Jesus Navarro

Although the ethical and political implications of secrecy are significant, I argue here that its fundamental nature is epistemological and that any account of its nature must be based on its epistemological profile. In particular, I propose examining secrecy within the framework of social and political epistemology, considering secrets as intentional disruptions to the social flow of knowledge. This requires us to postulate a crucial distinction between mysteries and secrets. A mystery is something that is difficult to know, thereby frustrating an individual's epistemic interests. By contrast, a secret is a specific kind of mystery that meets the following three conditions: (1) it is known by someone (the knower); (2) it is unknown to someone else (the unknower); and (3) it is intentionally concealed by someone else (the keeper) in a way that frustrates the unknower's epistemic interests.

This paper levels a charge of free riding against the figure of the radical sceptic. Due to their persistent resistance to attributing knowledge to themselves and others, the radical sceptic limits their contributions to the social context to “mere estimates” or “mere opinions.” Through these “careful beliefs,” they aim to avoid all epistemic risk—something they can achieve only at the cost of falling short of the expectations we legitimately have of our cognitive partners, namely, that they carefully offer us their “full beliefs” as critical cognitive attitudes that reflect a personal stance on the facts. The implication of these radical sceptical attitudes in the social context is an imbalance in the attribution of epistemic credit, which justifies, on our part, an attitude of epistemic blame.

We claim that there appears to be something paradoxical in the phenomenon of testimonial injustice. The awareness that testimonial injustice exists in a society seems to function as pro tanto epistemic evidence that might, in turn, offer the hearer some justification for perpetrating it. Although such justification may be extremely weak and easily outweighed by other epistemic, moral, or political considerations, the evidence itself is not something the hearer could rationally dismiss. Our aim in this paper is to present this as a challenge, rather than to resolve it: to set out the argument that gives rise to this apparent paradox, to show that it follows from existing frameworks of epistemic injustice, and to underline the lack of a readily apparent solution given the resources available. We argue against biting the bullet by highlighting its problematic consequences and conclude by encouraging future research that might truly defuse this paradox.

Knowledge, like other things of value, can be faked. According to Hawley (2011), know-how is harder to fake than knowledge-that, given that merely apparent propositional knowledge is in general more resilient to our attempts at successful detection than are corresponding attempts to fake know-how. While Hawley’s reasoning for a kind of detection resilience asymmetry between know-how and know-that looks initially plausible, it should ultimately be resisted. In showing why, we outline different ways in which know-how can be faked even when a given performance is successful; and in doing so, we distinguish how know-how can be faked (no less than know-that) via upstream and downstream indicators of its presence, and within each of these categories, we’ll distinguish (in connection with detection resilience) both faking symptoms and (various kinds of) criteria. The unappreciated resilience of faked knowledge-how to successful detection highlights a largely overlooked dimension of social-epistemic risk – risk we face not just in our capacity as recipients of testimony, but in our capacity as both (would-be) apprentices and clients of knowledge-how.

Faced with the impossibility of reaching any reductive analysis of the concept of lying, Tobies Grimaltos and Sergi Rosell have proposed a conception thereof that is based on its paradigmatic conditions. Among those conditions, the one of deceiving the listener is prominent. The relationship between lying and deceiving would be crucial in order to understand the paradigmatic cases of the concept, even if merely contingent — a thesis with important implications for its moral assessment. I present their proposal here and advance three objections to it. First: that any theory of lying should be built on a theory of assertion, which already delimits what is properly said in parasitic uses of language (such as metaphor or irony). Second: that we should distinguish the uses of lying from its constituent aspects, among which the intention to lie, not the one to deceive, stands out. And third: that a paradigmatic model of lying should assume an epistemic condition, and not merely a doxastic one, according to which lying is, paradigmatically, saying something that one knows to be false.

According to Sosa (2015, 2021), the domain of epistemic normativity divides into gnoseology and intellectual ethics, a boundary that results from the key notion that gnoseological assessments are telic. We share this view here and highlight the implications that the telic claim has for different debates in contemporary epistemology. However, we also raise the complaint that Sosa’s analogy of the archer has suggested that this boundary aligns with those of the instant of cognitive performance and its attributability to an individual, as featured in the Cartesian fundamental epistemic question: _What should I believe now?_ Against this Cartesian imprint, we claim that temporality and sociality may be constitutive features of gnoseology. In order to show this, we introduce alternative analogies of belief formation processes that illustrate how cognitive achievements may be collectively attained across time, features that may manifest as an epistemology of conversation.

La nuestra parece ser una época aquejada por el escepticismo. ¿Pero qué forma de escepticismo es propiamente la que nos afecta, y cómo recibimos esta herencia del pensamiento antiguo? En este trabajo exploro la cuestión atendiendo al origen histórico del escepticismo filosófico, su actualización durante el Renacimiento y su influencia en el presente. En la primera parte presento las dos variantes del escepticismo clásico, pirronismo y academicismo. En la segunda señalo cómo el primero dejó su impronta en el Renacimiento fomentando la crítica intelectual y la tolerancia social. En la tercera parte presento cómo, con Descartes, la discusión sobre el escepticismo partió de asunciones infalibilistas, confinándose en los límites de lo que Williams llamó «la investigación pura». En la cuarta parte esbozo el marco de la normatividad epistémica, señalando diversas patologías contemporáneas propias de lo que se ha denominado “la posverdad” (auge de las fake news, producción sistemática de incertidumbre, conspiracionismo…). Cuestiono ahí ese apelativo y presento estas patologías como efecto de lo que llamo “desnutrición epistémica”. En la quinta apunto en qué sentido estos males parecen ser resultado de aquella herencia escéptica. En la sexta parte descarto algunos diagnósticos fallidos de esta relación, y en la séptima afino finalmente el tiro, subrayando que es a la interpretación infalibilista del escepticismo, así como a su desvinculación de toda motivación práctica, y no al escepticismo per se, a lo que cabría, si acaso, atribuir estos perniciosos efectos.

Knowledge, like other things of value, can be faked. According to Hawley (2011), know-how is harder to fake than knowledge-that, given that merely apparent propositional knowledge is in general more resilient to our attempts at successful detection than are corresponding attempts to fake know-how. While Hawley's reasoning for a kind of detection resilience asymmetry between know-how and know-that looks initially plausible, it should ultimately be resisted. In showing why, we outline different ways in which know-how can be faked even when a given performance is successful, and in doing so, we distinguish how know-how can be faked (no less than know-that) via upstream and downstream indicators of its presence, and within each of these categories, we'll distinguish (in connection with detection resilience) both faking symptoms and (various kinds of) criteria. The unappreciated resilience of faked knowledge-how to successful detection highlights a largely overlooked dimension of social-epistemic risk––risk we face not just in our capacity as recipients of testimony, but in our capacity as both (would-be) apprentices and clients of knowledge-how.

We may succed in the fulfilment of our desires but still fail to properly own our practical life, perhaps because we acted as addicts, driven by desires that are alien to our will, or as “wantons,” satisfying the desires that we simply happen to have (Frankfurt, 1988 ). May we equally fail to own the outcomes of our epistemic life? If so, how may we attain epistemic ownership over it? This paper explores the structural parallellism between practical and epistemic rationality, building on Williamson’s ( 2002 ) suggestion that we should commence with successful performances as the foundation for both domains, be it action or knowledge. By highlighting the limitations of higher-order regulative approaches in epistemology, exemplified by Sosa ( 2007, 2011, 2015, 2021 ), the paper introduces a form of teleological epistemic constitutivism inspired by Velleman ( 2000, 2009 ). The proposal is that epistemic ownership is not attained in the mere pursuit of truth or knowledge, but requires furthermore a struggle to understand what we know.

Ante la imposibilidad de alcanzar un análisis reductivo del concepto de mentira, Tobies Grimaltos y Sergi Rosell han propuesto una concepción basada en sus condiciones paradigmáticas, entre las que destaca la de engañar al oyente. La relación entre la mentira y el engaño sería, si bien fundamental para entender los casos prototípicos del concepto, meramente contingente —una tesis que tiene importantes implicaciones para su valoración moral—. Presento aquí su propuesta y avanzo tres objeciones a la misma: primero, que la teoría de la mentira debería de construirse sobre una teoría de la aserción, que ya de por sí delimita lo propiamente dicho en los usos parasitarios del lenguaje (como la metáfora o la ironía). Segundo, que es preciso distinguir los usos de la mentira de sus aspectos constitutivos, entre los cuales destaca la intención de mentir, y no la de engañar. Y tercero, que un modelo paradigmático de la mentira debería de asumir una condición epistémica, y no meramente doxástica, según la cual mentir es, paradigmáticamente, decir algo que uno sabe falso.

We are witnessing a certain tendency in epistemology to account for the anti-luck intuition in terms of risk. I.e., instead of the traditional anti-luck diagnosis of Gettier cases and fake barn cases, a new anti-risk diagnosis seems to be preferable by many. My goal in this paper is twofold: first, I contribute to motivate that drift; and second, I defend that we ought to partially resist it. An anti-risk diagnosis is valid and preferable for fake barn cases, but we still need an anti-luck diagnosis for classic Gettier cases. The paper thus defends the Solomon-like result that we need both concepts—epistemic luck and epistemic risk—to deal with all the cases where knowledge is undermined.

Claims of epistemic credit in social context Resumen: En este ensayo explico la propuesta fundamental de Conocimiento expropiado (Broncano 2020) en el marco agencial y fiabilista que asume el autor. A continuación, me centro en su análisis de las situaciones de injusticia testimonial, contraponiendo los caminos seguidos por Miranda Fricker (enfocado en el prejuicio del intercambio testimonial) y Broncano (enfocado en el desajuste estructural). Tras señalar las deficiencias de cada modelo, apunto una propuesta alternativa: la injusticia testimonial se produce cuando la atribución de credibilidad es efecto de un juicio identitario, ya sea este ajustado o no, con respecto al colectivo al que pertenece la testigo. Abstract: In this essay, I explain the main claim of Conocimiento expropiado (Broncano 2020) against the background of the agential and reliabilist framework that its author assumes. I then focus on his analysis of situations of testimonial injustice, opposing Miranda Fricker’s approach (focused on prejudice in testimonial exchanges) and Broncano’s one (focused on structural imbalances). By pointing out the shortcommings of both models, I skech an alternative proposal: testimonial injustice is produced when the credibility assessment results from an identity judgment, whether it is effectively appropriate regarding the collective or not. Palabras clave: Epistemología política, fiabilismo agencial, injusticia testimonial, credibilidad. Keywords: Political Epistemology, agent reliabilism, testimonial injustice, credibility.

Ernesto Sosa tiene el mérito de haber sido pionero en lo que podría describirse, quizás sin demasiada exageración, como un cambio de paradigma en la epistemología contemporánea: el que supuso el tránsito desde una epistemología centrada en el problema de la estructura de la justificación hasta una nueva concepción del conocimiento enfocada en la naturaleza del agente epistémico. Un aspecto de este cambio que conviene no tratar con negligencia es el cambio de las analogías fundamentales, que pasaron de ser arquitectónicas a ser deportivas o prácticas, entre las que destaca la analogía del arquero. Nuestro objetivo en este capítulo es describir someramente dicho cambio para apuntar dos sentidos en los que creemos que la propuesta de Sosa podría «deslimitarse», es decir, desprenderse de límites que él mismo ha impuesto a su planteamiento. Un primer límite está relacionado con la dimensión temporal de la gnoseología (que, a diferencia de la ética de la creencia, habría de adoptar, según Sosa, un planteamiento esencialmente instantáneo o sincrónico). Un segundo límite es relativo a la identidad del agente epistémico, en la medida en que el planteamiento de Sosa parece asumir un enfoque individualista de difícil aplicación en casos de agentes colectivos. Sostendremos que ambos límites aparecen si mantenemos la analogía del arquero con el agente de conocimiento, al ser la suya una actividad instantánea y radicalmente individual. Si en su lugar adoptamos otras analogías para la acción epistémica, como las que aquí proponemos, salta a la vista que la sincronía y la individualidad son limitaciones contingentes para una epistemología de virtudes télica. En nuestra opinión, el abandono de esos dos límites podría abrir nuevos y prometedores horizontes para la epistemología social.

AbstractAccording to the standard view, Montaigne’s Pyrrhonian doubts would be in the origin of Descartes’ radical Sceptical challenges and his cogito argument. Although this paper does not deny this influence, its aim is to reconsider it from a different perspective, by acknowledging that it was not Montaigne’s Scepticism, but his Stoicism, which played the decisive role in the birth of the modern internalist conception of subjectivity. Cartesian need for certitude is to be better understood as an effect of the Stoic model of wisdom, which urges the sage to build an inner space for self-sufficiency and absolute freedom.KeywordsScepticism, Stoicism, subjectivity, Michel de Montaigne, René DescartesResumenSegún el punto de vista general, las dudas pirronianas de Montaigne se situarían en el origen de los desafíos escépticos radicales del argumento cogito de Descartes. Si bien este artículo no niega tal influencia, nuestro objetivo es reconsiderarla desde una perspectiva diferente mediante el reconocimiento de que no fue el escepticismo de Montaigne sino su estoicismo el que jugó un papel decisivo en el nacimiento del concepto moderno internalista de la subjetividad. La necesidad cartesiana de certeza se entiende mejor como un efecto del modelo estoico de sabiduría, el cual impulsa al sabio a construir un espacio interior para la autosuficiencia y la libertad absoluta.Palabras claveEscepticismo, estoicismo, subjetividad, Michel de Montaigne, René Descartes.

Gilbert Ryle famously denied that knowledge-how is a species of knowledge-that, a thesis that has been contested by so-called “intellectualists.” I begin by proposing a rearrangement of some of the concepts of this debate, and then I focus on Jason Stanley’s reading of Ryle’s position. I show that Ryle has been seriously misconstrued in this discussion, and then revise Ryle’s original arguments in order to show that the confrontation between intellectualists and anti-intellectualists may not be as insurmountable as it seems, at least in the case of Stanley, given that both contenders are motivated by their discontent with a conception of intelligent performances as the effect of intellectual hidden powers detached from practice.

Nowadays philosophy is characterized by such heterogeneous intellectual practices that its very unity and coherence seem endangered. What is especially disconcerting is that most authors manage to largely ignore the very existence of methodological positions radically different from their own. Fortunately, there have been exceptions, and the present volume focuses on one of them: the failed debate that took place between John Searle and Jacques Derrida. This book thoroughly analyses that exchange, contextualizing it within the respective philosophical traditions of the two thinkers, with the general aim of turning their dispute into what it was not: a respectful, sensible and fruitful controversy. This episode is thus taken as an opportunity to reflect on the peculiar nature of philosophy as an intellectual practice, and to discuss some of its main themes: language as an instrument for communication, the intentionality of consciousness, and difference as a constitutive element of every text.

This paper advances new theses about the relationship between luck and risk, using recent work by Duncan Pritchard (2014, 2015, 2016) as its foil. Once Pritchard’s views are introduced in section 1, the rest of the paper completes two different tasks, one critical and one constructive. By focussing on some epistemological cases that Pritchard’s model would fail to identify, section 2 shows that it relies on a difference that is in fact inessential: the one between the occurrence and the non‐occurrence of an event. Section 3 sketches and defends an alternative account of the luck/risk distinction, based on the consideration of situations (instead of events) from different temporal perspectives: luck assessments track a situation’s past, considering it the actual outcome of some previous event, whereas risk assessments look at the situation’s future, regarding it as the initial condition of some unsettled event.

The questions ‘Do I know p?’ and ‘shall I take p as a reason to act?’ seem to belong to different domains — or so claims Ernest Sosa in his Judgment and Agency (2015), the latest version of his virtue epistemology. According to Sosa, we may formulate the first question in a purely epistemological way — a matter of knowledge “full stop” —, while the second one is necessarily intruded by pragmatic factors — a matter of “actionable knowledge”. Both should be answered, in his view, considering the reliability of my belief, but the former could be faced in total abstraction from my personal practical concerns. In this paper I dispute Sosa’s view, and claim that no purely epistemic level of knowledge “full stop” is conceivable, at least within a reliabilist framework. A case is put forward in order to show that some given belief may not be considered as reliable by itself, as a token, but always as a member of a type, belonging to some class of reference of other beliefs. And the relevant class of reference may only be chosen considering personal practical interests.