On July 24, 2023, a philosophical essay regarding the roles of editors with multiple retractions in the publishing system was officially published in Epistemes Metron Logos.

While it is widely regarded that intellectual humility is among the intellectual virtues, there is as of yet little consensus on the matter of what possessing and exercising intellectual humility consists in, and how it should be best understood as advancing our epistemic goals. For example, does intellectual humility involve an underestimation of one’s intellectual abilities, or rather, does it require an accurate conception? Is intellectual humility a fundamentally interpersonal/social virtue, or might it be valuable to exercise in isolation? To (...) what extent does intellectual humility demand of us an appreciation of how the success of our inquiries depends on features of our social and physical environment beyond our control? These are just a few of the many questions that are crucial to getting a grip on this intellectual virtue and why we might aspire to cultivate it. Furthermore, and apart from the nature and value of humility, it is worthwhile to consider how this notion, properly understood, might have import for other philosophical debates, including those about (for example) scepticism, assertion, epistemic individualism and anti-individualism, and the philosophy of education. This special issue brings together a range of different philosophical perspectives on these and related questions to do with intellectual humility with an aim to contributing to this important and timely topic. (shrink)

This special issue collects five new essays on various topics relevant to the ethics of belief. They shed fresh light on important questions, and bring new arguments to bear on familiar topics of concern to most epistemologists, and indeed, to anyone interested in normative requirements on beliefs either for their own sake or because of the way such requirements bear on other domains of inquiry.

William Alston’s argument against epistemological deontologism rests upon two key premises: first, that we lack a suitable amount of voluntary control with respect to our beliefs, and, second, the principle that “ought” implies “can.” While several responses to Alston have concerned rejecting either of these two premises, I argue that even on the assumption that both premises are true, there is room to be made for deontologism in epistemology. I begin by offering a criticism of Richard Feldman’s invaluable work on (...) ‘role-oughts’, whereupon I development my own positive view in light of Feldman’s shortcomings. The upshot is that while we as epistemic agents are not responsible for the beliefs we form, we are nonetheless responsible for the various bodily or mental activities that typically bear a causal influence on belief formation. (shrink)

Many authors have argued that epistemic rationality sometimes comes into conflict with our relationships. Although Sarah Stroud and Simon Keller argue that friendships sometimes require bad epistemic agency, their proposals do not go far enough. I argue here for a more radical claim—romantic love sometimes requires we form beliefs that are false. Lovers stand in a special position with one another; they owe things to one another that they do not owe to others. Such demands hold for beliefs as well. (...) Two facets of love ground what I call the false belief requirement , or the demand to form false beliefs when it is for the good of the beloved: the demand to love for the right reasons and the demand to refrain from doxastic wronging. Since truth is indispensable to epistemic rationality, the requirement to believe falsely, consequently, undermines truth norms. I demonstrate that, when the false belief requirement obtains, there is an irreconcilable conflict between love and truth norms of epistemic rationality: we must forsake one, at least at the time, for the other. (shrink)

Epistemic internalism, by stressing the indispensability of the subject’s perspective, strikes many as plausible at first blush. However, many people have tended to reject the position because certain kinds of beliefs have been thought to pose special problems for epistemic internalism. For example, internalists tend to hold that so long as a justifier is available to the subject either immediately or upon introspection, it can serve to justify beliefs. Many have thought it obvious that no such view can be correct, (...) as it has been alleged that internalism cannot account for the possibility of the justification of beliefs stored in memory. -/- My aim in this paper is to offer a response that explains how memory justification is possible in a way that is consistent with epistemic internalism and an awareness condition on justification. Specifically, I will explore the plausibility of various options open to internalists, including both foundationalist and non-foundationalist approaches to the structure of justification. I intend to show that despite other difficult challenges that epistemic internalism might face, memory belief poses no special problems that the resources of internalism cannot adequately address. (shrink)

How does logic relate to rational belief? Is logic normative for belief, as some say? What, if anything, do facts about logical consequence tell us about norms of doxastic rationality? In this paper, we consider a range of putative logic-rationality bridge principles. These purport to relate facts about logical consequence to norms that govern the rationality of our beliefs and credences. To investigate these principles, we deploy a novel approach, namely, epistemic utility theory. That is, we assume that doxastic attitudes (...) have different epistemic value depending on how accurately they represent the world. We then use the principles of decision theory to determine which of the putative logic-rationality bridge principles we can derive from considerations of epistemic utility. (shrink)

Epistemic Value Monism is the view that there is only one kind of thing of basic, final epistemic value. Perhaps the most plausible version of Epistemic Value Monism is Truth Value Monism, the view that only true beliefs are of basic, final epistemic value. Several authors—notably Jonathan Kvanvig and Michael DePaul—have criticized Truth Value Monism by appealing to the epistemic value of things other than knowledge. Such arguments, if successful, would establish Epistemic Value Pluralism is true and Epistemic Value Monism (...) is false. This paper critically examines those arguments, finding them wanting. However, I develop an argument for Epistemic Value Pluralism that succeeds which turns on general reflection on the nature of value. (shrink)

Clayton Littlejohn claims that the permissibility solution to the lottery paradox requires an implausible principle in order to explain why epistemic permissions don't agglomerate. This paper argues that an uncontentious principle suffices to explain this. It also discusses another objection of Littlejohn's, according to which we’re not permitted to believe lottery propositions because we know that we’re not in a position to know them.

An intuitive view regarding the epistemic significance of disagreement says that when epistemic peers disagree, they should suspend judgment. This abstemious view seems to embody a kind of detachment appropriate for rational beings; moreover, it seems to promote a kind of conciliatory inclination that makes for irenic and cooperative further discussion. Like many strategies for cooperation, however, the abstemious view creates opportunities for free-riding. In this essay, the authors argue that the believer who suspends judgment in the face of peer (...) disagreement is vulnerable to a kind of manipulation on the part of more tenacious peers. The result is that the abstemious view can have the effect of encouraging dogmatism. (shrink)

Closure is the epistemological thesis that if S knows that P and knows that P implies Q, then if S infers that Q, S knows that Q. Fred Dretske acknowledges that closure is plausible but contends that it should be rejected because it conflicts with the plausible thesis: Conclusive reasons (CR): S knows that P only if S believes P on the basis of conclusive reasons, i.e., reasons S wouldn‘t have if it weren‘t the case that P. Dretske develops an (...) analysis of knowing that centers on CR, and argues that the requirement undermines skepticism by implying the falsity of closure. We develop a Dretske-style analysis of knowing that incorporates CR, and we argue that this analysis not only accords with closure, but also implies it. In addition, we argue that the analysis accounts for the prima facie plausibility of closure-invoking skeptical arguments, and nonetheless implies that they are fallacious. If our arguments turn out to be sound, the acceptability of Dretske‘s analysis of knowing will be significantly enhanced by the fact that, despite implying closure, it undermines closure-based skepticism. (shrink)

In a recent article in this journal, Mona Simion argues that Sally Haslanger’s “engineering” approach to gender concepts such as ‘woman’ faces an epistemic objection. The primary function of all concepts—gender concepts included—is to represent the world, but Haslanger’s engineering account of ‘woman’ fails to adequately represent the world because, by her own admission, it doesn’t include all women in the extension of the concept ‘woman.’ I argue that this objection fails because the primary function of gender concepts—and social kind (...) concepts in general—is not (merely) to represent the world, but rather to shape it. I finish by considering the consequences for “conceptual engineering” in philosophy more generally. While Haslanger’s account may escape Simion’s objection, other appeals to conceptual engineering might not fair so well. (shrink)

Research on interdisciplinarity has been concentrated on the methodological and educational aspects of this complex phenomenon and less on its theoretical nature. Within a theoretical framework specific to the philosophy of science, I propose a structural scheme of how interdisciplinary processes go, focusing on the concepts of availability of the methods, concept linking, and theoretical modeling. In this model, the challenges interdisciplinarity is claimed to pose to its practitioners are of the same nature as the challenges scientists encounter within the (...) evolution of their own disciplines. (shrink)

In trying to distinguish the right kinds of reasons from the wrong, epistemologists often appeal to the connection to truth to explain why practical considerations cannot constitute reasons. The view they typically opt for is one on which only evidence can constitute a reason to believe. Talbot has shown that these approaches don’t exclude the possibility that there are non-evidential reasons for belief that can justify a belief without being evidence for that belief. He thinksthat there are indeed such reasons (...) and that they are theright kind of reasons to justify belief. The existence of such truth promoting non-epistemic reasons is said tofollow from the fact that we have an epistemic end that involves the attainment of true belief. I shall argue thatthere are no such reasons precisely because there is anepistemic end that has normative authority. (shrink)

We reply to recent papers by John Turri and Ben Bronner, who criticise the dispositionalised Nozickian tracking account we discuss in “Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know.” We argue that the account we suggested can handle the problems raised by Turri and Bronner. In the course of responding to Turri and Bronner’s objections, we draw three general lessons for theories of epistemic dispositions: that epistemic dispositions are to some extent extrinsic, that epistemic dispositions can have manifestation conditions concerning circumstances where (...) their bearers fail to exist, and that contrast is relevant to disposition attributions. (shrink)

This paper proposes a view on epistemic relativism that arises from the problem of the criterion, keeping in consideration that the assessment of criterion standards always occurs in a certain context. The main idea is that the epistemic value of the assertion “S knows that p” depends not only on the criterion adopted within an epistemic framework and the relationship between said criterion and a meta-criterion, but also from the collaboration with other subjects who share the same standards. Thus, one (...) can choose between particularist and methodist criteria according to the context of assessment. This position has the advantage of presenting a new perspective concerning both the criterion problem and the problem of inter-contextuality in the evaluation of different epistemic frameworks. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend Moorean Dogmatism against a novel objection raised by Adam Leite. Leite locates the defectiveness of the Moorean reasoning explicitly not in the failure of the Moorean argument to transmit warrant from its premises to its conclusion but rather in the failure of an epistemic agent to satisfy certain epistemic responsibilities that arise in the course of conscious and deliberate reasoning. I will first show that there exist cases of Moorean reasoning that are not put into (...) jeopardy by the considerations that Leite presents. Second, I will argue that certain commitments of Leite’s concerning the notion of warrant are in tension with his verdict that the Moorean reasoning is defective. (shrink)

This paper attempts to answer two questions: What is epistemic agency? And what are the motivations for having this concept? In response to the first question, it is argued that epistemic agency is the agency one has over one’s belief-forming practices, or doxastic dispositions, which can directly affect the way one forms a belief and indirectly affect the beliefs one forms. In response to the second question, it is suggested that the above conception of epistemic agency is either implicitly endorsed (...) by those theorists sympathetic to epistemic normativity or, at minimum, this conception can make sense of the legitimacy of the normative notions applicable to how and what one should believe. It is further contended that belief formation in some respects is a skill that can be intentionally developed and refined. Accepting this contention and the existence of certain epistemic norms provide inconclusive yet good reasons to endorse this concept. Recent challenges to this concept by Hillary Kornblith and Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij are also considered. (shrink)

This is a reply to Howard Sankey’s comment (“Factivity or Grounds? Comment on Mizrahi”) on my paper, “You Can’t Handle the Truth: Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty,” in which I present an argument from the factivity of knowledge for the conclusion that knowledge is epistemic certainty. While Sankey is right that factivity does not entail epistemic certainty, the factivity of knowledge does entail that knowledge is epistemic certainty.

This paper presents and critically discusses the “logos approach to quantum mechanics” from the point of view of the current debates concerning the relation between metaphysics and science. Due to its alleged direct connection with quantum formalism, the logos approach presents itself as a better alternative for understanding quantum mechanics than other available views. However, we present metaphysical and methodological difficulties that seem to clearly point to a different conclusion: the logos approach is on an epistemic equal (...) footing among alternative realist approaches to quantum mechanics. (shrink)

Over the past decade, attention to epistemically significant disagreement has centered on the question of whose disagreement qualifies as significant, but ignored another fundamental question: what is the epistemic significance of disagreement? While epistemologists have assumed that disagreement is only significant when it indicates a determinate likelihood that one’s own belief is false, and therefore that only disagreements with epistemic peers are significant at all, they have ignored a more subtle and more basic significance that belongs to all disagreements, regardless (...) of who they are with—that the opposing party is wrong. It is important to recognize the basic significance of disagreement since it is what explains all manners of rational responses to disagreement, including assessing possible epistemic peers and arguing against opponents regardless of their epistemic fitness. (shrink)

Many epistemologists have endorsed a version of the view that rational belief is sensitive to higher-order defeat. That is to say, even a fully rational belief state can be defeated by misleading higher-order evidence, which indicates that the belief state is irrational. In a recent paper, however, Maria Lasonen-Aarnio calls this view into doubt. Her argument proceeds in two stages. First, she argues that higher-order defeat calls for a two-tiered theory of epistemic rationality. Secondly, she argues that there seems to (...) be no satisfactory way of avoiding epistemic dilemmas within a two-tiered framework. Hence, she concludes that the prospects look dim for making sense of higher-order defeat within a broader theoretical picture of epistemic rationality. Here I aim to resist both parts of Lasonen-Aarnio’s challenge. First, I outline a way of accommodating higher-order defeat within a single-tiered framework, by amending epistemic rules with appropriate provisos for different kinds of higher-order defeat. Secondly, I argue that those who nevertheless prefer to accommodate higher-order defeat within a two-tiered framework can do so without admitting to the possibility of epistemic dilemmas, since epistemic rules are not always accompanied by ‘oughts’ in a two-tiered framework. The considerations put forth thus indirectly vindicate the view that rational belief is sensitive to higher-order defeat. (shrink)

The idea that appearances provide justifications for beliefs—the principle of phenomenal conservatism—is self-evidently true. In the case of cognitive penetration, however, it seems that certain irrational etiologies of a belief may influence the epistemic quality of that belief. Susanna Siegel argues that these etiologies lead to ‘epistemic downgrade.’ Instead of providing us with a decisive objection, cognitive penetration calls for us to clarify our epistemic framework by understanding the formative parts of appearances. In doing so, the two different but inseparable (...) ideas of sensation and intellection provide us with a basis of our appearances. These appearances, in turn, provide us with the objective evidence needed to test our judgements. Thus, the extra-sensory concepts of intellectual identification and the appearances they help form become an epistemic groundwork. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend Moorean Dogmatism against a novel objection raised by Adam Leite. Leite locates the defectiveness of the Moorean reasoning explicitly not in the failure of the Moorean argument to transmit warrant from its premises to its conclusion but rather in the failure of an epistemic agent to satisfy certain epistemic responsibilities that arise in the course of conscious and deliberate reasoning. I will first show that there exist cases of Moorean reasoning that are not put into (...) jeopardy by the considerations that Leite presents. Second, I will argue that certain commitments of Leite’s concerning the notion of warrant are in tension with his verdict that the Moorean reasoning is defective. (shrink)

I give an interpretation according to which Meno’s paradox is an epistemic regress problem. The paradox is an argument for skepticism assuming that (1) acquired knowledge about an object X requires prior knowledge about what X is and (2) any knowledge must be acquired. (1) is a principle about having reasons for knowledge and about the epistemic priority of knowledge about what X is. (1) and (2) jointly imply a regress-generating principle which implies that knowledge always requires an infinite sequence (...) of known reasons. Plato’s response to the problem is to accept (1) but reject (2): some knowledge is innate. He argues from this to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. This argument can be understood as a response to an Eleatic problem about the possibility of coming into being that turns on a regress-generating causal principle analogous to the regress-generating principle presupposed by Meno’s paradox. (shrink)

In this discussion note, I put forth an argument from the factivity of knowledge for the conclusion that knowledge is epistemic certainty. If this argument is sound, then epistemologists who think that knowledge is factive are thereby also committed to the view that knowledge is epistemic certainty.

It is widely accepted that our initial intuitions regarding knowledge attributions in stakes-shifting cases (e.g., Cohen’s Airport) are best explained by standards variantism, the view that the standards for knowledge may vary with contexts in an epistemically interesting way. Against standards variantism, I argue that no prominent account of the standards for knowledge can explain our intuitions regarding stakes-shifting cases. I argue that the only way to preserve our initial intuitions regarding such cases is to endorse position variantism, the view (...) that one’s epistemic position may vary with contexts in an epistemically interesting way. Some had argued that epistemic position is incompatible with intellectualism. In reply, I point out that position variantism and intellectualism are compatible, if one’s truth-relevant factors with respect to p can vary with contexts in an epistemically interesting way. (shrink)

This paper focuses on Martin Montminy’s recent attempt to show that assertion and practical reasoning are necessarily governed by the same epistemic norm (“Why assertion and practical reasoning must be governed by the same epistemic norm”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly [2013]). I show that the attempt fails. I finish by considering the upshot for the recent debate concerning the connection between the epistemic norms of assertion and practical reasoning.

While the Academic sceptics followed the plausible as a criterion of truth and guided their practice by a doxastic norm, so thinking that agential performances are actions for which the agent assumes responsibility, the Pyrrhonists did not accept rational belief-management, dispensing with judgment in empirical matters. In this sense, the Pyrrhonian Sceptic described himself as not acting in any robust sense of the notion, or as ‘acting’ out of sub-personal and social mechanisms. The important point is that the Pyrrhonian advocacy (...) of a minimal conception of ‘belief’ was motivated by ethical concerns: avoiding any sort of commitment, he attempted to preserve his peace of mind. In this article, I argue for a Cartesian model of rational guidance that, in line with some current versions of an agential virtue epistemology, does involve judgment and risk, and thus which is true both to our rational constitution and to our finite and fallible nature. Insofar as epistemic humility is a virtue of rational agents that recognise the limits of their judgments, Pyrrhonian scepticism, and a fortiori any variety of naturalism, is unable to accommodate this virtue. This means that, in contrast to the Cartesian model, the Pyrrhonist does not provide a satisfactory answer to the problem of cognitive disintegration. The Pyrrhonist thus becomes a social rebel, one that violates the norm of serious personal assent that enables the flourishing of a collaborative and social species which depends on agents that, however fallible, are accountable for their actions and judgments. (shrink)

In the first section of this paper I present epistemic evidentialism and, in the following two sections, I discuss that view with counterexamples. I shall defend that adequately supporting evidence is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for epistemic justification. Although we need epistemic elements other than evidence in order to have epistemic justification, there can be no epistemically justified belief without evidence. However, there are other kinds of justification beyond the epistemic justification, such as prudential or moral justification; (...) therefore, there is room for justified beliefs (in a prudential or moral sense) without evidence. (shrink)

Recently a number of variously motivated epistemologists have argued that knowledge is closely tied to practical matters. On the one hand, radical pragmatic encroachment is the view that facts about whether an agent has knowledge depend on practical factors and this is coupled to the view that there is an important connection between knowledge and action. On the other hand, one can argue for the less radical thesis only that there is an important connection between knowledge and practical reasoning. So, (...) defenders of both of these views endorse the view that knowledge is the norm of practical reasoning. This thesis has recently come under heavy fire and a number of weaker proposals have been defended. In this paper counter-examples to the knowledge norm of reasoning will be presented and it will be argued that this viewand a number of related but weaker viewscannot be sustained in the face of these counter-examples. The paper concludes with a novel proposal concerning the norm of practical reasoning that is immune to the counter-examples introduced here. (shrink)

Already in ancient philosophy, there was a transition from the implicit and hidden action of the Logical ( lógos) in nature ( phýsis) to the scientific and explicit expression of the logical structures of thought, action, the world and language. Heraclitus' heno-logic with Logos as hidden implicit principle of homologization of opposites ( tà enantía) in nature differs from Parmenides' paraconsistent logic developed in a hypothetical hemidyalectics given in the formula ''All is One'' ( hén pánta eînai). Plato's concept (...) of dia-logic (dialektikè téchne ) with a new concept of Logos as the one genus of beings ( hén tí génon toôn ontoôn) in which the word not-Being (negation) got its place enabled production of dyadic logical structure by the granulation of genera into opposite species and sub-species that it contains. Aristotle's concept of triadic-logic as syl-logistics ( syllogismós) and demonstrative science (epistéme apodeiktikê ) give a new approach by new granulation of the concept of Logos into triadic logical structure: (1) the structure of being (substratum-attributes relation), (2) the structure of thought (substance-second substances relation), and (3) the structure of propositions (subject-predicate relation). Plato's dialectic and Aristotle's syllogistic both deconstructed the implicit ontological unity of the world (pan, kosmos, sphairos ) given through the concept of Logos in Pre-Socratic philosophy in order to make that unity in explicit form given by the logical and semantical structures of the propositions about the world, about the thought and about the language. The hidden implicit of the nature, which had to be known intuitively, was transformed into unhidden explicit inferential logical structures given in the semantics and pragmatics of scientific demonstration. (shrink)

Fricker‘s Epistemic Injustice discusses the idea of testimonial injustice, specifically, being harmed in one‘s capacity as a knower. Fricker‘s own theory of testimonial injustice emphasizes the role of prejudice. She argues that prejudice is necessary for testimonial injustice and that when hearers use a prejudice to give a deficit to the credibility of speakers hearers intrinsically harm speakers in their capacity as a knower. This paper rethinks the connections between prejudice and testimonial injustice. I argue that many cases of prejudicial (...) credibility deficits do not intrinsically harm speakers. Further, I suggest that prejudice is not necessary for harming speakers. I provide my own proposal on which testimonial injustice occurs when speaker‘s capacity as a giver of knowledge is interfered with in important ways. My proposal does not give prejudice any essential role. (shrink)

Com o conceito de Filosofia já explicado no trabalho (DOS PROBLEMAS FILOSÓFICOS E SUAS CARACTERÍSTICAS), podemos agora conferir uma ideia mais clara da filosofia se a compararmos com o conhecimento científico tal como atualmente se entende, isto é, com as ciências experimentais. Uma vez a filosofia sendo distinguida com relação às ciências experimentais, faremos uma comparação das soluções que outorgam os dois níveis de conhecimento frente ao mesmo assunto para elucidar, por exemplo, na frente do homem, o mundo, o número, (...) o comportamento humano ou a beleza. -/- 1. DIFERENÇA ENTRE CAUSAS PRÓXIMAS E CAUSAS ÚLTIMAS – A Filosofia estuda as causas últimas (ou supremas), enquanto as ciências experimentais estudam as causas imediatas. Por exemplo, ao estudar o movimento, a física capta o tema por meio de forças, fricções, pesos e balanços, que afetam os corpos. Estas são as causas imediatas, e elas são distinguidas porque sempre permanecem no plano do sensível e do experimentável. Em vez disso, a Filosofia examina os dois princípios que explicam todos os demais, os tornando em sua forma essencial, ou seja, o ato (exemplo: o ato de atritar duas madeiras até produzir fogo) e a potência (exemplo: a potência de um carro que vai de 0 a 100 Km/h em questão de segundos). Essas são causas supremas e não permanecem mais no nível sensível; elas são capturadas apenas no nível inteligível. Em outras palavras, o filósofo tenta chegar à essência do objeto estudado, e sua explicação é no sentido vertical, pois deixa o nível sensível e experimental. Em contrapartida, o cientista elabora explicações em um sentido horizontal, dentro do nível experimental. A diferença fundamental de ambos os tipos de conhecimento residem, então, em seu diferente objeto formal. -/- 2. TOTALIDADE E PARCIALIDADE DO OBJETO MATERIAL - A filosofia procura abranger a totalidade das coisas; seu objeto material é o mais largo que pode ser conferido. Por outro lado, as outras ciências são particulares, para dizer, elas estudam uma certa parte ou setor, entre todas as entidades. À exemplo, a Filosofia apropriasse de objetos da língua portuguesa (linguística e linguagem); da Antropologia (Antropologia filosófica e Cultura); da História; da Geografia; da Física; da Cosmologia; da Ciência Política; da Sociologia; etc. -/- Nesse sentido, já esclarecemos que mesmo quando a Filosofia estuda as mesmas coisas que as outras ciências tratam, Filosofia e ciência não se confundem, uma vez que o objeto formal é diferente em ambas. -/- 3. MÉTODO EXPERIMENTAL E MÉTODO RACIONAL – As ciências experimentais sublinham a necessidade da experiência sensível, como efeito, as leis da natureza não são deduzidas mediante certos princípios, mas têm que observar-se de uma maneira sensata, mesmo usando a experimentação. -/- Por sua parte, a Filosofia, mesmo que não possa prescindir do experiência sensível, insiste no método racional e no uso do entendimento, graças ao qual é possível capturar as essências, os primeiros princípios e as causas supremas que fundamentam o Universo. -/- 4. DIFERENÇA ENTRE EPISTEME E SOFIA - Outra forma de capturar a diferença entre os dois tipos de conhecimento, está presente no que Aristóteles chamou episteme e sofia. Episteme é a ciência, mas entendida não como um conjunto de verdades, mas como um hábito intelectual demonstrativo. O sujeito que possui essa qualidade tem a facilidade de demonstrar com rigor e precisão suas afirmações, ele pode basear sua tese, isto é, ele dá as causas do que ele detém. -/- Sofia, por outro lado, é a sabedoria que o filósofo ama (filos: que ama; sofia: sabedoria) e consiste em uma conjunção de episteme (verdade suprema) e nous (razão). A Filosofia, portanto, inclui também a episteme ao hábito demonstrativo, mas acrescenta outra coisa: o nous. -/- Nous é o hábito intuitivo dos primeiros princípios; é a qualidade mental (virtude intelectual, diz Aristóteles) pela qual um sujeito tem a facilidade para voltar de uma forma intuitiva para os primeiros princípios que servem como base para toda a demonstração e base de uma determinada tese por ele refutada. -/- Portanto, a sofia, na medida em que contém a episteme, participa do rigor científico e, na medida em que contém o nous, aprofunda-se aos primeiros princípios. Logo, chegamos a semelhança e a diferença entre a ciência e a Filosofia. O filósofo é, então, um cientista que investiga as causas e os primeiros princípios. -/- 5. OS GRAUS DA ABSTRAÇÃO -Aristóteles e Sto. Tomás de Aquino explicaram a tripla graduação de abstração formal. -/- No primeiro grau, que corresponde à física, o sujeito individual é dispensado e a entidade móvel é estudada. -/- No segundo grau, a matéria sensível é dispensada e a entidade quântica (a quantidade) é estudada. Neste grau está presente a Matemática. -/- E finalmente, no terceiro grau toda a matéria é dispensada, e a entidade é estudada como tal, no horizonte mais amplo possível, que é chamado transcendental, e que cobre tudo o que existe. Este é o terceiro grau de abstração formal, aquele que corresponde à Metafísica, núcleo de toda a Filosofia. -/- Consequentemente, as ciências específicas pertencem a um nível categorial (particularizado), e somente a Metafísica volta-se ao nível transcendental (completamente universal). -/- 6. FILOSOFIA, A CIÊNCIA REGENTE DE TODAS AS OUTRAS - Como uma consequência do supracitado texto, podemos afirmar que a Filosofia, a partir do momento em que preconiza os primeiros princípios, é uma ciência orientadora; e isso por duas razões: -/- A filosofia governa todas as outras ciências, porque baseia-se em todos os princípios delas. No momento em que um cientista analisa os princípios de sua própria ciência, ipso facto está fazendo trabalho filosófico. Por exemplo: Matemática lida com as relações entre quantidades; mas no momento em que um matemático analisa e critica as bases de sua certeza e os princípios que servem para apoiar suas justificativas, vai além do limite de seu campo e da Lógica ou da Teoria do Conhecimento, que são ramos típicos da Filosofia. É precisamente o que aconteceu nos séculos XIX e XX, quando matemáticos conseguiram esclarecer teses que agora estão contidas no ramo chamado Lógica matemática, e isso deve ser entendido como uma extensão da lógica Aristotélica. -/- Por outro lado, a Filosofia é também uma ciência orientadora, uma vez que regem as normas que governam o comportamento humano, com base na análise da natureza do homem e suas demandas, com o qual ele deriva as linhas gerais de um existência autenticamente humana. -/- Para terminar de esclarecer o tema da diferença entre ciência e filosofia, veremos brevemente como existem soluções em diferentes planos, para as mesmas questões problemáticas. -/- 7. AS SOLUÇÕES DA COSMOLOGIA E DA FÍSICA - A primeira é uma ciência filosófica, e o segundo é uma ciência experimental. Ambas tratam das entidades materiais, enquanto móveis. Mas a Cosmologia estuda a essência, a estrutura primária dos corpos, e é assim que a teoria da matéria e da forma (hilemorfismo) surge, o que explica os copríncipios fundamentais na estrutura ou essência de um corpo sensível. Ela também se dedica a estudar a essência da mudança, o espaço, o tempo, etc. -/- Por outro lado, a ciência física, com seus experimentos, consegue penetrar nas causas horizontais dos fenômenos estudados na matéria. Assim, por exemplo, ela estuda o calor como a causa da dilatação dos metais, a lei da relação entre pressão, volume e temperatura dos gases, etc. -/- 8. PSICOLOGIA RACIONAL E PSICOLOGIA EXPERIMENTAL – A primeira forma de psicologia é uma ciência filosófica, e estuda o sujeito da alma, de suas faculdades (inteligência e vontade), imortalidade, espiritualidade, liberdade, a pessoa. -/- Em contrapartida, a psicologia experimental preferencialmente estuda os fenômenos observáveis e suas explicações, em sentido horizontal; por exemplo, o estímulo e a reação correspondente. Usam-se "testes", estatísticas, experimentos feito em um grande número de pessoas. É assim que as leis surgiram, como Weber (que relaciona sensação e estímulo), e também o interessante estudo sobre o inconsciente, a partir de Freud. -/- 9. A ÉTICA, EM RELAÇÃO COM O DIREITO - Também pode ser estabelecido um paralelismo entre Ética e Direito. O primeiro estuda racionalmente o plano do que deveria ser, o que é requerido de acordo com a natureza humana. Seu fruto está nas normas naturais, assim chamadas porque estão inscritas na mesma natureza humana, como exigências de sua estrutura essencial; elas não são criações ou invenções do homem. O Direito também estuda o plano normativo, só que se refere a normas positivas, que o homem inventa para complementar e especificar as regras naturais. -/- Para fundamentar as normas éticas, é necessário recorrer ao estudo ontológico da natureza humana e da reta razão. Para fundamentar as normas positivas do Direito, devemos conhecer empiricamente a situação real da sociedade e suas necessidades específicas. Claro, que deve-se saber também acerca da Ética, cujas normas devem se materializar. 10. OUTRAS CIÊNCIAS PARALELAS - Finalmente, pode-se mencionar outros ramos da Filosofia que têm seu correspondente paralelismo em alguma ciência experimental. Por exemplo: Filosofia das Matemáticas estuda a essência das quantidades, o básico de sua certeza, etc., enquanto a Matemática estuda as relações entre quantidades. -/- A Estética filosófica lida com a essência da arte e de beleza. Seu método é racional. Por outro lado, uma estética científico-experimental trataria os mesmos assuntos, mas no plano do experimental; seus métodos seriam baseados de "testes", estatísticas, observações na história e na civilização atual. -/- 11. AS RAMIFICAÇÕES DA FILOSOFIA – A enorme variedade de seres e questões no Universo originou uma divisão dentro da Filosofia, isto é, originaram-se divisões que se apropriam de questões peculiares, como a Filosofia Existencialista e a preocupação com a existência autêntica do homem, etc. As ramificações mais importantes são as seguintes: -/- a) A lógica. Estuda as características do conhecimento correto. A correção de um pensamento é sua coerência interna, a harmonização e a adaptação de suas diferentes partes entre si. -/- b) A Ética. É o ramo da Filosofia que estuda o comportamento humano a partir do ponto de vista de sua bondade ou maldade. Este ramo tem sido, talvez, o mais conhecido e comentado ao longo dos séculos. -/- c) Antropologia Filosófica. Estuda o ser humano a partir do ponto de vista das suas características essenciais. Seus temas fundamentais são: a pessoa humana, consciência, liberdade, valores e transcendência humana. Foi por onde nasceu a Filosofia propriamente dita, uma vez que Sócrates é alcunhado de “pai” da AF. -/- d) A teoria do conhecimento. Estuda a questão da verdade, isto é, a adequação de um pensamento em relação à realidade. Todos os autores ao longo dos séculos se referiam ao enigma humano que consiste na diferente apreciação da verdade e das coisas. Cada pessoa tem sua própria interpretação da realidade. Este assunto tenta fornecer as pistas que nos conduzem à verdade. e) A estética. Estuda a essência da beleza e da arte. Entre seus assuntos, os mais importantes são o estudo da criatividade humana e a experiência estética, assim como os diferentes gêneros das artes plásticas. -/- f) A Metafísica. É o estudo do ser enquanto ser. É, talvez, o estudo mais apropriado e profundo que a filosofia empreendeu. Ser é o constituinte fundamental de todas as coisas (entidades), o que lhes dá inteligibilidade e estrutura. No estudo da Metafísica, é onde a Filosofia adquire seu máximo nível e valor. Atualmente, a Metafísica sofreu uma série de críticas por parte de autores famosos como Kant. -/- g) Teodiceia ou Teologia Natural (considerada como parte da Metafísica). É o estudo sobre a essência e a existência de Deus. Deve ser claramente distinguida em relação à religião e à teologia. O primeiro não é uma ciência, mas a instituição que tenta a união do homem com Deus. O segundo sim, é uma ciência, mas sua principal base está na revelação e na fé. Na Filosofia, a Teodiceia tenta investigar tudo acerca de Deus, mas sem levar em conta (e sem rejeitar ou desvalorizar) os dados da revelação, como a Bíblia. -/- h) Existem vários ramos da Filosofia que se aplicam ao estudo de temas já tratados por outras disciplinas. É assim que podemos mencionar a Filosofia da Ciência, a Filosofia da Linguagem, a Filosofia da História, a Filosofia Social, Filosofia da Matemática, etc. Nem sempre é fácil delimitar o campo da Filosofia e da ciência quando se referem ao mesmo sujeito. Em geral, a Filosofia toca em aspectos essenciais, enquanto outras ciências referem-se a aspectos mensuráveis e estatísticos, fenômenos externos estruturantes ou empiricamente observáveis. -/- -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- AUBERT, J. M. Filosofía de la Naturaleza. Barcelona: Herder, 2001. 428 pp. -/- CHAUÍ, M. Convite à Filosofia. São Paulo: Ática, 2003. 424 pp. -/- MARÍAS, J. Introduccion a la Filosofía. Madrid: Alianza, 1995. 352 pp. -/- MARITAIN, J. Filosofía de la Naturaleza. Buenos Aires: Club de lectores, 1945. 188 pp. -/- ____________. Los grados del saber. Buenos Aires: Club de lectores, 1968. 763 pp. -/- MORENO, J. A. S. Filosofía de la Ciencia Física. México: Ambriz, 1966. (shrink)

The article explores the context and conceptual foundations of doxology - new project of epistemology proposed by Swedish professor Mats Rosengren. He reinterprets the basic concepts of epistemology, which were formed in the times of Plato and Aristotle. Swedish scholar is trying to rebuild the philosophy of knowledge, based on the updated system of initial abstractions. He inverts the traditional oppositions: knowledge (episteme) vs. opinion (doxa), philosophy vs. rhetoric. Thus, he takes the position of rhetorical philosophy, conceptually close to the (...) positions of the Greek sophists-rhetoricians. Rosengren gives a doxological interpretation of the Protagoras thesis about a human as a measure of all things. According to this account, human - it's all mankind; and the essence of humans, from the standpoint of the ancient Greeks, is human mind-logos. Rosengren thinks that protagorean approach, basal for doxology, has great heuristic potential. The heart of this approach is that all human knowledge is doxical, is not epistemic. And the task of doxology - to find out how we, humans, as social beings, really create the knowledge that can be examined as truth. (shrink)

Explanationism is a plausible view of epistemic justification according to which justification is a matter of explanatory considerations. Despite its plausibility, explanationism is not without its critics. In a recent issue of this journal T. Ryan Byerly and Kraig Martin have charged that explanationism fails to provide necessary or sufficient conditions for epistemic justification. In this article I examine Byerly and Martin’s arguments and explain where they go wrong.

According to the permissibility solution to the lottery paradox, the paradox can be solved if we conceive of epistemic justification as a species of permissibility. Clayton Littlejohn has objected that the permissibility solution draws on a sufficient condition for permissible belief that has implausible consequences and that the solution conflicts with our lack of knowledge that a given lottery ticket will lose. The paper defends the permissibility solution against Littlejohn's objections.

The discipline of knowledge translation (KT) emerged as a way of systematically understanding and addressing the challenges of applying health and medical research in practice. In light of ongoing and emerging critique of KT from the medical humanities and social sciences disciplines, KT researchers have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the translational process, particularly the significance of culture, tradition and values in how scientific evidence is understood and received, and thus increasingly receptive to pluralistic notions of knowledge. Hence, (...) there is now an emerging view of KT as a highly complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological phenomenon, which neither assumes nor creates knowledge hierarchies and neither prescribes nor privileges scientific evidence. Such a view, however, does not guarantee that scientific evidence will be applied in practice and thus poses a significant dilemma for KT regarding its status as a scientific and practice-oriented discipline, particularly within the current sociopolitical climate. Therefore, in response to the ongoing and emerging critique of KT, we argue that KT must provide scope for relevant scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy in public discourse. Such a view is not intended to uphold the privileged status of science nor affirm the “scientific logos” per se. It is proffered as a counterbalance to powerful social, cultural, political and market forces that are able to challenge scientific evidence and promote disinformation to the detriment of democratic outcomes and the public good. (shrink)

The New Evil Demon Problem is meant to show that reliabilism about epistemic justification is incompatible with the intuitive idea that the external-world beliefs of a subject who is the victim of a Cartesian demon could be epistemically justified. Here, I present a new argument that such beliefs can be justified on reliabilism. Whereas others have argued for this conclusion by making some alterations in the formulation of reliabilism, I argue that, as far as the said problem is concerned, such (...) alterations are redundant. No reliabilist should fear the demon. (shrink)

In recent discussions in this journal, Moti Mizrahi defends the claim that knowledge equals epistemic certainty. Howard Sankey finds Mizrahi’s argument to be problematic, since, as he reads it, this would entail that justification must guarantee truth. In this article, I suggest that an account of the normativity of justification is able to bridge the gap between Mizrahi’s proposal and Sankey’s objections.

In “Belief in the Face of Controversy,” Hilary Kornblith argues for a radical form of epistemic modesty: given that there has been no demonstrable cumulativeprogress in the history of philosophy – as there has been in formal logic, math, and science – Kornblith concludes that philosophers do not have the epistemic credibility to be trusted as authorities on the questions they attempt to answer. After reconstructing Kornblith's position, I will suggest that it requires us to adopt a different conception of (...) philosophy's epistemic value. First, I will argue that ‘progress’ has a different meaning in logic, science and philosophy, and that to judge one of these disciplines by the standards appropriate to one of the others obscures the unique epistemic functions of all. Second, I will argue that philosophy is epistemically unique in that it is a non-relativistic but historically determined excavation of foundations. Finally, drawing on Frank Herbert's Dune, I will suggest that Kornblith leaves us with a choice between two epistemic ideals: the hyper-logical ‘Mentat,’ or the historically informed ‘pre-born.’. (shrink)

This paper discusses there is no sustainable theoretical alternative for building knowledge without principles including cooperation –aimed at the preparation and distribution of beliefs– among individuals. This principle helps to conceive both the relation among internalist and externalist theories, and a cognitive explanation based on the concept of epistemic warrant. The concluding remark is that concepts, like evidence or reliability, can only be conceived as skills of subjects belonging to a community.

In this paper, we shall describe and critically evaluate four contemporary theories which attempt to solve the problem of the infinite regress of reasons: BonJour's ‘impure’ coherentism, BonJour's foundationalism, Haack's ‘foundherentism’ and Dancy's pure coherentism. These theories are initially put forward as theories about the justification of our empirical beliefs; however, in fact they also attempt to provide a successful response to the question of their own ‘metajustification.’ Yet, it will be argued that 1) none of the examined theories is (...) successful as a theory of justification of our empirical beliefs, and that 2) they also fall short of being adequate theories of metajustification. It will be further suggested that the failure of these views on justification is not coincidental, but is actually a consequence of deeper and tacitly held problematic epistemological assumptions (namely, the requirements of justificatory generality and epistemic priority), whose acceptance paves the way towards a generalized scepticism about empirical justification. (shrink)

The discipline of knowledge translation (KT) emerged as a way of systematically understanding and addressing the challenges of applying health and medical research in practice. In light of ongoing and emerging critique of KT from the medical humanities and social sciences disciplines, KT researchers have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the translational process, particularly the significance of culture, tradition and values in how scientific evidence is understood and received, and thus increasingly receptive to pluralistic notions of knowledge. Hence, (...) there is now an emerging view of KT as a highly complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological phenomenon, which neither assumes nor creates knowledge hierarchies and neither prescribes nor privileges scientific evidence. Such a view, however, does not guarantee that scientific evidence will be applied in practice and thus poses a significant dilemma for KT regarding its status as a scientific and practice-oriented discipline, particularly within the current sociopolitical climate. Therefore, in response to the ongoing and emerging critique of KT, we argue that KT must provide scope for relevant scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy in public discourse. Such a view is not intended to uphold the privileged status of science nor affirm the “scientific logos” per se. It is proffered as a counterbalance to powerful social, cultural, political and market forces that are able to challenge scientific evidence and promote disinformation to the detriment of democratic outcomes and the public good. (shrink)

That knowledge is factive, that is, that knowledge that p requires that p, has for a long time typically been treated as a truism. Recently, however, some authors have raised doubts about and arguments against this claim. In a recent paper in this journal, Michael Shaffer presents new arguments against the denial of the factivity of knowledge. This article discusses one of Shaffer’s objections: the one from “inconsistency and explosion”. I discuss two potential replies to Shaffer’s problem: dialetheism plus paraconsistency (...) and epistemic pluralism. This is not to be understood so much as a criticism of Shaffer’s view but rather as a request to develop his very promising objection from inconsistency and explosion further. (shrink)

This article addresses three paradoxes of biomimicry. First of all: how can biomimicry be as old as technology as such and at the same time decidedly innovative and new? Secondly: how can biomimicry both entail a 'naturalisation' of technology and a 'technification' of nature? And finally: how can biomimicry be perceived as nature-friendly but at the same time (potentially at least) as a pervasive biotechnological assault on nature? Contemporary (technoscientific) biomimicry, I will argue, aims to mimic nature at the level (...) of biomolecular processes and structures: contemporary biomimicry as micro-biomimicry. Moreover, building on Aristotle, Delbrück and Schrödinger, I will emphasise that what is mimicked by contemporary (technoscientific) biomimicry, in contrast to traditional (artisanal) instances of biomimicry, is not the morphological form (eidos), but rather the program or formula (logos;) of living systems. Contemporary biomimicry is 'in accordance with nature', but not in the traditional sense. Rather, building on decades of biomolecular research, it strives to reconcile nature and technology against the backdrop of advanced technicity. But biomimetics will only achieve its goals if it is not pursued purely as a technological endeavour, but complemented by an ethos of sustainability and respect for nature. These claims will be elucidated with the help of two case studies: a research project (namely the BaSyC project, launched in 2017 and aimed at producing a synthetic cell) and a science novel (namely Ian McEwan's Solar, which concerns the epistemic and moral challenges involved in artificial photosynthesis). (shrink)

Many philosophers agree that there is an epistemic norm governing action. However, they disagree on what this norm is. It has been observed that the word ‘know’ is prominent in ordinary epistemic evaluations of actions. Any opponent of the knowledge norm must provide an explanation of this fact. Gerken has recently proposed the most developed explanation. It invokes the hypothesis that, in normal contexts, knowledge-level warrant is frequently necessary and very frequently sufficient (Normal Coincidence), so that knowledge-based assessments would be (...) a good heuristic for practical reasoning and epistemic evaluations of action. In this paper, I raise three problems for this approach. First, I argue that Normal Coincidence is ad hoc: it relies on an unsupported frequency hypothesis that we should expect to be false given the warrant account that Gerken also endorses. Second, I argue that, in any case, Normal Coincidence is insufficient to support the hypothesis that knowledge-based evaluation of action constitutes a good heuristic. Third, I consider three other hypotheses close to Normal Coincidence apparently more likely to support the heuristic hypothesis, but I argue that they seem even more ad hoc than Normal Coincidence. (shrink)

This paper defends the epistemological importance of ‘diachronic’ or cross-temporal evaluation of epistemic agents against an interesting dilemma posed for this view in Trent Dougherty’s recent paper “Reducing Responsibility.” This is primarily a debate between evidentialists and character epistemologists, and key issues of contention that the paper treats include the divergent functions of synchronic and diachronic (longitudinal) evaluations of agents and their beliefs, the nature and sources of epistemic normativity, and the advantages versus the costs of the evidentialists’ reductionism about (...) sources of epistemic normativity. (shrink)

This paper has two central aims. First, we motivate a puzzle. The puzzle features four independently plausible but jointly inconsistent claims. One of the four claims is the sufficiency leg of the knowledge norm of assertion (KNA-S), according to which one is properly epistemically positioned to assert that p if one knows that p. Second, we propose that rejecting (KNA-S) is the best way out of the puzzle. Our argument to this end appeals to the epistemic value of intellectual humility (...) in social-epistemic practice. (shrink)

I argue that, in an important range of cases, judging that one disagrees with an epistemic peer requires attributing, either to one's peer or to oneself, a failure of rationality. There are limits, however, to how much irrationality one can coherently attribute, either to oneself or to another. I argue that these limitations on the coherent attribution of rational error put constraints on permissible responses to peer disagreement. In particular, they provide reason to respond to one-off disagreements with a single (...) peer by maintaining one's beliefs, and they provide reason to moderate one's beliefs when faced with repeated disagreement, or disagreement with multiple peers. Finally, I argue that, though peer disagreement is rare, the occasions on which it does occur tend to be especially important, and the kind of response supported here is correspondingly important. In particular, how leading researchers spend their time and effort depends, in part, on how they respond to peer disagreement. And only a response of the kind supported here strikes the right balance between allowing individual researchers to freely pursue what seems to them to be worthwhile projects, and requiring that they pursue those research projects that the community of experts as a whole believes to be likely to yield significant results. (shrink)