Arnon Keren

This chapter investigates how online conversational environments might be designed to promote epistemic health rather than merely reduce incivility. Drawing on the authors’ empirically informed collaboration with an industry partner developing engagement platforms for publishers, it argues that prevailing industry approaches to “healthy conversation” disproportionately prioritize civility norms while neglecting epistemic norms governing truth, evidence, and inquiry. The analysis distinguishes epistemic toxicity from incivility and examines existing moderation tools, reporting systems, and fact-checking practices, showing that most rely on the identification of manifest norm violations—an approach well suited to detecting insults or harassment but ill suited to tracking misinformation or evidential deficiencies. Survey data from platform users further reveal a striking mismatch between industry priorities and user expectations: participants value epistemic quality at least as highly as civility. To explain this gap, the chapter introduces the “violation-identification problem,” according to which breaches of epistemic norms are typically non-manifest and therefore resistant to automated or surface-level detection. The discussion concludes that improving epistemic health online requires a shift away from civility-centered moderation toward design strategies modeled on high-quality offline epistemic practices, especially those foregrounding evidential standards and norms of inquiry.

This article highlights the role of epistemic norms in mitigating the spread of misinformation. The mixed-methods study includes exploratory reconstructions and survey experiments. Two intervention approaches proved efficient in reducing the sharing of misinformation, but only one significantly differentiated between true and false information. This study contributes to the literature on normative countermeasures and is the first to emphasize epistemic norms. Although misinformation is fundamentally an epistemic issue, scholars rarely refer to the rich epistemic literature for conceptualization and theory. The article also draws on focus theory and additional social literature to ensure a holistic framework. In addition to underscoring the role of epistemic norms, we suggest temporal proximity as a new factor to consider in focus theory-based measures. Ethical, empirical, and practical implications are discussed, emphasizing the need to control for countermeasures’ effect on true information sharing, which may threaten to suppress public discourse.

Fostering healthy online conversations is essential to the integrity of public discourse, yet the norms that guide such conversations remain contested and difficult to enforce. This paper develops and empirically grounds a conceptual and empirical framework for understanding and addressing online toxicity. Building on the distinction between epistemic and civil norms, we argue that norm violations are the proper target of moderation. While this paper is primarily conceptual, it is informed by empirical observations drawn from a collaboration with a platform designer. Drawing on a dataset of user comments and responses to moderation scenarios, we identify eight recurring types of norm violations and analyse patterns of user agreements about whether such content should be removed. Our findings reveal that while civil norm violations prompt relatively consistent responses, epistemic violations elicit wide disagreement, raising challenges for universal moderation standards. We conclude by proposing a set of general, evidence-informed principles for platform designers and moderators. These recommendations emphasise context-sensitive moderation, platform affordances that encourage epistemic responsibility, and the integration of civil and epistemic considerations into online infrastructure. Our work bridges theoretical and practical perspectives, offering both conceptual clarity and actionable insights for scholars, designers, and practitioners engaged in shaping healthier digital discourse.

What should the goals of scientific inquiry be? What questions should scientists investigate, and how should our resources be distributed between different lines of investigation? Philip Kitcher has suggested that we should answer these questions by appealing to an ideal based on the consideration of hypothetical democratic deliberations under ideal circumstances. This paper examines possible arguments that might support acceptance of this ideal for science, and argues that neither the arguments presented by Kitcher (2001, 2011b) nor traditional arguments for democracy succeed in justifying its acceptance.¿Cuáles deberían ser las metas de la investigación científica? ¿Qué cuestiones deberían investigar los científicos, y cómo deberían distribuirse nuestros recursos entre diferentes líneas de investigación? Philip Kitcher ha sugerido que deberíamos responder a estas preguntas apelando a un ideal basado en la consideración de deliberaciones democráticas hipotéticas en circunstancias ideales. Este artículo examina los posibles argumentos que podrían apoyar la aceptación de este ideal para la ciencia, y defiende que ni los argumentos presentados por Kitcher (2001, 2011b) ni los argumentos tradicionales para la democracia logran justificar su aceptación.

Experts are paradigmatic examples of people ascribed epistemic authority. But can laypersons reliably tell when experts have such authority? This paper argues that this question differs from widely discussed questions about laypersons’ ability to identify and assess experts. This is because epistemic authority and expertise are not coextensive concepts and because we can rely on experts without believing them on their authority. Assuming a preemptionist account of epistemic authority, I examine how the question regarding laypersons’ ability to reliably identify authoritative expert judgments differs from that regarding laypersons’ ability to identify expertise. One additional challenge laypersons face in identifying authorities emerges from differences between the fine-grained scope of authority and the coarse-grained scope of expertise: whether a person has authority on a particular question depends, in ways that her expertise does not, on the well-foundedness of her belief regarding this particular question. Another additional challenge stems from the tension between using evidence to identify epistemic authorities and believing them on their authority. This paper addresses these two challenges and highlights differences in the resources laypersons can use to tackle these challenges, both in terms of the evidence available to laypersons and the division of labor between experts and laypersons.

This article addresses the question of how the responsibilities for addressing the risks of dual use research ought to be divided. We begin by presenting the maximalist claim that proposes that since scientists are well placed to judge the potential for misuse of their studies, they alone are responsible for addressing these risks. Before assessing this position, we consider a claim that rejects the maximalist position, namely that scientists need not consider the possibility that their studies might be misused because the goods of science are so important, they should not spend time on anything but generating valuable knowledge. This claim, we argue, fails, as these goods do not always outweigh the risks of misuse. Given this conclusion we turn to assess two versions of the maximalist claim. The first suggests that when a possibility of misuse arises, scientists ought to adopt the precautionary principle (PP) to discharge their moral responsibilities. We argue that PP is problematic as it does not give much guidance on what scientists should do. An alternative to meeting scientists’ moral responsibilities is through applying a risk-benefit analysis; however, due to epistemic biases and limitations, scientists are prone to make mistakes in their analysis. We thus suggest an alternative approach, in which responsibilities are divided between scientists and agents that can conduct an analysis that is more likely to generate unbiased and comprehensive conclusions on how the risks of dual use research, should be addressed.

Within the contemporary epistemology of testimony, it is widely assumed that testimonial scepticism can be dismissed without engaging with possible reasons or arguments supporting the view. This assumption of dismissibility both underlies the debate between reductionist and non-reductionist views of testimony and is responsible for the neglect of testimonial scepticism within contemporary epistemology. This paper argues that even given liberal assumptions about what may constitute valid grounds for the dismissal of a sceptical view, the assumption that testimonial scepticism is dismissible should be rejected. For even if familiar sceptical positions and scepticism about testimonial justification can be dismissed on such grounds, scepticism about testimonial knowledge cannot.

Modest pessimism about philosophical progress is the view that while philosophy may sometimes make some progress, philosophy has made, and can be expected to make, only very little progress (where the extent of philosophical progress is typically judged against progress in the hard sciences). The paper argues against recent attempts to defend this view on the basis of the pervasiveness of disagreement within philosophy. The argument from disagreement for modest pessimism assumes a teleological conception of progress, according to which the attainment of true answers to the big philosophical questions, or knowledge of them, is the primary goal of philosophy. The paper argues that this assumption involves a misconception of the goal of philosophy: if philosophy has a primary goal, its goal is the understanding of philosophical problems rather than knowledge of answers to philosophical questions. Moreover, it is argued that if the primary goal of philosophy is such understanding, then widespread disagreement within philosophy does not indicate that philosophy makes little progress.

The standard account of informed consent has recently met serious criticism, focused on the mismatch between its implications and widespread intuitions about the permissibility of conducting research and providing treatment under conditions of partial knowledge. Unlike other critics of the standard account, we suggest an account of the relations between autonomy, ignorance, and valid consent that avoids these implausible implications while maintaining the standard core idea, namely, that the primary purpose of the disclosure requirement of informed consent is to prevent autonomy-undermining ignorance. The problem with the standard account, we argue, is that it fails to distinguish between different forms of ignorance–in particular, error and suspending ignorance–that have very different effects on individuals’ ability to provide valid consent. While error often undermines our ability to provide valid consent, suspending ignorance, we argue, does not. Once the moral weight of this distinction is appreciated, it becomes apparent that valid informed consent requires far less knowledge than suggested by the standard account.

In a recent article, Steel, Buchak and Eyal (SBE) argue that current levels of uncertainty do not present a good reason to bar controlled human infection (CHI) trials of COVID-19 vaccines from proceeding. We argue that their argumentation for this conclusion is flawed. SBE are mistaken about the effects which different forms of ignorance have on participants’ ability to provide valid informed consent. Decision-makers considering whether to allow such trials, we argue, must ultimately consider the likelihood that consent to participation in such trials under current conditions would be valid, and whether this likelihood is high enough to permit such trials. This is a question that SBE completely ignore. We conclude that there indeed are valid concerns about conducting CHI trials given the current state of knowledge about COVID-19, concerns which SBE fail to address.

One fundamental divide among philosophers studying the nature of trust concerns the relation between trust and belief. According to doxastic accounts of trust, trust entails a belief about the trustee: either the belief that she is trustworthy with respect to what she is trusted to do, or that she will do what she is trusted to do. Non-doxastic accounts deny that trusting entails holding such a belief. The chapter describes and evaluates the main considerations which have been cited for and against doxastic accounts of trust. It argues that a preemptive reasons account of trust neutralizes some of the key objections to doxastic accounts, and that considerations favoring a doxastic account appear to be stronger than those favoring non-doxastic accounts. The chapter also suggests that the debate about the nature of trust, and the mental state required for trusting can benefit from linking it with the debate about the value of trust.

This chapter gives an account of epistemic trust. It argues that trust in general is a matter of declining to take precautions against the trustee’s failing to come through, and that this amounts in the epistemic case to declining to rely on evidence for the testified proposition, instead relying solely on the testifier. But if this is so, how can trust play a positive role in securing knowledge? The key, it is argued, lies in recognizing that trust is preemptive: Trusting someone entails believing that she is trustworthy, and this belief preempts other evidence about whether she will come through. In other words, this belief gives the truster himself a good reason to desist from relying on evidence other than the trustee’s word. But if trust is preemptive, how is it compatible with epistemic responsibility, which seems to involve relying on your own evidence? Because, it is claimed, preempting your own evidence in favor of the testifier’s say-so enables your belief to be supported by her evidence – which, we may assume, is superior to your own. Far from forfeiting epistemic responsibility, then, epistemic trust on the preemptive account gives you justificatory access to a swathe of evidence that you would not otherwise have had.

W.V.Quine and Philip Kitcher have both developed naturalistic approaches to the philosophy of science which are partially based on a skeptical view about the possibility of rational inquiry into certain questions of value. Nonetheless, both Quine and Kitcher do not wish to give up on the normative dimension of the philosophy of science. I argue that Kitcher's recent argument against the specification of the goal of science in terms of truth raises a problem for Quine's account of the normative dimensions of the discipline. However Kitcher's alternative suggestion, that the goal of science is to be specified in terms of an ideal democratic procedure, does not escape this problem, given Kitcher's own limited skepticism about rational inquiry into certain questions of value.

What must laypersons understand about science to allow them to make sound decisions on science-related issues? Relying on recent developments in social epistemology, this paper argues that scientific education should have the goal not of bringing laypersons' understanding of science closer to that of expert insiders, but rather of cultivating the kind of competence characteristic of “competent outsiders” (Feinstein 2011). Moreover, it argues that philosophers of science have an important role to play in attempts to promote this kind of understanding, but that to successfully fulfill this role, they will have to approach central questions in the field differently

What should the goals of scientific inquiry be? What questions should scientists investigate, and how should our resources be distributed between different lines of investigation? Philip Kitcher has suggested that we should answer these questions by appealing to an ideal based on the consideration of hypothetical democratic deliberations under ideal circumstances. The paper argues that we have no reason to adopt this ideal. The paper examines both traditional arguments for democracy and Kitcher's own reasons for adopting this ideal, as presented in Kitcher (2001) and in Kitcher (2011b), and argues that none of these supports adoption of Kitcher's proposed ideal.

According to the evidential view of testimony (EVT), the epistemic value of testimony is its value as evidence. Richard Moran has argued that because testimony is deliberately produced with the intention of making audiences form a belief, its value as evidence for the attested proposition is diminished; as a result, EVT cannot explain why we regard testimony as such a significant source of knowledge. I argue that this argument against EVT fails, because there is no reason to think that the deliberate nature of testimony diminishes its value as evidence

The paper discusses Linda Zagzebski's account of epistemic authority. Building on Joseph Raz's account of political authority, Zagzebski argues that the basic contours of epistemic authority match those Raz ascribes to political authority. This, it is argued, is a mistake. Zagzebski is correct in identifying the pre-emptive nature of reasons provided by an authority as central to our understanding of epistemic authority. However, Zagzebski ignores important differences between practical and epistemic authority. As a result, her attempt to explain the rationality of belief on authority by applying an analogue of Raz's Normal Justification Thesis to the domain of belief fails. A successful explanation of the rationality of belief on authority will need to be attuned to the differences between political and epistemic authorities.

On many science-related policy questions, the public is unable to make informed decisions, because of its inability to make use of knowledge obtained by scientists. Philip Kitcher and James Fishkin have both suggested therefore that on certain science-related issues, public policy should not be decided on by actual democratic vote, but should instead conform to the public’s counterfactual informed democratic decision. Indeed, this suggestion underlies Kitcher’s specification of an ideal of a well-ordered science. This article argues that this suggestion misconstrues the normative significance of CIDDs. At most, CIDDs might have epistemic significance, but no authority or legitimizing force

I present an account of what it is to trust a speaker, and argue that the account can explain the common intuitions which structure the debate about the transmission view of testimony. According to the suggested account, to trust a speaker is to grant her epistemic authority on the asserted proposition, and hence to see her opinion as issuing a second order, preemptive reason for believing the proposition. The account explains the intuitive appeal of the basic principle associated with the transmission view of testimony: the principle according to which, a listener can normally obtain testimonial knowledge that p by believing a speaker who testifies that p only if the speaker knows that p. It also explains a common response to counterexamples to this principle: that these counterexamples do not involve normal cases of testimonial knowledge

According to doxastic accounts of trust, trusting a person to \(\varPhi \) involves, among other things, holding a belief about the trusted person: either the belief that the trusted person is trustworthy or the belief that she actually will \(\varPhi \) . In recent years, several philosophers have argued against doxastic accounts of trust. They have claimed that the phenomenology of trust suggests that rather than such a belief, trust involves some kind of non-doxastic mental attitude towards the trusted person, or a non-doxastic disposition to rely upon her. This paper offers a new account of reasons for trust and employs the account to defend a doxastic account of trust. The paper argues that reasons for trust are preemptive reasons for action or belief. Thus the Razian concept of preemptive reasons, which arguably plays a key role in our understanding of relations of authority, is also central to our understanding of relations of trust. Furthermore, the paper argues that acceptance of a preemptive account of reasons for trust supports the adoption of a doxastic account of trust, for acceptance of such an account both neutralizes central objections to doxastic accounts of trust and provides independent reasons supporting a doxastic account

I present an account of what it is to trust a speaker, and argue that the account can explain the common intuitions which structure the debate about the transmission view of testimony. According to the suggested account, to trust a speaker is to grant her epistemic authority on the asserted proposition, and hence to see her opinion as issuing a second order, preemptive reason for believing the proposition. The account explains the intuitive appeal of the basic principle associated with the transmission view of testimony: the principle according to which, a listener can normally obtain testimonial knowledge that p by believing a speaker who testifies that p only if the speaker knows that p. It also explains a common response to counterexamples to this principle: that these counterexamples do not involve normal cases of testimonial knowledge.