While AI systems are increasingly assuming roles traditionally occupied by human epistemic authorities (EAs), their epistemological status remains unclear. This paper aims to address this lacuna by assessing the potential for AI systems to be recognized as artificial epistemic authorities. In a first step, I examine the arguments against considering AI systems as EAs, in particular the established model of EAs as engaging in intentional belief transfer via testimony to laypeople – a process seemingly inapplicable to intentionless and beliefless AI. (...) Despite this, AI systems exhibit striking epistemic parallels with human EAs, including epistemic asymmetry and opacity that give rise to comparable challenges for both laypeople and AI users. These challenges include the identification problem – how to recognize reliable EAs/AI systems – and the deference problem – determining the appropriate epistemic stance towards EAs/AI systems. Faced with this dilemma, I discuss three possible solutions: 1. reject the concept of artificial EAs, 2. accept that AI can possess beliefs and intentions and thus align with the standard model, or 3. develop an alternative model that encompasses artificial EAs. I argue that while each option has its benefits and costs, a particularly strong case can be made for option 3. (shrink)

It is common nowadays for laypeople to take public stances on complex issues, such as the effectiveness of a vaccine or the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change, without any kind of disciplinary expertise. Yet those who do so act as if they were experts in the field, disseminating their thoughts and sometimes also spreading their advice. Scholars have ascribed this phenomenon to various kinds of individuals, such as conspiracy or contrarian thinkers, science denialists, know-it-all experts and celebrities. This paper aims (...) to argue that behind such different manifestations lies a common, independently identifiable epistemic disposition that will be called epistemic hubris that will be fully explained in relation to other epistemic vices already discussed in the literature. Epistemic hubris includes, but is not limited to, overconfidence; it may or not entail arrogance; it is similar to yet distinct from hyper-autonomy and conspiracy thinking. Its peculiarity is that individuals who develop it seem to believe that they can easily become experts, even without special training. This disposition negatively affects individuals’ epistemic conduct, hindering knowledge and true belief formation, and can generate morally relevant consequences when people who falsely consider themselves experts begin to share their mistaken beliefs. (shrink)

Recent approaches to the social epistemology of belief formation have appealed to an epidemiological model, on which the mechanisms explaining how we form beliefs from our society or community along the lines of infectious disease. More specifically, Alvin Goldman (2001) proposes an etiology of (social) belief along the lines of an epistemological epidemiology. On this “contagion model,” beliefs are construed as diseases that infect people via some socio-epistemic community. This paper reconsiders Goldman’s epidemiological approach in terms of epistemic trust. By (...) focusing on beliefs as diseases, Goldman misconstrues and underestimates the central role that epistemic trust plays in their formation (maintenance, revision, etc.). I suggest that we put trust, accordingly, as the center of an epidemiological model of social doxology—epistemic trust, rather than beliefs, is the disease with which one is infected. So, contra Goldman, beliefs themselves aren’t the disease—they are symptoms. Trust, on this approach, can be viewed as a pathology. This point connects Annette Baier’s (1994) work on moral trust—taking a cue from her “pathologies of trust.” The real pathology centered in social doxology is the epistemic trust manifested by those beliefs. Accordingly, I shall explore (and tentatively defend) an epidemiological model for such “pathological” epistemic trust inspired by Baier’s work on moral trust, one which can more adequately account for the infectious epistemic trust at work in social belief formation. (shrink)

In this paper, we aim to provide an adequate normative analysis of the phenomenon of Covid-19 vaccine refusal. We argue that all vaccine-refusers make a moral mistake on the double grounds that the act of refusing to get vaccinated is a free-riding action and a negligent one. We then introduce four archetypes of vaccine refusers in order to further explore under what conditions this moral mistake makes one blameworthy. We maintain that there are both epistemic and motivational considerations that make (...) a difference to one’s blameworthiness for their vaccine refusal and offer some preliminary claims about which epistemic errors and which motivational errors can, in fact, ground blameworthiness. We conclude the paper with some remarks on the complicated connection between blameworthiness and blame, and on why we think the aim of normative analysis should not be to dole out blame. (shrink)