J. P. Grodniewicz

By offering explanations, we help each other understand the world. But not all explanations are created equal. In this paper, we argue that, while the practice of explaining is unified by its function—the dissemination of understanding—there are different ways to engage in it. We can do so by offering what we call a minimal explanation, a customized explanation, or an interactive explanation. Each of them is appropriate in different contexts and comes with a set of relevant expectations. Moreover, each is guided by a specific norm. Only when we take all these ways of participating in the practice of explaining into account will we be able to spell out what is expected from explainers in different situations. As a result, we will be able to tell good explainers from bad ones by assessing whether they fulfill the relevant norm and thus offer explanations appropriate for a given context.

Psychotherapy is a form of psychological service that involves a collaborative process based on the relationship between a psychotherapist and a client/patient. The epistemic interdependence between psychotherapists and clients raises important questions concerning epistemic authority and power, as well as epistemic injustice, i.e., a kind of injustice that arises when one’s capacity as an epistemic agent is wrongfully denied. In this paper, we characterize, categorize, and discuss how epistemic injustice can be perpetrated in psychotherapy. To this end, we provide scenarios that illustrate ways in which three forms of epistemic injustice (testimonial, hermeneutical, and participatory) can arise in psychotherapeutic encounters, and explain how these forms of epistemic injustice threaten one’s ability to achieve self-understanding through psychotherapy. We finish by making some qualifications and briefly enumerating some ways to mitigate the risk of epistemic injustice in psychotherapy.

Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI) systems (also known as AI “chatbots”) are among the most promising examples of the use of technology in mental health care. With already millions of users worldwide, CAI is likely to change the landscape of psychological help. Most researchers agree that existing CAIs are not “digital therapists” and using them is not a substitute for psychotherapy delivered by a human. But if they are not therapists, what are they, and what role can they play in mental health care? To answer these questions, we appeal to two well-established and widely discussed concepts: cognitive and affective artifacts. Cognitive artifacts are artificial devices contributing functionally to the performance of a cognitive task. Affective artifacts are objects which have the capacity to alter subjects’ affective state. We argue that therapeutic CAIs are a kind of cognitive-affective artifacts which contribute to positive therapeutic change by (i) simulating a (quasi-)therapeutic interaction, (ii) supporting the performance of cognitive tasks, and (iii) altering the affective condition of their users. This sheds new light on why virtually all existing mental health CAIs implement principles and techniques of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy — a therapeutic orientation according to which affective change and, ultimately, positive therapeutic change is mediated by cognitive change. Simultaneously, it allows us to conceptualize better the potential and limitations of applying these technologies in therapy.

It is often suggested that we are equipped with a set of cognitive tools that help us to filter out unreliable testimony. But are these tools effective? I answer this question in two steps. Firstly, I argue that they are not real-time effective. The process of filtering, which takes place simultaneously with or right after language comprehension, does not prevent a particular hearer on a particular occasion from forming beliefs based on false testimony. Secondly, I argue that they are long-term effective. Some hearers sometimes detect false testimony, which increases speakers’ incentives for honesty and stabilizes the practice of human communication in which deception is risky and costly. In short, filtering prevents us from forming a large number of beliefs based on false testimony, not by turning each of us into a high-functioning polygraph but by turning the social environment of human communication into one in which such polygraphs are not required. Finally, I argue that these considerations support strong anti-reductionism about testimonial entitlement.