Watson’s monograph, The Right to Know: Epistemic Rights and Why We Need Them, clearly, succinctly and deftly introduces the notion of the right to know or epistemic rights to the epistemology literature. She does this partly by connecting the conclusions and theoretical motives of the moral and legal rights literature to the epistemology literature. In part, motivated by this book’s great value, I present two objections to some of the book’s central claims. The first objection is that there is tension (...) between (i) the book’s claim that information distribution is a basic epistemic duty that epistemic rights generate and (ii) the book’s claim that epistemic rights are complied with if subjects receive epistemic goods such as understanding and knowledge that respect their final value. The second objection is that the dyadic nature of Watson’s account of epistemic rights violation does not comport with plausible cases in which non-dominant groups’ epistemic rights have been violated and as a consequence the book’s claim that epistemic rights provide those who wield them an especially forceful rhetorical tool requires further motivation. (shrink)

Herman Cappelen’s book The Concept of Democracy makes a case for ‘abolitionism’, that is, abandonment of the word ‘democracy’ and related terminology (‘D-words’). Cappelen’s strategy includes a direct argument for abandonment, aiming to show that D-words are meaningless; and an indirect argument, based on a comparison of abandonment with other options (for instance, replacement or amelioration). In this critical notice, I focus on his comparative case, arguing that the competing options and their respective challenges are not so well demarcated—where this (...) negatively affects the abandonment proposal. Furthermore, I present and defend a yet unexplored alternative: awareness. Awareness is a worthy candidate for its little costs and significant benefits in comparison to abandonment, thus deserving consideration alongside the options assessed by Cappelen. (shrink)

The cut-free validity theory $$\textsf{STV}$$ proposed by Barrio, Rosenblatt, and Tajer suffers from incompleteness with respect to its object language validity predicate. The validity predicate of $$\textsf{STV}$$ fails in validating some valid inferences of its underlying logic, the Strict Tolerant logic $$\textsf{ST}$$. In this paper, we will present the non-normal modal logic $$\textsf{ST}^{\Box \Diamond }$$ whose modalities $$\Box $$ and $$\Diamond $$ capture the tautologies/valid inferences and the consistent formulas of the logic $$\textsf{ST}$$, respectively. We show that $$\textsf{ST}^{\Box \Diamond }$$ (...) does not trivialize when extended with self-referential devices. We also show that such a solution poses a dilemma. If we extend $$\textsf{ST}^{\Box \Diamond }$$ in such a way that it allows iterated modal formulas among its theorems, then the resulting interpretation of $$\Box $$ as validity implies that metametainferences of $$\textsf{ST}$$ behave like classical logic. On the other hand, if we allow these modalities to receive intermediate truth values, we obtain formulas incompatible with the proposed reading of $$\Box $$. (shrink)

This is a précis of my recent monograph John McDowell on Worldly Subjectivity: Oxford Kantianism Meets Phenomenology and Cognitive Sciences. I first describe the key question the book is trying to answer via understanding McDowell’s thinking and the general outline of it. The key question is a Kantian how-possible question, and the outline includes the distinction between first and second nature, the contrast between Cogito and Homo sapience, and how a minded human animal can be a perceiver, knower, thinker, speaker, (...) agent, person, and conceptual cum self-conscious being in the world. I then focus on two key notions of the subtitles—phenomenology and cognitive sciences—and explain how they figure in the text. After that, a chapter-by-chapter summary is provided, albeit selectively. This introductory piece ends with a prediction that McDowell’s works will still be widely discussed in the reasonable distant future. (shrink)

This essay defends an account of what things are assessable for reasonableness and why. On this account, something is assessable for reasonableness if and only if and because it is the functional effect of critical reasoning.

In ‘Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’, we develop a novel account of how it is that AI can be trustworthy and what it takes for an AI to be trustworthy. In this paper, we respond to a suite of recent comments on this account, due to J. Adam Carter, Dong-yong Choi, Rune Nyrup, and Fei Song. We would like to thank all four for their thoughtful engagement with our work, as well as the Asian Journal of Philosophy for publishing the symposium on (...) our paper. The game plan for the paper is as follows. We will first briefly rehearse the account and then respond to comments in turn. (shrink)

I shall discuss Han’s analysis of the necessity of origin theses. His analysis comes in two parts. The negative part argues that well-known Kripkean arguments leave an inferential gap, thus falling short of establishing the necessity of origin theses. The positive part contends that the gap can only be bridged by Aristotelian metaphysics of essence and causation. I shall critically examine both the negative and positive parts of Han’s analysis.

In The Knowledge Machine, Michael Strevens challenges traditional views of the scientific method and defends the “iron rule of explanation.” This commentary introduces an evolutionary game perspective to explore the emergence and sustainability of the iron rule. Modeling the dynamics of theory-competing strategies in a population of theorists demonstrates that whether following the iron rule is rational depends on the frequency of iron-rule players one encounters. The study suggests that the social constraints of localized networks for iron-rule followers are critical (...) factors in transitioning from a philosophical-dispute equilibrium to a scientific-dispute equilibrium. (shrink)

This paper critically engages with the arguments for the meaninglessness of ‘democracy’ and for abandoning use of that word, in Herman Cappelen’s book The Concept of Democracy. It explaining the distinctive nature of Cappelen’s style of argument for abandoning a word. It argues against Cappelen’s case for the meaninglessness of ‘democracy’ and its cognates. It explores an important unclarity in the sort of ethical thesis Cappelen wants to defend in this book. Finally, it suggests that Cappelen’s argument for abandoning ‘democracy’ (...) retains some force despite the criticisms raised. (shrink)

This article provides a critical analysis of Justin Remhof’s attempt to defend the view that Nietzsche is best understood as a metaphysician.

This paper is a contribution to a symposium on Herman Cappelen’s 2023 book The Concept of Democracy: An Essay on Conceptual Amelioration and Abandonment. In that book, Cappelen develops a theory of abandonment—a theory of why and how to completely stop using particular linguistic expressions—and then uses that theory to argue for the general abandonment of the words “democracy” and “democratic”. In this paper, I critically discuss Cappelen’s arguments for the abandonment of “democracy” and “democratic” in political theory specifically.

Logical Empiricism as Scientific Philosophy offers a new account of the philosophical significance of logical empiricism that relies on the past forty years of literature reassessing the project. It argues that while logical empiricism was committed to empiricism and did become tied to the trajectory of analytic philosophy, neither empiricism nor logical analysis per se was the deepest philosophical commitment of logical empiricism. That commitment was, rather, securing the scientific status of philosophy, bringing philosophy into a scientific conception of the (...) world. (shrink)

In “A New Problem for Kripkean Defenses of Origin Theses”, Sungil Han calls attention to a gap between the negative conclusions of arguments for origin essentialism (claims to the effect that a given thing could not originate in a certain way), and the positive conclusions one might hope for (claims to the effect that a given thing must originate in a certain way if it exists at all). Han proposes a way of bridging the gap. While I agree with Han (...) that there is indeed such a gap, there is an important difference in what Han and I take the negative claims of Kripke(ans) to be. As a result, I propose a bridge that is significantly different from his. I argue that my approach is superior to Han’s. (shrink)

This paper argues that a wise person is an intellectually virtuous person. The intellectual virtue requirement is explained as a necessary condition for wisdom, intuitively the highest epistemic good. This provides an answer to Duncan Pritchard’s question as to the significance of the intellectual virtues for the epistemological project. In other words, the requirement explains why the intellectual virtues are central to the concerns of epistemology. The paper starts by providing an overview of intellectual virtue. An overview of recent analytic (...) philosophical literature on wisdom is set out. This discussion leads to the claim that the wise person understands how to live well. The claim that intellectual virtues are required for understanding how to live well is then examined. The case is made that understanding how to live well in a modally robust way requires possession of the intellectual virtues. (shrink)

Although shame is not listed in Ekman’s (1999) basic emotions, it is recognized by many psychologists as one of the universal human emotions observed across different cultures throughout the world as a secondary self-conscious emotion (self-critical awareness of one’s social reputation) (Tangney et al., in Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372, 2007). However, there are culturally specific forms and words of shame that can pose a serious challenge to cross-linguistic communication. I will categorize different forms of shame and discuss if (...) there exist any incomparable or incompatible notions of shame in Korean and Japanese cultures. I will argue that there are at least three semantic categories in Korean and Japanese words of shame. However, one of the semantic categories of Korean shame words represents a unique notion of shame (an inner sense or disposition of morality) which is not fully or properly translated into the Japanese words of shame. Therefore, shame provides an intriguing case of culturally en-formed emotions, emotions that are developed in particular cultural environments. This type of culturally embedded semantic difference seems to be persistent or perhaps pervasive even between closely related cultures such as Korean and Japanese cultures with many comparable social practices and linguistic characteristics. The current study shows that cultural variance and semantic incomparability (although they do not necessarily demonstrate fundamental cultural relativity or radical incommensurability between different linguistic or conceptual systems) can affect cross-linguistic communication and cause, in certain contexts, cross-linguistic disagreement. (shrink)

Jakob Ohlhorst’s Trust Responsibly develops a dual process, virtue-theoretic answer to a crucial challenge to hinge epistemology, the so-called “demarcation problem” of distinguishing epistemically good from epistemically bad hinges. The book is packed with insightful ideas about many epistemological issues, offering carefully crafted arguments for a picture of knowledge that merges in an extremely attractive way hinge epistemology, virtue epistemology, and dual process theory. In this contribution to the book symposium on Trust Responsibly, I focus on Ohlhorst’s characterisation of cornerstone (...) propositions, his take on epistemic alchemy, and the internalist credentials of his answer to the sceptical challenge, raising some worries about these aspects of his account. (shrink)

This paper uses the notion of Natural Kinds to defend the “scientific” character of Marxian economics as a discipline. Drawing from Saul Kripke and other natural kind theorists, a criterion will be supplied that is at once logical, modal, semantic, ontological, and empirical. This would represent an encapsulation of the intuitive standards around which different economic theories compete, representing a theory-indistinct target that all scientific claims of economics aim to hit. We will demonstrate this using the case example of the (...) work of Marx. This procedure could be repeated with any contending economic theory, giving us a theory-neutral condition for evaluating the “scientific” status of economic claims. Three results follow: (a) we get a logical framework for defining the validity-space of claims that would make up “economics;” (b) we get a tool for comparing varying economic claims or theories against one another, a tool that could be used with many others; and (c) we will see how counter to some theorists, economics does in fact represent a Natural Kind. (shrink)

In psychology, the principle of “Behaviorism” has a negative connotation. The ascription of the philosophical stance as “behaviorist” is usually nuanced with criticism, and those labeled behaviorists often deny it (For example, Gallagher says, “But then, a surprise! Barrett also wants to recruit the behaviorists, and specifically, B. F. Skinner. Is this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” type of strategy? Can we maintain peace within our own ranks if we mix phenomenologist with behaviorists?” (Gallagher, Philosophical Studies, 176(3), (...) 839-851, 2019 p. 841)). However, some recent re-evaluations have rescued Behaviorism by indicating that these arguments were based on a caricatured view. This study further argues a point of agreement in their fundamental concept of “behavior” and “action,” leading to a more productive relationship, in three steps. First, it starts with an overview of the development of Behaviorism. This step identifies that the concept of “behavior” in the sense of contemporary Behaviorism has interactive properties between an agent and the environment instead of mere physical movements, which can be summarized in two key features: modern Behaviorism understands behavior (1) in relation to subsequent events and (2) as inseparable from mental phenomena, which is discussed in usual cognitive science; it also understands mental phenomena as something observable in behaviors (Sect. 1). Next, we demonstrate that some of the distorted criticism of Behaviorism arises due to a lack of understanding of behavior (Sect. 2). It is revealed that the characterization as Behaviorism per se should be value-neutral once the behavior concept is accurately articulated. Finally, Sects. 3 and 4 shed light on the approach taken by enactivists in their treatment of actions, aligning them with the concept of behavior. It will be contended that these theories exhibit the presence of two characteristics previously outlined within Behaviorism. (shrink)

Alan Richardson’s short book on the history and significance of logical empiricism not only illuminates the importance of logical empiricists’ projects, but also tells us something useful about the ways we choose to do philosophy in the first place. The book’s primary task is providing us with a critical re-evaluation of the legacy of logical empiricism; in doing so, it raises several important metaphilosophical questions. In this article, I will outline three such issues that I think Richardson’s piece brings out (...) and consider some of their impacts on philosophical practice. First, there is the question of philosophical canons and how we teach the history of philosophy. A second related question is how we classify and understand philosophical positions and movements. And the last question I will discuss through logical empiricism is the extent to which we should and can view academic work as morally and politically neutral. (shrink)

In The Right to Know: Epistemic Rights and Why We Need Them (Routledge, 2021), Lani Watson comprehensively examines the right to know and other epistemic rights, that is, rights to goods such as information, knowledge and truth. These rights, she suggests, play a key role in society today, but we often do not attend to them in the way that we should. She draws our attention to these rights, illustrating their importance using a range of examples from medicine, politics and (...) law, and she articulates a philosophical account of these rights. Her concise but book-length treatment of the topic is clear, accessible and rigorous. This is a considerable achievement, and I find Watson’s treatment of epistemic rights to be illuminating. I do wish she would say more to expand on her discussion of certain points, but overall, she succeeds in her project to shed light on an important but underdiscussed topic. In this critical contribution, I summarize her book and then raise three questions about her discussion. First, does Watson adopt a workable conception of law and morality, given her characterization of who can have epistemic rights? Second, does the law support Watson’s conception of epistemic rights and duties, as she claims it does? Third, does Watson focus on the harm-related rationale for epistemic rights to the apparent exclusion of other rationales? (shrink)