner corpora, the KNU Student English Learner Corpus-Written (KSELC-W) and the KNU English Learner Corpus (KELC), and a native speaker corpus, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), are utilized. Corpora comparisons and log-likelihood tests are conducted to reveal differences in the modal verb usage. The results show that in contrast with the early or intermediate young learners of KELC, the advanced learners of KSELC-W overuse the preterite forms of modal verbs such as could, would, and should. In addition, the learners productively and accurately used would to deliver the hypothetical sense while rarely using the modal verbs to express the epistemic sense. This study can represent the overall process of the Korean learners’ acquisition of English modal verbs.

The Objectivity of Ethics

In 1977, the atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie published the book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. In it, he notably argued that objective ethical standards simply do not exist. He acknowledges that the existence of God would undermine moral skepticism, but assumes an atheistic position, and therefore concludes that objective morality is an intellectual incoherence. The debate, therefore, does not hinge on the existence of God, but rather on whether or not ethics are an objective reality without referring to God as their basis. From the standpoint of Catholic social teaching, the objectivity of ethics is a reality that should be defended over and against the claims of moral skepticism that Mackie argues are valid. In fact, the existence of objective ethics not only provides a defense of the system of Catholic social teaching, but illustrates its value to those who may be skeptical of its claims. With this defense of objective ethics as the goal, this paper claims that Mackie’s argument fails due to his deficient epistemological approach. Assuming the proper epistemic sense, natural law theory is a functional system of objective ethical truth, drawn out through a Thomistic understanding of the human pursuit of what is good.

El método y el objeto de la teoría jurídica

El propósito principal de este trabajo es presentar un argumento crítico aplicable a aquellas posiciones interpretativistas según las cuales, en la medida en que el objetivo de la teoría jurídica es identificar y explicar conceptos institucionales, es imprescindible asumir la necesidad de un punto de vista interno. Una parte substancial del artículo está dedicada, por una parte, a mostrar la ambigüedad de esta tesis y, por otra, a justificar la distinción entre dos sentidos, uno epistemológico y otro pragmático, en los que las expresiones “punto de vista interno” y “punto de vista externo” pueden ser entendidas. Detectar esta ambigüedad, en primer lugar, permite mostrar diferentes formas de entender los conceptos institucionales. En segundo lugar, hace posible captar un peculiar tipo de indeterminación que afecta a todo discurso referido a las instituciones sociales en general y a las instituciones jurídicas en particular.La tesis central sostenida en este trabajo es que, para identificar y explicar un concepto institucional, la teoría jurídica debe necesariamente adoptar un punto de vista interno en sentido epistemológico, pero no en sentido pragmático. En la parte final del ensayo se sugiere que es posible generalizar la crítica formulada a las posiciones interpretativistas que sostienen indistintamente la necesidad de un punto de vista interno y aplicarla también a aquellas posiciones según las cuales, para identificar y explicar un concepto institucional, debemos necesariamente adoptar un punto de vista externo. La conclusión es que no existe un único método de estudio en la teoría jurídica y, sobre todo, que dicho método depende del modo en el que se configure el objeto de estudio. En este caso, los conceptos institucionales o el contenido de las instituciones jurídicas.

The criminal justice system as a problem in binary classification

Attempts to establish a quantitative framework for thinking about the criminal justice system have been made at least since Kaplan’s influential 1968 article. Here I avoid the probabilistic approaches that Kaplan inspired and instead characterise the law’s underlying problem as one of measurement. I then exploit statistical techniques developed in recent years in other disciplines to evaluate systems that also face the challenge of ‘binary classification’ to solve it. This approach entails the mathematisation of the criminal justice system’s core epistemic concern of distinguishing the guilty from the innocent with Van Rijsbergen’s F-measure and empirical measurements of effectiveness. Once one adopts the perspective of a sovereign, it yields a meta-meta-epistemology that allows traditional arguments like those that refer to Blackstone’s ratio to be made rigorous. This provides a clearer relationship between values and policies and, in a narrowly epistemic sense, a complete answer to questions of evidence and procedure.