Hoops and Barns: a new dilemma for Sosa

This paper critically assesses Sosa’s normative framework for performances as well as its application to epistemology. We first develop a problem for one of Sosa’s central theses in the general theory of performance normativity according to which performances attain fully desirable status if and only if they are fully apt. More specifically, we argue that given Sosa’s account of full aptness according to which a performance is fully apt only if safe from failure, this thesis can’t be true. We then embark on a rescue mission on behalf of Sosa and work towards a weakened account of full aptness. The key idea is to countenance a distinction between negligible and non-negligible types of risk and to develop an account of full aptness according to which even performances that are endangered by risk can be fully apt, so long as the risk is of a negligible type. While this alternative account of full aptness solves the problem we developed for Sosa earlier on, there is also bad news for Sosa. When applied to epistemology, the envisaged treatment of barn façade cases as cases in which the agent falls short of fully apt belief will no longer work. We show that, as a result, Sosa faces a new version of a familiar dilemma for virtue epistemology. Either he construes full aptness as strong enough to get barn façade cases right in which case his view will run right into the problem we develop. Or else he construes full aptness as weak enough to avoid this problem but then he will not be able to deal with barn façade cases in the way envisaged

A taxonomy of types of epistemic dependence: introduction to the Synthese special issue on epistemic dependence

What is epistemic dependence? There is no unique answer to this question. In its most general form, the notion of epistemic dependence can be articulated with the following schema: DEP: x depends on y to ϕ. Epistemic dependence, as characterized by DEP, is a goal-oriented relation, in that x’s reliance on y is for the achievement of some epistemic goal (ϕ).Footnote1 We can thus distinguish different types of epistemic dependence in terms of what kind of goal the state of being epistemically dependent on aims a

A relação entre competência epistêmica e conhecimento na teoria de Ernest Sosa

This paper focuses on the attribution relation between competence and true belief present in epistemic virtue accounts of knowledge such as Sosa’s theory. The core idea is that in cases of knowledge the fact that the agent gets a true belief is attributable to her cognitive competence (competencecondition), and not to some lucky factor. Critics have presented cases where, purportedly, the agent can either have knowledge without satisfying the competence condition (therefore, the competence condition would not be necessary for knowledge), or, despite the satisfaction of the competence condition, the agent has no knowledge (therefore, the competence condition would not be sufficient for knowledge). The crux of the matter lies in how to conceive properly the competence condition forknowledge, and the underlying relationship between competence and success in the epistemic domain. This paper explores Sosa’s view of this relationship in terms of “cognitive success that manifests the agent’s competence”, and proposes that it provides a more direct answer to the critics than do other epistemic virtue accounts of knowledge.Este artigo enfoca a relação de atribuição entre competência e crença verdadeira presente em explicações de conhecimento em termos de virtudes epistêmicas como a de Ernest Sosa. A ideia central é que, em casos de conhecimento, o fato de o agente formar uma crença verdadeira é atribuível à sua competência cognitiva, e não a algum fator de sorte. Os críticos apresentaram casos nos quais, alegadamente, ou o agente tem conhecimento sem satisfazer a condição da competência (portanto, a condição da competência não seria necessária para conhecimento); ou, apesar da satisfação da condição da competência, o agente não tem conhecimento (portanto, a condição da competência não seria suficiente para o conhecimento). O cerne da questão reside em como conceber adequadamente a condição da competência para o conhecimento, e a relação subjacente entre competência e sucesso no domínio epistêmico. Este artigo explora a concepção de Sosa dessa relação, em termos de “sucesso cognitivo que manifesta a competência do agente”, e argumenta que essa posição pode dar uma resposta mais direta aos críticos do que outras explicações de conhecimento em termos de virtudes epistêmicas

Defeat and proficiencies

Virtue epistemology is the view that beliefs are attempts at truth (or perhaps knowledge) and, as a result, can be assessed as successful, competent, and apt. Moreover, virtue epistemology identifies central epistemic properties with normative properties of beliefs as attempts. In particular, knowledge is apt belief and justified belief is competent belief. This paper develops a systematic virtue epistemological account of defeat (of justification/competence). I provide reason to think that defeat occurs not only for beliefs but for attempts more general. The key constructive idea is that defeaters are evidence that attempting (in a certain way) isn't successful and that defeaters defeat the competence of an attempt when one stands in a certain normative relation to the defeater. I argue that while this account handles paradigm cases of defeat both within epistemology and beyond nicely, cases of external (sometimes also ‘normative’ or ‘propositional’) defeat continue to cause trouble. To handle these cases, I develop a distinctively functionalist version of virtue epistemology. This functionalist version of virtue epistemology allows me to countenance proficiencies, that is, roughly, abilities that have the function to produce successes under certain conditions. It is the normative import of proficiencies that delivers the normative relation that serves to explain defeat in cases of external defeat. In this way, the functionalist version of virtue epistemology ushers the way towards a satisfactory account even of external defeat

キョウドウ コウイ ニ タイスル ショウサン ト シテノ ショウゲン ニ ヨル チシキ

This paper aims to defend the Credit View of Knowledge (CVK) against the problem of testimonial knowledge. CVK argues that S knows that p if and only if she is sufficiently deserving of credit for holding a true belief, that is, only if her true belief is the product of her intellectual abilities or faculties. CVK can successfully deal with the traditional problems of epistemology such as the Gettier problem and the value problem. However, J. Lackey attacks CVK because it seems that CVK cannot account the case that S knows that p from testimony. In such a case, S’s true belief is not the product of her abilities or faculties, but the product of the speaker’s. Hence, the hearer doesn’t know that p because she is not deserving of credit for holding a true belief. This is undesired outcome. Although this problem seems be a crucial one, CVK attempts to account knowledge from testimony. For example, recent literature argues that credit for a true belief can be shared by the group members. However, this account leads to Lackey’s creditworthiness dilemma. If the hearer has knowledge, then it seems that the agent has knowledge in some Gettier cases because the hearer’s contribution to achievement is quite small. This paper argues that the dilemma is not crucial if we understand testimonial knowledge as credit for joint action. In this view, the group members share the same goal and they act aptly for achieving their goal. The most salient part of the causal factors that achieve the goal is not one action, but the whole part of the process in this joint action. Therefore, CVK can account knowledge from testimony even if the hearer’s contribution is quite small.論文須藤訓任教授　退職記念

_Corrupted: An Essay on Intellectual Character and Epistemic Vice_

This thesis examines the relationship between character and intellectual or epistemic vices. The philosophical study of epistemic vices is called vice epistemology. To date, much of the work in this emerging field has focused on the nature and epistemological significance of particular intellectual vices such as close-mindedness or dogmatism. Far less has been said about how it is that people come to acquire and develop these intellectual vices. My aim in this thesis is to fill this lacuna by articulating how this phenomenon occurs. Specifically, this thesis develops an account of epistemic corruption