This paper provide the first extended discussion in the philosophical literature of the epistemic significance of the phenomenon of “being known” and the relationship it has to reparations that are distinctively epistemic. Drawing on a framework provided by the United Nations of the “right to know,” it is argued that victims of gross violations and injustices not only have the right to know what happened, but also the right to be known—to be a giver of knowledge to others (...) about their own experiences. It is shown that such victims can suffer epistemic wrongs by being rendered invisible, vilified or demonized, or systematically distorted, and that these ways of not being known demand epistemic reparations. While there are traditional reparations that are epistemic in nature, such as memorialization and education, it is argued that there is a prior and arguably more important epistemic reparation—knowing victims of gross violations and injustices in the sense of bearing witness. The paper concludes with a sketch of an epistemological picture to underwrite this notion of epistemic reparations, one that significantly expands the traditional picture by including epistemic duties that are imperfect in nature and concern actions in addition to beliefs. (shrink)

THIS PUBLICATION IS AVAILABLE OPEN ACCESS. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights acknowledges the Right to Know as part of state obligations to combat impunity and thereby protect and promote human rights in the aftermath of “serious crimes under international law”. In light of such an institutionally acknowledged epistemic right of victims, this paper explores the normative foundations of the idea of epistemic reparation in the aftermath of genocide. I argue that such epistemic reparation (...) requires not only fulfilment of the informational needs of victims, survivors and descendants, including access to knowledge about the violations. By taking into account epistemic injuries, which are part and parcel of genocide, it ought to also re-establish victims’ epistemic standing. This is because genocide is enabled, justified and even prescribed through a genocidal epistemology involving the propagation of falsehoods and misinformation about social reality as well as abuses of epistemic authority and epistemic authoritarianism. Hence, epistemic reparation ought to correct the dysfunctional epistemic practices that underlie and sustain a genocidal epistemology. It thereby provides victims, survivors and descendants with epistemic recognition that has been systematically withdrawn from them, making epistemic reparation a crucial element of restorative justice. (shrink)

The topic of epistemic injustice in global health ethics is complex, important and vast. While presenting as nuanced and complete a picture of the challenge as we possibly could, we were acutely aware of our positionality and how it gave us a certain viewpoint that would need to be expanded by others with different positions and experiences. We were, therefore, delighted to receive the collected commentaries by Atuire,1 Abimbola,2 Frimpong-Mansoh,3 Nyamnjoh and Ewuoso,4 Tangwa,5 Ambrogi et al.6 We would like (...) to thank these authors for furthering our account by raising questions, pointing out gaps or complementing our analysis. The points raised by these authors—and many points that will undoubtedly be raised by others in future—should be critically engaged with as we collectively define and work towards a more epistemically just global health ethics. Specifically, two points stand out. First, Frimpong-Mansoh accurately diagnoses our ambiguity about being drawn into debates about relativism in bioethics. We …. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: Prelude -- Introduction -- Part I: A Cabinet of Diversity -- 1. Object 1: Diversity Doesn't Work? -- 2. Object 2: Dominance -- 3. Object 3: From Wunderkammner to the Majors -- 4. Object 4: Patrol/Willy -- 5. Object 5: Accumulation/Difference that Makes No Difference -- 6. Object 6: Colorblindness/Federalist Paper no.6 -- 7. Object 7: Partition/No. 76-811: A Grievance Not of Their Making -- 8. Object 8: The Morrill Acts: "The Land Grab University" -- 9. (...) Afterthoughts -- Part II: The Constellation of Reparation -- 10. Star 1: Attempted Remedies -- 11. Star 2: Outlines of Epistemic Reparation -- 12. Star 3: How is a University like a Light Switch? -- 13. Afterthoughts -- Part III: Reparative Endeavors -- 14. Thread 1: Why Poetics? -- 15. Thread 2: Breath-Taking Landscapes: Place based interventions -- 16. Thread 3: Counter-space as the dramatization of a poetics of refusal -- 17. Thread 4: Gates/Gatekeeping -- 18. Thread 5: Unraveling Patrol -- 19. Thread 6: From Rank to Rhizome -- 20. Afterthoughts -- Acknowledgements -- Bibliography -- Notes -- Index. (shrink)

Some people in global health are systematically subjected to epistemic wrongs, harms and injustices. And sometimes, with these epistemic wrongs, come more fundamental harms to their sense of self or dignity. -/- Each person has a moral right not to be treated as inferior. This moral right has found different forms of protection under dignity-based mechanisms. But these mechanisms do not extend, at least not explicitly, to epistemic wrongs, harms and injustices. -/- This article tries to pave (...) the way for a dignity-based approach to epistemic repair in global health, specifically through the lens of human rights. (shrink)

George Schedler raises interesting issues with regard to the amount of reparations owed for slavery, the parties who are owed reparations, and the standard for these reparations. His arguments, however, do not hold up upon analysis. His analysis of the case for the descendants of slaves being owed compensation seriously overestimates the case for such reparations. He does not identify the grounds for such compensation, i.e., either stolen inheritance or the descendants’ trustee-like control over the slave’s estate, and this results (...) in his not identifying the metaphysical and epistemic problems that accompany the descendants’ claim to reparations. In analyzing whether the U.S. government owes compensation, Schedler provides arguments based on its small role in bringing about slavery and the break in national identity that followed the Civil War. Such arguments fail but his conclusion can be supported by other arguments, specifically the nature of the federal government’s relation to slavery and the limited nature of its powers. Thus, the case against reparations is overwhelming but not for the reasons Schedler provides. (shrink)

This article considers how institutions of higher education participated in the national “racial reckoning” that followed the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. Using the work of Pan-Africanist jurist Motsoko Pheko, memoirist Sisonke Msimang, poet Audre Lorde, and Black queer feminist critics Tiffany Willoughby-Herard and M. Jacqui Alexander, the authors reflect on the principled research practices and ethos that catalyze sustainable repair. Durable forms of repair include reconnecting the feeling body with the knowing self, stillness, and tarrying. The authors (...) (two doctoral students and a professor colleague) also consider repair through attention to the material conditions of knowledge production (collaborative writing, reclaiming the sacred, and questioning what it means to make something whole without reproducing a singular dominating episteme) to disrupt academic hierarchies. Arguing that repairing society, the planet, or the ways that questions are asked and answered requires ongoing wrestling with our current climate of racial terror in higher education, this article embodies the authors’ reparative principles and envisions paths towards educational justice. (shrink)

What kind of moral principle could be sufficiently restrictive to avoid the kind of large-scale risks that have resulted in catastrophe in the past, while at the same time not be so restrictive as to halt desirable progress? Is there such a principle that is not merely a precautionary principle, but one that could be based on firm moral grounds? In this article, I set out to explore a simple idea: might it be the case that reparability could serve as (...) a moral constraint against risky policy decisions? The idea is simple, but comes in two forms. First, that it is morally wrong to impose a risk for harm that is, in principle, irreparable, such that it would bring about a permanent loss of a kind qua kind. Second, that it is morally wrong to impose a risk for a reparable (but not compensable) harm that exceeds what realistically could be repaired. I set out here to do two things. First, I describe the moral problem to be addressed for any principle-guiding decisions about risk. A central claim in this article is that risk decisions are epistemically impaired decisions, and that we must, alongside outcome uncertainty, also take both epistemic uncertainty and moral uncertainty into account. Second, I introduce the idea of reparability as a moral constraint in the form of two versions of the Reparability Principle. Such a principle, I argue, could have some interesting advantages that seem both morally intuitive and that come with some advantages against some of the epistemic challenges posed by risk impositions. (shrink)

Slavery harmed the slaves but not their descendants since slavery brought about their existence. The descendants gain the slaves’ claims via inheritance. However, collecting the inheritance-based claim runs into a number of difficulties. First, every descendant usually has no more than a portion of the slave’s claim because the claim is often divided over generations. Second, there are epistemic difficulties involving the ownership of the claim since it is unlikely that a descendant of a slave several generations removed would (...) have retained the claim of inheritance given the loss of wealth and disinheritance that often characterizes families. There are also problems in determining the amount of inheritance. This is in part because of the problems of calculating in the effects of offsets, especially crime-related offsets, which are owed by a significant portion of the descendants. Even if this inheritance claim can be established with sufficient confidence certain entities may not be asked to pay it. The federal government does not owe compensation since as a historical matter it permitted but did not cause enslavement. The beneficiaries of slavery do not owe compensation since merely receiving the benefit of an unjust activity does not by itself generate a debt of compensation. When combined these problems constitute an overwhelming case against reparations. (shrink)

Recent works by feminist and social epistemologists have carefully mapped the contours of epistemic injustice, including gaslighting and prejudicial credibility deficits, prejudicial credibility excesses, willful hermeneutical ignorance, discursive injustices, contributory injustice, and epistemic exploitation. As we look at this burgeoning literature, attention has been concentrated mainly in four areas in descending order of emphasis: phenomena of epistemic injustice themselves, including the nature of wrongdoings involved, attendant consequences and repercussions, individual and structural changes for prevention or mitigation, and (...) restorative, restitutive, or retributive responses. This project urges greater attention to the last of these, and to that end offers a relational approach to epistemic justice drawing upon Margaret Walker’s work on moral repair and reparative justice. In developing and enacting better epistemic practices, how can such practices be made meaningfully restorative: not only recognizing the prospects for epistemic improvement, but responding to the perpetration and experience of epistemic injustice with effective epistemic amelioration? (shrink)

Misgendering is perceived as the use of incorrect pronouns and gender categories when addressing Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming people. This common habit is widely observed in reports, surveys and assessments, where the pressures to comply with a binary understanding of gender are high and alternative options for self-identification are not frequently offered. The present study reads misgendering as a manifestation of epistemic injustice, and uses resources from Science, Technology and Society Studies in order to highlight the importance of situated (...) perspectives on the matter. After being analysed as a commonplace microaggression, misgendering is conceptualised as an act of structural hermeneutical marginalisation that is not usually intentional but product of society’s lack of sensibility towards gender diversity. Finally, a reparative approach against misgendering is offered through the Gender Fair Language model, which involves relational and situated contributions in order to prevent already marginalised people and experiences from being further excluded. (shrink)

Unlike other kinds of theories of justice, reparatory justice can only be negatively defined, in non-ideal contexts in which initial wrongs had already been committed. For one, what counts and what does not count as wrongdoing or as an unjust state of affairs resulted from that wrongdoing depends on the normative framework upon which a theorist relies. Furthermore, the measures undertaken for alleviating historical injustices can be assessed only from the vantage point of other, independent normative considerations. In the present (...) paper I argue that this lack of substance is a feature that, far from being problematic, is what makes reparatory justice attractive. The specific example that I put forward is that of a reparatory justice account which seeks to instantiate the desiderata of a sufficientarian theory of justice. At first, distributive justice fills the content of reparatory justice, specifying up to what level reparations in-kind or compensatory measure should go. Afterwards, reparatory justice clarifies and provides epistemic inputs for distributive justice. Reparatory justice thus becomes an epistemic source for distributive justice, in that it provides the means for assessing whether someone’s level of well-being can be traced to her choice or to a wider, historically-sensitive operationalization of her “circumstances”. (shrink)

In this paper we reflect upon our multi-year reading group as a site of decolonial feminist praxis that motivates reading in a different register from how we were trained to read as academics in the humanities. In collaborative study we willingly open ourselves to change, to being worked on by one another and by the texts we read. Our reading together has initiated the undoing of settler colonial academic subjectivity and the co-creation of new forms of scholarly subjectivity grounded in (...) relations of care, openness to transformation, and a growing commitment to epistemic justice. In giving an account of our group history and process we reflect on our complicities with settler-colonialism in the university and consider the ways that reading together has cultivated our capacities to listen to counter-narratives, formulate institutional and self critique, and engage in epistemic reparations. (shrink)

In this paper we reflect upon our multi-year reading group as a site of decolonial feminist praxis that motivates reading in a different register from how we were trained to read as academics in the humanities. In collaborative study we willingly open ourselves to change, to being worked on by one another and by the texts we read. Our reading together has initiated the undoing of settler colonial academic subjectivity and the co-creation of new forms of scholarly subjectivity grounded in (...) relations of care, openness to transformation, and a growing commitment to epistemic justice. In giving an account of our group history and process we reflect on our complicities with settler-colonialism in the university and consider the ways that reading together has cultivated our capacities to listen to counter-narratives, formulate institutional and self critique, and engage in epistemic reparations. (shrink)

Anger gaslighting is behavior that tends to make someone doubt herself about her anger. In this paper, I analyze the case of anger gaslighting, using it as a paradigm case to argue that gaslighting can be an affective injustice (not only an epistemic one). Drawing on Marilyn Frye, I introduce the concept of “uptake” as a tool for identifying anger gaslighting behavior (persistent, pervasive uptake refusal for apt anger). But I also demonstrate the larger significance of uptake in the (...) study of affective injustice: just as the concept of credibility names the epistemic behavior whereby we take someone seriously as an epistemic being, the concept of uptake names the uniquely affective cooperative behavior whereby we take someone seriously as an affective being. I answer Miranda Fricker’s epistemic notion of a prejudicial credibility economy with the affective notion of prejudicial uptake economies: uptake, like credibility, can be produced in a deficit for one social group relative to a surplus for another. Deviating from the parallels with Fricker, for whom the injustice of epistemic injustice is due to prejudice in the motives or character of individuals, as well as from accounts that ground it in aptness or affective goods, I suggest that the injustice of anger gaslighting behavior can be located at the structural scale of power relationships between social groups, in the tradition of Iris Marion Young. Anger gaslighting behavior counts as unjust wherever it (re)produces prejudicial uptake economies. Adapting sociological concepts of feeling rules and the emotion work they demand, I introduce the concepts of “uptake rules” and “uptake work” to further enable analysis of uptake economies as affective social structures, and to suggest a site for resistant or reparative affective agency. (shrink)

This article aims to refute the “incompatibility thesis” that nationalism is incompatible with transnational feminist solidarity, as it fosters exclusionary practices, xenophobia, and racism among feminists with conflicting nationalist aspirations. I examine the plausibility of the incompatibility thesis by focusing on the controversy regarding just reparation for Second World War “comfort women,” which is still unresolved. The Korean Council at the center of this controversy, which advocates for the rights of Korean former comfort women, has been criticized for its (...) strident nationalism and held responsible for the stalemate. Consequently, the case of comfort women has been thought to exemplify the incompatibility thesis. I argue against this common feminist perception in three ways: first, those who subscribe to the incompatibility thesis have misinterpreted facts surrounding the issue; second, the Korean Council's nationalism is a version of “polycentric nationalism,” which avoids the problems of essentialist nationalism at the center of feminist concerns; and, third, transnational feminist solidarity is predicated on the idea of oppressed/marginalized women's epistemic privilege and enjoins that feminists respect oppressed/marginalized women's epistemic privilege. To the extent that oppressed/marginalized women's voices are expressed in nationalist terms, I argue that feminists committed to transnational feminist solidarity must accommodate their nationalism. (shrink)

Philosophical reflections on the environment began with early philosophers' invocation of a cosmology that mixed natural and supernatural phenomena. Today, the central philosophical problem posed by the environment involves not what it can teach us about ourselves and our place in the cosmic order but rather how we can understand its workings in order to make better decisions about our own conduct regarding it. The resulting inquiry spans different areas of contemporary philosophy, many of which are represented by the fifteen (...) original essays in this volume. The contributors first consider conceptual problems generated by rapid advances in biology and ecology, examining such topics as ecological communities, adaptation, and scientific consensus. The contributors then turn to epistemic and axiological issues, first considering philosophical aspects of environmental decision making and then assessing particular environmental policies, including reparations, remediation, and nuclear power, from a normative perspective. (shrink)

Recently, I have proposed an extension of the framework of the ethics of collegiality (Berber & Subotić, forthcoming). By incorporating an anti-individual perspective and the notion of epistemic competence, this framework can reveal the epistemic virtue/vice relativism, which, in turn, charts the tension between being a good colleague and an efficient, loyal employee. In this paper, however, I want to sketch how the ethics of collegiality could be applied to practical domains, such as the historical accountability and atonement (...) of corporations that participated in the anti-Semitic policies of the Third Reich and contributed to the Holocaust by using slave or forced labor. New studies suggest that corporations ought to engage in deeper historical reflection and ethical dialogue between Shoah survivors and top managers to address the issue of industrial compliance (Federman 2021), whereas most of the work on this topic traditionally focused on the issue of reparations litigation (Kelly 2016, Neuborne 2003). Through the notions of collective institutional epistemic vice and institutional ethos (Fricker 2021), the upshot is to assess whether it is feasible for corporations to be genuinely repentant regarding their role in the Holocaust thanks to the ethics of collegiality instead of merely offering compensation. I will argue that instead of emphasizing ethical leadership and the top-down approach to the (re-)implementation of values in corporate conduct, the spotlights should be on the bottom-up approach grounded in collegial solidarity among all employees. (shrink)

I argue for responsibility internalism. That is, moral responsibility (i.e., accountability, or being apt for praise or blame) depends only on factors internal to agents. Employing this view, I also argue that no one is responsible for what AI does but this isn’t morally problematic in a way that counts against developing or using AI. Responsibility is grounded in three potential conditions: the control (or freedom) condition, the epistemic (or awareness) condition, and the causal responsibility condition (or consequences). I (...) argue that causal responsibility is irrelevant for moral responsibility, and that the control condition and the epistemic condition depend only on factors internal to agents. Moreover, since what AI does is at best a consequence of our actions, and the consequences of our actions are irrelevant to our responsibility, no one is responsible for what AI does. That is, the so-called responsibility gap exits. However, this isn’t morally worrisome for developing or using AI. Firstly, I argue, current AI doesn’t generate a new kind of concern about responsibility that the older technologies don’t. Then, I argue that responsibility gap is not worrisome because neither responsibility gap, nor my argument for its existence, entails that no one can be justly punished, held accountable, or incurs duties in reparations when AI causes a harm. (shrink)

The concept of knowledge (science) plays a central role in the work of early modern proto-feminist philosopher Gabrielle Suchon. Nevertheless, there has been no comprehensive treatment of her epistemology. This article offers the first extended analysis of Suchon’s theory of knowledge and describes the role of that theory in her arguments for the equality of men and women. I argue that Suchon combines an Aristotelian theory of knowledge and its place in the best life of contemplation with an Augustinian narrative (...) of the Fall to conclude that women's happiness is unjustly compromised as a result of their exclusion from the very institutions that would allow them to accomplish an essentially human task: the reparative labor of learning. I argue further that Suchon’s theory of knowledge deserves greater attention as a distinctive contribution to early modern epistemology. Suchon’s melding of Aristotelian epistemology with an Augustinian narrative of the epistemic consequences of original sin allows her to construe intellectual labor as key to the rectification of the fallen human mind. Through this emphasis on the moral value of intellectual labor, Suchon’s epistemology offers distinctive social and political implications, namely the reform of institutions that exclude women from the process of learning. (shrink)

The United States has rejected climate reparations requests from other nations by claiming historical ignorance of the global effects of anthropogenic climate change. This objection to climate reparations, called the epistemic objection in this paper, appeals to a concept of fairness concerning moral responsibility which can be traced back to Aristotle's distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions. However, on closer examination, the epistemic objection fails to fulfill Aristotle's criteria for excusable involuntary actions, and therefore the authors of this (...) paper conclude that claims of ignorance concerning climate change do not provide a substantial objection to climate reparation requests. (shrink)

Within current trends in cultural and narrative Victimology, the role of direct and indirect victims’ narrative testimonies is highlighted considering the limits of scientific knowledge to transmit and understand victims’ experiences across time in relation to the social processes of victimisation and reparation. Through the selection of some excerpts of open narratives, as examples of those experiences, within and outside Spain, this text explores some parallelisms and differences in the stories of victims of terrorism and victims of other serious (...) crimes, in terms of a critical interpretation of the concepts of epistemic justice and resilience, both understood under interdisciplinarity. (shrink)

In recent years several philosophers have argued that there is an irreducibly interpersonal dimension to the epistemology of testimony. I here revisit the account of testimony that I offered in Testimony, Trust, and Authority and explore some of its broader ethical and political implications. On the account that I propose, there is a deep parallel between the way in which the testimony of epistemic authorities impacts on the agency that we exercise in settling theoretical questions and the way in (...) which the directives of practical authorities impact on the agency that we exercise in settling practical questions. This sheds light both on the way in which the testimony of victims of violence, oppression, and discrimination can have a reparative power that outstrips its probative value and on the anxiety that victims can feel about the very possibility of being believed. To be believed is to be granted the power to settle theoretical questions for others, a power that can restore a sense of agency that was damaged by violence or oppression. But in the wake of the dehumanizing effects of such oppression, this is a power that victims can feel unable to exercise, especially when their testimony concerns events that are difficult for their addressees to face or comprehend. In such cases, even non-culpable lack of comprehension from addressees can render victims unable to exercise a basic form of human agency. (shrink)

This chapter addresses a general question: What is responsible risking? It explores the notion of "responsible risking" as a thick moral concept, and it argues that the notion can be given moral content that could be action-guiding and add an important tool to our moral toolbox. To impose risks responsibly, on this view, is to take on responsibility in a good way. A core part of responsible risking, this chapter argues, is some version of a Forethought Condition. Such a condition (...) requires us to not make decisions or plans such that we could not deliver on our responsibility obligations. This chapter argues that three moral obligations can be derived from descriptive notions of responsibility. They are (1) the control condition, (2) the responsibility to fix condition, and (3) the responsibility to explain condition. The idea is that in order to impose risks responsibly we ought not act in ways that undermine our ability to remain in control over the risks, undermine our ability to sort out negative outcomes by reparations or compensation, or undermine our prospects of providing an explanation for our actions that also makes sense in hindsight and to those affected. This idea is then tried out on the case of germline gene editing. It is argued that such a moral notion of responsibility is also action-guiding when we do not know for certain what is the morally right or obligatory action all-things-considered due to epistemic gaps. (shrink)

Enduring social inequalities in settler colonial societies are not an accident. They are produced and maintained by the self-repairing structural features and dynastic character of systemic racism and its intersecting oppressions. Using methods from diverse anticolonial liberation movements and systems theory, Structural Violence theorizes the existence of adaptive and self-replicating historical formations that underwrite cultures of violence in settler colonial societies. Corresponding epistemic forces tied to profit and wealth accumulation for beneficiary groups often go untracked. The account offered here (...) argues that these epistemic forces play a central role in producing and maintaining massive health inequalities and the maldistribution of disease burdens―including those associated with sexual violence―for marginalized populations. It upends the widespread view that structural racism can be dismantled without addressing gendered violence. It also advocates for a theory of change rooted in reparative action and models of structural competency that respond to the built-in design of structural violence and the ecosystems of impunity that allow it to thrive. (shrink)

The relationship between traditional and scientific ecological knowledge is a dynamic one. Consider the use of fire in land management. In the 1910s and 1920s, Aldo Leopold and other US foresters dismissively campaigned against burning as 'Paiute forestry', denigrating and driving out indigenous land management as though it had never existed, as though there was no credible ecological knowledge proir to settlement. Fire suppression as a longstanding policy across the US and Canada not only failed in reading historical tribal burning (...) practices and in applying that knowledge to settler resource management, but also systematically undercut tribal ecological knowledge. A century later, scientists and restorationists are coming to better understand the dangers of fire suppression, benefits of burns, and the fact that these are not really new insights but epistemically marginalized ones. If prescribed burning is a complex assemblage of epistemic practices, and settler-colonial reactions have perpetrated epistemic injustices against indigenous peoples, how can modern (tribal, settler, and collaborative) burning practices and policies be better? In this project, I offer a close reading of early 20th Century light-burning debates, with a particular focus on Leopold’s characterizations of indigenous ecological knowledge. I then turn to critically evaluate several 21st Century prescribed burn projects and policies for their reparative potential in both social-ecological and social-epistemic terms. (shrink)

Epistemic injustice has become one of the most widely discussed topics in social epistemology, and has revived interest in issues in the intersections between epistemology and ethics and political philosophy. Much of the impetus for this recent explosion of interest has been the influential work of Miranda Fricker; however, Fricker’s framework and terminology for discussing the phenomena and the kinds of examples she’s interested in has not always been cleanly separated from the phenomena themselves. This chapter examines what’s distinctive (...) of Fricker’s treatment of the phenomena she labels epistemic injustice, focusing on the two varieties that her discussion highlights, testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Once the distinctive elements of Fricker’s treatment are clearer, we will be better placed to assess which of them are plausible and which implausible, and to consider alternative theoretical frameworks for thinking about the phenomena, such as that developed by Kristie Dotson. (shrink)

It is nowadays standard to distinguish between epistemic and metaphysical analyticity. Metaphysical analyticity has been widely rejected, while epistemic analyticity has been widely endorsed. I argue that we also have good reason to reject epistemic analyticity. I do so by considering all the plausible ways of characterizing epistemic analyticity and of drawing the epistemic analytic–synthetic distinction. I argue that on all of them, the distinction fails to carve at the semantic joints. I conclude that there (...) is good reason to think that there is no semantic distinction to be drawn between analytic and synthetic sentences. (shrink)