Introduction

Introduction to and overview over my book "Epistemic Contextualism. A Defense" (OUP 2016

Inferentialism

This article offers an overview of inferential role semantics. We aim to provide a map of the terrain as well as challenging some of the inferentialist’s standard commitments. We begin by introducing inferentialism and placing it into the wider context of contemporary philosophy of language. §2 focuses on what is standardly considered both the most important test case for and the most natural application of inferential role semantics: the case of the logical constants. We discuss some of the (alleged) benefits of logical inferentialism, chiefly with regards to the epistemology of logic, and consider a number of objections. §3 introduces and critically examines the most influential and most fully developed form of global inferentialism: Robert Brandom’s inferentialism about linguistic and conceptual content in general. Finally, in §4 we consider a number of general objections to IRS and consider possible responses on the inferentialist’s behalf

The invisible hand and the weightless economy

As modern economies grow, production and consumption shift towards economic value that reside in bits and bytes, and away from that embedded in atoms and molecules. This paper discusses the implications of such changes for the nature of ongoing growth in advanced economies and for the dynamics of earnings and income distributions - polarization, inequality - across people within societies

I am uncertain” vs “it is uncertain”. How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication

Two psychological sources of uncertainty bear implications for judgment and decision-making: external uncertainty is seen as stemming from properties of the world, whereas internal uncertainty is seen as stemming from lack of knowledge. The apparent source of uncertainty can be conveyed through linguistic markers, such as the pronoun of probability phrases (e.g., I am uncertain vs. It is uncertain). Here, we investigated whether and when speakers use different pronoun subjects as such linguistic markers (Exp. 1 and 2) and what hearers infer from them (Exp. 3 and 4). Speakers more often described higher probabilities and knowable outcomes with internal probability phrases. In dialogue, speakers mirrored the source of their conversational partner. Markers of the source had a main effect or interacted with the probability conveyed and speaker expertise to shape the judgments and decisions of hearers. For example, experts voicing an internal probability phrase were judged as more knowledgeable than experts using an external probability phrase whereas the result was the opposite for lay speakers. We discuss how these findings inform our understanding of subjective uncertainty and uncertainty communication theories

"I am uncertain" vs "It is uncertain". How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication

Two psychological sources of uncertainty bear implications for judgment and decision-making: external uncertainty is seen as stemming from properties of the world, whereas internal uncertainty is seen as stemming from lack of knowledge. The apparent source of uncertainty can be conveyed through linguistic markers, such as the pronoun of probability phrases (e.g., I am uncertain vs. It is uncertain). Here, we investigated whether and when speakers use different pronoun subjects as such linguistic markers (Exp. 1 and 2) and what hearers infer from them (Exp. 3 and 4). Speakers more often described higher probabilities and knowable outcomes with internal probability phrases. In dialogue, speakers mirrored the source of their conversational partner. Markers of the source had a main effect or interacted with the probability conveyed and speaker expertise to shape the judgments and decisions of hearers. For example, experts voicing an internal probability phrase were judged as more knowledgeable than experts using an external probability phrase whereas the result was the opposite for lay speakers. We discuss how these findings inform our understanding of subjective uncertainty and uncertainty communication theories

Community outrage : risk communication by Flura and EPA in Newport, Tennessee

This is a case study of risk communication, specifically the risk perceptions of residents living within one mile of the Flura Corporation Superfund Site, a shut-down chemical manufacturing and storage facility in Newport, Tennessee. It explores citizens\u27 perceptions of the efforts by Flura and later the Environmental Protection Agency in their efforts to educate the community about the risk situation. This study examines whether Peter Sandman\u27s model of community outrage that involves the process of communication of risk is valid in the case of the Newport community\u27s reaction to this hazardous waste site. Methods involve interviewing residents living near the Superfund site, local officials, local newspaper editors and reporters, and EPA representatives; examining the local newspapers\u27 accounts of the risk situation; reviewing correspondence of the Tennessee departments of environment with Flura and with the previous owners of Rock Hill Laboratory; and attending meetings convened by the EPA to inform the Newport public about the risks of the Flura Superfund Site and their efforts to clean it up. Results showed that most residents trusted the information from EPA and did not argue on scientific points. They were just glad that EPA had taken over the site and promised to clean it up no matter how long was required. More support for the agency responsiveness factor of community outrage was shown than support for the knowability factor

Minds, Brains and Programs

This article can be viewed as an attempt to explore the consequences of two propositions. (1) Intentionality in human beings (and animals) is a product of causal features of the brain I assume this is an empirical fact about the actual causal relations between mental processes and brains It says simply that certain brain processes are sufficient for intentionality. (2) Instantiating a computer program is never by itself a sufficient condition of intentionality The main argument of this paper is directed at establishing this claim The form of the argument is to show how a human agent could instantiate the program and still not have the relevant intentionality. These two propositions have the following consequences (3) The explanation of how the brain produces intentionality cannot be that it does it by instantiating a computer program. This is a strict logical consequence of 1 and 2. (4) Any mechanism capable of producing intentionality must have causal powers equal to those of the brain. This is meant to be a trivial consequence of 1. (5) Any attempt literally to create intentionality artificially (strong AI) could not succeed just by designing programs but would have to duplicate the causal powers of the human brain. This follows from 2 and 4

Epistemic Contextualism: A Defense

This book develops and defends a version of epistemic contextualism, that is, of the view that the truth conditions or the meaning of knowledge attributions of the form “S knows that p” can vary with the context of the attributor. The first part of the book is about arguments for contextualism and develops a particular version of it. The first chapter deals with the argument from cases and ordinary usage. More weight, however, is put on more “theoretical” arguments: arguments from reliability (Chapter 2) and from luck (Chapter 3). The second part of the book discusses problems contextualism faces and to which it needs to respond as well as an extension of contextualism beyond epistemology. Chapter 4 discusses “lottery-skepticism” and argues for a contextualist response (further developing the view, like the following chapter). Chapter 5 is dedicated to a homemade problem for contextualism: a threat of inconsistency. It argues for a way out and for a version of contextualism that can underwrite this solution. Chapter 6 proposes a contextualist account of responsibility: the concept of knowledge is not the only one which allows for a contextualist analysis and it is important to explore structural analogies in other areas of philosophy. The third part of the book is about some major objections to contextualism (Chapter 7) and about alternative views, namely subject-sensitive invariantism, contrastivism, and relativism (Chapter 8)