Forgetting memory skepticism

Memory skepticism denies our memory beliefs could have any notable epistemic good. One route to memory skepticism is to challenge memory’s epistemic trustworthiness, that is, its functioning in a way necessary for it to provide epistemic justification. In this paper we develop and respond to this challenge. It could threaten memory in such a way that we altogether lack doxastic attitudes. If it threatens memory in this way, then the challenge is importantly self-defeating. If it does not threaten memory in this way, then the challenge leaves a foundation for an inference to the best explanation response, one we articulate and support

Metacognition as Evidence for Evidentialism

Metacognition is the monitoring and controlling of cognitive processes. I examine the role of metacognition in ‘ordinary retrieval cases’, cases in which it is intuitive that via recollection the subject has a justified belief. Drawing on psychological research on metacognition, I argue that evidentialism has a unique, accurate prediction in each ordinary retrieval case: the subject has evidence for the proposition she justifiedly believes. But, I argue, process reliabilism has no unique, accurate predictions in these cases. I conclude that ordinary retrieval cases better support evidentialism than process reliabilism. This conclusion challenges several common assumptions. One is that non-evidentialism alone allows for a naturalized epistemology, i.e., an epistemology that is fully in accordance with scientific research and methodology. Another is that process reliabilism fares much better than evidentialism in the epistemology of memory

Perspectives on multiscale modelling and experiments to accelerate materials development for fusion

Prediction of material performance in fusion reactor environments relies on computational modelling, and will continue to do so until the first generation of fusion power plants come on line and allow long-term behaviour to be observed. In the meantime, the modelling is supported by experiments that attempt to replicate some aspects of the eventual operational conditions. In 2019, a group of leading experts met under the umbrella of the IEA to discuss the current position and ongoing challenges in modelling of fusion materials and how advanced experimental characterisation is aiding model improvement. This review draws from the discussions held during that workshop. Topics covering modelling of irradiation-induced defect production and fundamental properties, gas behaviour, clustering and segregation, defect evolution and interactions are discussed, as well as new and novel multiscale simulation approaches, and the latest efforts to link modelling to experiments through advanced observation and characterisation techniques.MRG, SLD, and DRM acknowledge funding by the RCUK Energy Programme [grant number EP/T012250/1]. Part of this work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROFusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014–2018 and 2019–2020 under grant Agreement No. 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. JRT acknowledges funding from the US Department of Energy (DOE) through grant DE-SC0017899. ZB, LY,BDW, and SJZ acknowledge funding through the US DOE Fusion Energy Sciences grant DE-SC0006661ZB, LY and BDW also were partially supported from the US DOE Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences and Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research through the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) project on Plasma-Surface Interactions. JMa acknowledges support from the US-DOEs Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (US-DOE), project DE-SC0019157. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Battelle Memorial Institute for the US Department of Energy (DOE) under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. YO and YZ were supported as part of the Energy Dissipation to Defect Evolution (EDDE), an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725. TS and TT are supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19K05338

Affect is what states make of it: articulating everyday experiences of 9/11

This article considers the politics of affect and official discourses of ‘9/11’. Drawing on the work of William Connolly and others, it is argued that to understand the resonance of dominant constructions of ‘9/11’ it is necessary to revisit their successful incorporation of prevalent American affective experiences of September 11th. To date, this relationship between affect, resonance, and discourse has been underexplored in International Relations. Its investigation offers important empirical insights on resonance, as well as theoretical innovation in connecting established work on narrative and discourse with emerging work on bioculture and affect. To this end, the article introduces a framework for the future analysis of affect, culture and discourse within International Relations. The article concludes, however, that, notwithstanding its importance to resonance, in ‘crisis’ situations such as ‘9/11’, affect is what states make of it

Evidentialism, Time-Slice Mentalism, and Dreamless Sleep

I argue that the following theses are both popular among evidentialists but also jointly inconsistent with evidentialism: 1) Time-Slice Mentalism: one’s justificational properties at t are grounded only by one’s mental properties at t; 2) Experience Ultimacy: all ultimate evidence is experiential; and 3) Sleep Justification: we have justified beliefs while we have dreamless, nonexperiential sleep. Although I intend for this paper to be a polemic against evidentialists, it can also be viewed as an opportunity for them to clarify their views. Furthermore, the paper is not only relevant to evidentialists. For example, the arguments of this paper could give Time-Slice Mentalists a reason to deny evidentialism