Renata Ziemińska

The article presents the concept of epistemic injustice developed by Miranda Fricker (2007, 2017). The term refers to instances in which an individual is assigned an inferior epistemic position and thus is at risk of non-epistemic mistreatment. Fricker discusses testimonial injustice (subconsciously seeing someone as less credible) using the example of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. Hermeneutical injustice, which is described as either a gap in knowledge or a harmful interpretation in the collective imagination, is exemplified by sexual harassment and homosexuality. One of the major critiques and developments of the concept of hermeneutical injustice was presented by Arianna Falbo (2022). She argues that the sources of hermeneutical injustice are not limited to gaps in knowledge but also a plethora of misleading concepts which cover up and overpower better concepts. Thus, the mere presence of appropriate concepts is not enough, the absence of harmful concepts is also necessary. The author claims that modifying the concept of epistemic injustice as proposed by Falbo explains why the existence of a nonbinary gender category in the German legal system was not sufficient to reject the binary gender system. Finally, the author discusses an analogous concept of epistemic disobedience from decolonial philosophy1. These discussions result in the claim that epistemic errors, overlooking certain experiences and/or usurping objectivity are the basis of unintentional discrimination.

Artykuł konfrontuje stanowisko Stanisława Judyckiego na temat prawdy ze zjawiskiem post-prawdy. Stanisław Judycki broni koncepcji prawdy radykalnie obiektywnej, lokalizując nośniki prawdziwości w boskim umyśle. Słabą stroną takiego stanowiska jest między innymi brak wyjaśnienia zjawiska post-prawdy. Autorka twierdzi, że trzeba odróżnić prawdę idealną i prawdę społeczną, ponieważ post-prawda jest generowana na poziomie prawdy społecznej i żywi się brakiem rozróżnienia tych dwu warstw. Zjawisko post-prawdy wyjaśnia się na gruncie konsensualnej teorii prawdy (Bufacchi 2021) jako konstruowanie alternatywnego konsensusu, które odbywa się w atmosferze podważania znaczenia prawdy (i jest czymś innym niż kłamstwo lub ignorancja). Autorka uważa, że lepsze w tym kontekście jest pojęcie społecznego konstruktu niż pojęcie konsensusu. Podziela jednak opinię Bufacchiego, że lekarstwem na post-prawdę jest odrzucenie binarnego podziału na prawdę i post-prawdę (prawdy uznawane przez ludzi są też społecznymi konstruktami) oraz zastępowanie w miarę możliwości słowa „prawda” terminami odnoszącymi się do ludzkich ocen i czynności poznawczych.

In debate with scepticism three general strategies may be differentiated: (1) pointing to self-refutation of scepticism; (2) looking for certainty; and (3) modification of the concept of knowledge. The latter strategy has at least three versions: (a) knowledge does not require certainty, (b) knowledge is not broadened by way of deduction, and (c) knowledge does not require the knowledge of knowledge. The first strategy refutes global scepticism, but does not give an example of knowledge and is not efficient in the case of scepticism based on the hypothesis of the malicious scientist. Also the second strategy is only able to refute the typical thesis of global scepticism (knowledge does not exist). Scepticism based on the hypothesis of the malicious scientist is more efficiently refuted in the third strategy. However, separation of knowledge and certainty is only avoiding the problem of scepticism. It is also doubtful if the principle of broadening knowledge by way of deduction may be refuted. Negation of the principle of transparency of knowledge is the most convincing one. After it is refuted, knowledge is possible in the situation when we do not know if we know and we cannot exclude sceptical hypotheses.

This book reconstructs the history of skepticism ranging from ancient to contemporary times, from Pyrrho to Kripke. The main skeptical stances and the historical reconstruction of the concept of skepticism are connected with an analysis of their recurrent inconsistency. The author reveals that this inconsistency is not a logical contradiction but a pragmatic one. She shows that it is a contradiction between the content of the skeptical position and the implicit presumption of the act of its assertion. The thesis of global skepticism cannot be accepted as true without falling into the pragmatic inconsistency. The author explains, how skepticism was important for exposing the limits of human knowledge and inspired its development.

I argue against the exclusive female/male divide, referring to the phenomenon of epistemic injustice in the cases of people with nonbinary gender identities and people with intersex traits. Such people have traits that are counterexamples to the binary female/male model. I have separated female and male traits into nine basic layers, five of which belong to sex and four to gender. In every layer, I have found traits that are neither female nor male, and the application of the model to individuals provides examples of clusters of traits for which one layer is male and another female. Such traits and clusters of traits create the category of the nonbinary. Table 1 provides a sketch of a nonbinary model. The nonbinary category takes its name from the existing category of nonbinary gender identity; however, in the current model, it is a third category of traits, not of people. Under the nonbinary model, the basic gender concepts do not disappear. S is a woman if S is a human being with enough female traits, and the trait of having self-determined female gender identity is sufficient but not necessary.

I present the notion of epistemic injustice coined by Miranda Fricker and apply it to the situation of people with intersex traits, especially intersex children who are the subjects of “normalizing” surgery. Several studies from Polish hospitals show that both early “normalizing” surgery and the decision to postpone such surgery can result in harm to an intersex child. For this reason, I claim that “normalizing” surgery is only an expression of the epistemic hermeneutical injustice existing before the surgery and that its source is the lack of an empirically adequate notion of sex characteristics. The binary notion is too simple to grasp intersex traits, and this epistemic dysfunction turns into practical harm. In contrast to Morgan Carpenter, I defend the nonbinary gender category as being important to limiting “normalizing” surgery.

Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz understands skepticism as the thesis that there is no criterion of truth and that the justification of any thesis is impossible. According to Ajdukiewicz, a typical skeptic confuses two levels of justification: the first order justification of a proposition s and the second order justification of the proposition that s is justified. However, the first-order justification is possible without second-order justification. This argument presented by Ajdukiewicz in 1923 heralded the epistemic externalism concerning justification developed by Alvin Goldman in 1980 and the externalist response to skepticism developed by F. Dretske and M. Williams. They all suggested weakening the traditional concept of justification and concluded that if we accept the possibility of justification without self-justification, the skeptical regress is blocked. However, such a response to skepticism is dependent on the externalist notion of justification. Ajdukiewicz had opportunity to use the stronger argument from self-refutation, but he underestimated its utility. The other side of Ajdukiewicz’s relation to skepticism is his radical conventionalism that presupposes some moderate form of skepticism in a broad sense. The article is an attempt to determine what kind of skepticism Ajdukiewicz accepted and what kind he rejected. The conclusion is that Ajdukiewicz is an anti-skeptical fallibilist.

In the history of skepticism there are three types of a relationship between skepticism and atheism: (1) skepticism is beyond the atheism-theism debate (Sextus Empiricus); (2) skepticism is the way to fideism (Montaigne); and (3) skepticism is the way to atheism (Hume). Skepticism lead to all possible practical options in religious matters so it has no practical power and can be combined with all practical choices. In like vein, contemporary skepticism is sometimes neutral towards religion, sometimes hostile to religion and sometimes sympathetic towards religion. However, the irreligious or anti-religious skepticism is dominating in our times. Neutral skepticism is typical for epistemology and the skepticism that is sympathetic towards religion is preserved in some type of the philosophy of religion (Schellenberg). Religious people usually dislike skepticism because they see it as first step towards atheism. But some religious people make radical distinction between reason and faith and in such a case skepticism can be good introduction to faith and religion. Typical skeptic is hesitating about the concept of God, typical atheist has conceptualized God in some way and s/he has determined view that God conceptualized in this way does not exist. The different conceptualizations allow that even atheism of some kind (as negation of theism and personal God) can be connected with the religious attitude (Schellenberg’s skeptical and a-theistic religion).

Academic skepticism is usually interpreted as a type of discourse without an assertion (a dialectical interpretation). I argue against this interpretation. One can interpret Carneades’ notion of approval as our notion of weak assertion and thereby ascribe to him his own views (a non-dialectical interpretation). In Academica Cicero reports the debate about the status of approval as a kind of assent among Carneades’ followers, especially the views of Clitomachus and Philo of Larissa. According to Clitomachus, approving impressions implies acting on them without taking them as true, while according to Philo of Larissa, approval is taking something as true without certainty. In more modern terms, we can say that Philo refers to the notion of weak assertion, and Clitomachus to non-assertion. Thus Clitomachus’ reading correlates with a dialectical reading, and Philo’s reading correlates with a non-dialectical reading. Philo’s reading leads to the interpretation of Carneades as a quasi-fallibilist. It is difficult to establish the precise position of the historical Carneades because he was hesitant in his oral teaching. Still, there is some basis in Carneades’ theory for interpreting approval as weak assertion (comprising three degrees of persuasiveness involving rational consideration of what seems to be truth). My aim in this essay is thus to argue that a quasi-fallibilist and non-dialectical reading is applicable to the historical Carneades.

Contemporary philosophy (at least in English-speaking world) is dominated by discussions between foundationalism and externalism on the other hand. R. Chisholm defends foundationalistic and internalistic position. Epistemological foundationalism is the thesis that there are basic beliefs which are the foundation for the justificaction of others. According to Chisholm such basic beliefs are some simple truths of reason and some beliefs about the self-presenting states like thinking, seeming or sensing. There are some problems with such basic beliefs, but Chisholm's main important argument is that here is no alternative to foundationalism in epistemology, because its opponent, the coherence theory, presupposes some form of foundationalism. The discussion between internalism and externalism is more recent. Externalism claims that what makes our beliefs justified is something external to subject, It may be truth, causal relations or counterfactual relations. According to Chisholm all externalistic theories are either empty (they reduce justification to truth) or they use some internalistic concepts. He gives some counterexamples to the theory by A. Goldman (one of the most important proponents of externalism). Internalists claim that what can make our beliefs justified must be something internal, accessible to subject

Luca Castagnoli, Ancient Self-Refutation. The Logic and History of the Self- Refutation Argument from Democritus to Augustine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010, pp. XX+394. Hardback, ISBN 9780521896313. L. Castagnoli in his book Ancient Self-Refutation rightly observes that self-refutation is not falsification; it overturns the act of assertion but does not prove that the content of the act is false. He argues against the widely spread belief that Sextus Empiricus accepted the self-refutation of his own expressions. Castagnoli also claims that Sextus was effective in answering to the self-refutation charge. The achievement of the book is discovery that in passages where Sextus seems to embrace the self-refutation of his expressions (PH 1.14-15), he does not use the term peritropé , technical for self-refutation, but term perigrafé , which means self-bracketing. Self-bracketing is weakening one’s own thesis but not overturning it. Castagnoli claims that Sextus embraces the self-bracketing of his expressions but never accepts their self-refutation. However, Castagnoli is not right that self-refutation is shameful mistake for everybody. The mature skeptic cannot even think that self-refutation is wrong, because it would be a dogmatic view. Sextus seems accept the self-refutation at the end of Against Logicians where he presents the argument against proof and the metaphor of the ladder (M 8.480-1). Regardless of Sextus declarations, we have reasons to think that he does not avoid self-refutation in pragmatic sense. Self-bracketing of his position is not a consistent dialectical strategy, as Castagnoli writes, but the end of rational discussion. Sextus avoids absolute self-refutation (we cannot falsify what he suggests) but he is unable to avoid pragmatic self-refutation (there is no way to assert his position without contradiction). It is the case, even if Sextus refuses asserting his position

Nozick is the author of the conditional definition of knowledge where two subjunctive conditionals replace internalistic notion of justification. If you know that p, you have true belief that p and also in the close possible worlds you would accept p when p is true and you would not accept p when p is false. Nozick agrees with skeptics that we do not know that we are not brains in the vat. But he claims that we do know all the trivial things we think we know. The only way to accept the two theses is to deny the Principle of Clousure. According to Nozick knowledge is not closed under known logical implication. But is it right to deny the principle? Our everyday knowledge implies that the skeptic is wrong. If I know that I am reading a text on Earth, it is false that I am on Alpha Centauri floating in a tank. To reject skeptic it is enough to deny the transparency principle (if I know, I know that I know). When knowledge is possible without knowledge about that knowledge, we can know even if we are not able to prove that we know

"Introspection" in its broad sense (Shoemaker, Armstrong) is each non-inferential access a person has to his/her own current mental states and events. It includes both introspection as a conscious act and introspection as pre-introspective awareness. "Introspection" in its narrow sense (Ryle, Dretske, Dennett) excludes pre-intro-spective awareness as not self-sufficient kind of access and part of some other conscious act. Introspection as a self-sufficient conscious act can be explained as second-order thought or reduced to third person knowledge but pre-introspective awareness can not (it is left as a mystery). Author claims that either pre-introspective awareness deserves the name "experience" and in source of special first-person knowledge (even if it is part of other sources of knowing and can be brought to consciousness only by proper introspection), either introspection as an act is a kind of experience and source of knowledge (sense experience is also some very fast interpretation of stimuli). Both pre-introspective awareness and proper introspection are kinds of experience if experience equals direct acquaintance, without any inference and stages. "Perception" can be left for sense perception of external objects. The result of introspection are not incorrigible but persons have "privileged access" to their own thoughts