Mark Anthony Dacela

This paper provides added foundational support to the three proffered paradigms of artificial intelligence in education. Specifically, it gives a preliminary analysis of the key epistemic aims present in each of the said frameworks. In order to account for the different ways in which artificial intelligence-related educational strategies have been employed to address issues in learning and instruction, three paradigms have been previously put forward: AI-directed (learner-as-recipient), AI-supported (learner-as-collaborator), and AI-empowered (learner-as-leader). In this paper, it is argued that the different standard views on what ought to be the objectives of education (i.e., philosophical theories that highlight knowledge and truth, critical thinking, intellectual virtues, and understanding) manifest themselves distinctly in these three paradigms. Moreover, apart from epistemically grounding the differing artificial intelligence in education frameworks, this study also demonstrates that more complex models, in principle, could espouse a greater number of epistemic aims.

Deathbots are artificial intelligence tools that enable the possibility of encountering deceased loved ones. The advancement of Large Language Models in deathbots makes the imitation of the deceased possible by inputting personal data, messages, photos, and videos. Such AI systems can process new information and provide appropriate responses while mimicking the dead, offering the bereaved a way to sustain connections with them. However, we claim that deathbots put at risk a special kind of knowledge that we can only acquire from grief. In this paper, we hold that grief provides irreplaceable moral insight, illuminating the unique bond between individuals and fostering an appreciation of human goodness. By offering an artificial replacement for this natural process, deathbots may inadvertently prevent grievers from engaging with the true depth of loss and the moral reflection that it inspires. This paper explores how deathbots reshape the grieving experience, potentially distorting the moral dimensions of loss and deterring grievers from the introspection that comes with grieving. We argue that deathbots potentially deprive grievers of having the sort of transformative moral knowledge that arises from the experience of coming to terms with losing someone in its full, unmediated reality.

Delusional beliefs are often associated with mental illness, and it is linked with schizophrenia spectrum and delusional disorder. Delusions are characterized as a failure of reasoning, and patients with delusions typically view their actions as caused by impervious beliefs. For this reason, a person with delusions loses their sense of agency and ownership, which is usually treated as an excusing condition for moral responsibility. We argue that this is not true in all cases. Lisa Bortolotti claims that some delusional beliefs contribute to achieving the patient’s epistemic goals and maintaining their sense of epistemic agency. Following this, we offer an analysis of patients with delusional beliefs to show that in cases where such beliefs remain epistemically functional, a patient could still be morally responsible. Our analysis is twofold: 1) we discuss the basis of moral exemption for a person with delusions owing to mental illness, and then 2) we examine the epistemic value of delusional belief in schizophrenia spectrum cases, its significance in epistemic agency, and what this implies for moral responsibility.

Delusional beliefs are often associated with mental illness, and it is linked with schizophrenia spectrum and delusional disorder. Delusions are characterized as a failure of reasoning, and patients with delusions typically view their actions as caused by impervious beliefs. For this reason, a person with delusions loses their sense of agency and ownership, which is usually treated as an excusing condition for moral responsibility. We argue that this is not true in all cases. Lisa Bortolotti claims that some delusional beliefs contribute to achieving the patient’s epistemic goals and maintaining their sense of epistemic agency. Following this, we offer an analysis of patients with delusional beliefs to show that in cases where such beliefs remain epistemically functional, a patient could still be morally responsible. Our analysis is twofold: 1) we discuss the basis of moral exemption for a person with delusions owing to mental illness, and then 2) we examine the epistemic value of delusional belief in schizophrenia spectrum cases, its significance in epistemic agency, and what this implies for moral responsibility.

Medical populism, a performance-based political style that orchestrates antagonistic relations between the people and medical establishments, has served as a concept for analyzing the politicization of healthcare. With its four fundamental features, that is, invoking knowledge claims contrary to medical experts’ advice, simplifying discourse, dramatizing responses to public health crises, and forging divisions, medical populism compromises our access to accurate medical or public health information. Populist leaders abuse their epistemic authority and betray public trust when they propagate false information, medical or otherwise. And insofar as accurate medical or public health information is an epistemic good that we have the right to access, and not having so harms us precisely as knowers, we claim that medical populism violates our epistemic rights.

In ‘The Case of Patient Smith: Pain-Belief, Epistemic Luck, and Acquaintance,’ Elliott Crozat challenged the infallibility of the belief that “I feel pain” by providing a Gettier-type example that shows that such a pain-belief can be fallibly justified and luckily true. We claim that this move is problematic given that the case is not the Gettier sort. To demonstrate this, we first question the causal relation or lack thereof between the subject’s pain-belief and the pain he felt. We argue that this leads us to a dilemma. Either the painbelief and the pain are causally connected or not. If there is a causal connection, the subject’s true belief is justified, not epistemically lucky, and therefore qualifies as knowledge. If we grant no causal connection, we show that this leads to either an unjustified pain-belief or a justified false one. The result of both horns shows that Crozat’s Gettier-type example does not qualify as a bona fide Gettier case.

The essay deals with the issue of how a non-summativist account of collective epistemic traits can be properly justified. We trace the roots of this issue in virtue epistemology and collective epistemology and then critically examine certain views advanced to justify non-summativism. We focus on those considered by Fricker, including Gilbert’s concept of plural subjects, which she endorses. We find her analysis of these views problematic for either going beyond the parameters of the summativism-nonsummativism debate or contradicting common intuitions about epistemic trait ascriptions. As an alternative, we advance the idea that collective epistemic traits are system properties; or that epistemic traits act as system properties when attributed to collectives taken in their own right. Working as a system, the individual members of a collective perform their designated roles or tasks in coordination and cooperation with each other to achieve theirjoint intentions. Being attributes exclusive to systems, collective epistemic traits cannot, therefore, be attributed in the same respect to the individuals comprising these systems, thereby blocking any summative account of these traits. This model also easily sidesteps the problems besetting Fricker’s preferred one.

Medical populism, as a political style of handling the challenges of a public health crisis, has primarily been analyzed in terms of its influence on the efficacy of governmental efforts to meet the challenges of the current pandemic (such as those related to testing, vaccination, and community restrictions). As these efforts have moral consequences (they, for instance, will affect people’s wellbeing and may lead to suffering, loss of opportunities, and unfair distributions), an analysis of the ethics of medical populism is much needed. In this essay, we address the need to analyze the moral dimension of medical populism by relating it to issues in healthcare ethics. Specifically, we identify the moral significance of medical populism by demonstrating how it contributes to the failure of governments to discharge their moral duty to provide for the healthcare needs of their people, and, correlatively, to the violation of the people’s moral right to healthcare. We argue that with medical populism, governments tend to mishandle the constraints that would morally justify their shortcomings in fulfilling such duty. We identify such constraints as mainly referring to the governments’ given (economic and institutional) capacities and the relative degree of incumbency of their competing duties.

In this paper, we discuss specific epistemic injustices suffered by gender minorities in the Philippines. We also show that societal changes have been evident throughout the years. We review some progressive Philippine Catholic communities' sustainable development efforts toward gender equality or toward the eradication of discrimination, marginalisation, and violence based on a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression (SOGIE). Despite these epistemic injustices, we reveal that there are ways by which gender disorientations may be disrupted by progressive Philippine Catholic groups and communities in the era of contemporary Christianities.

This paper reports the policy-responses of different Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs) to the novel coronavirus, COVD-19 pandemic. It compares these responses with those made by HEIs in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Publicly available data and news reports were used to gauge the general public’s reaction to these policies and how the Philippines’ responses fare with its Southeast Asian neighbors. The paper observes that despite the innovations made by Philippine HEIs in terms of alternative learning modes and technologies for delivering education, there are still gaps and challenges in their responses. It recommends that policy-responses and learning innovations should be grounded on a deeper understanding of distance education and should be sensitive to the call of the times.

Epistemic injustices are wrongs done concerning a person’s capacity as a knower. These actions are usually caused by prejudice and involve the distortion and neglect of certain marginalized groups’ opinions and ways of knowing. A type of epistemic injustice is hermeneutical injustice, which occurs when a person cannot effectively communicate or understand their experience, since it is excluded in scholarship, journalism, and discourse within their community. Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are especially vulnerable to hermeneutical injustice because their way of life is unfamiliar or inaccessible to others. This leads to the exclusion of their ideas from public discourse, especially those important for human and societal development. This phenomenon is particularly evident in instances related to IP education. José Medina claims that there are cases of hermeneutical injustice which hinders the ability of people to share and make meaning, or simply, hermeneutical death. Ben Kotzee, on the other hand, identifies the specific educational dimension of epistemic injustice. Using both of these frameworks and citing the results of local studies on indigenous education as illustrative points, we attempt to show instances and scope of hermeneutical injustice in the education of IPs in the Philippines.

A fundamental issue conceived out of the development of epistemology of education has to do with what epistemic state/s education ought to aim for. We offer a solution to this problem, one that deviates from truth, critical thinking, and intellectual virtues which have already been positioned as compelling solutions on their own. Instead, we argue that it is objectual understanding, from the framework of Jonathan Kvanvig, that best suits the place of primacy in epistemic educational aims. The paper’s structure finds order and consistency with how the problem is treated as mentioned above. Section 1 introduces the different types of understanding in epistemology. In section 2, the epistemic value of objectual understanding is established, along with a defense of this epistemic state from the problems encountered for other positions. The second section also includes a discussion of the compatibility of objectual understanding with other epistemic aims of education. In section 3, we proceed to examine the influence of having addressed the epistemic aims debate to the educational concepts of curriculum, teaching, and learning.

In general, existential threats are those that may potentially result in the extinction of the entire human species, if not significantly endanger its living population. Among the said threats include, but not limited to, pandemics and the impacts of a technological singularity. As regards pandemics, significant work has already been done on how to mitigate, if not prevent, the aftereffects of this type of disaster. For one, certain problem areas on how to properly manage pandemic responses have already been identified, like the following: (a) not being able to learn from previous experiences, (b) the inability to act on warning signals, and (c) the failure to reach a global consensus on a problem (i.e., in a timely manner). In terms of a singularity, however, it may be said that further research is still needed, specifically on how to aptly respond to its projected negative outcomes. In this paper, by treating the three problem areas noted above as preliminary assessment measures of a country’s capacity to coordinate a national response to large-scale disasters, we examine the readiness of the Philippines in preparing for an intelligence explosion. By citing certain instances of how the said country, specifically its national government, faced the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, it puts forward the idea that the likely Philippine disaster response towards a singularity needs to be worked on, appealing for a more comprehensive assessment of such for a more informed response plan.

One fundamental healthcare issue brought to the fore by the current COVID-19 pandemic concerns the scope and nature of the right to healthcare. Given our increasing need for the usually limited healthcare resources, to what extent can we demand provision of these resources as a matter of right? One philosophical way of handling this issue is to clarify the nature of this right. Using the challenges of COVID-19 in the Philippines as the context of analysis, we argue for the view that regards the right to healthcare as fundamentally moral in kind, which should thereby guide its legal and contractual appropriations. In particular, we respond to objections against this view stemming from issues concerning the universality and satisfiability of the right’s correlative duty. We deal with such issues by invoking the relative degree of incumbency of moral rights and the capability-relativity of positive duties. We further contend that as these factors define the scope of the moral right to healthcare, they thus constrain what we can demand as a matter of right to meet our healthcare needs in this time of the pandemic.

In a previous paper, I briefly profiled unsafe beliefs as either: (1) beliefs formed using a method that is conditionally reliable and (2) beliefs formed using a method with unstable reliability. I dubbed these profiles as B-type and C-type, respectively. Extending this analysis, I will demonstrate how these belief types operate and why they fail in some notable counterexamples to safety offered by Neta and Rohrbaugh, Cosmesaña, Baumann, Kelp, Bogardus, and Freitag. Examining these cases also motivate my thesis that a method’s conditional reliability or instability does not render a belief formed by an actually reliable method unjustified; its epistemic worth remains intact, unsafe as it may be.

Modal epistemic conditions have played an important role in post-Gettier theories of knowledge. These conditions purportedly eliminate the pernicious kind of luck present in all Gettier-type cases and offer a rather convincing way of refuting skepticism. This motivates the view that conditions of this sort are necessary for knowledge. I argue against this. I claim that modal conditions, particularly sensitivity and safety, are not necessary for knowledge. I do this by noting that the problem cases for both conditions point to a problem that cannot be fixed even by a revised similarity ranking or ordering of worlds. I offer as groundwork a set theoretical analysis of the profiles of the problem cases for safety and sensitivity. I then demonstrate that these conditions fail whenever necessary links constitutive of the epistemic situation actually obtain but are not modally preserved.

Robert Nozick (1981, 172) offers the following analysis of knowledge (where S stands for subject and p for proposition): D1 S knows that p =df (1) S believes p, (2) p is true, (3) if p weren’t true, S wouldn’t believe that p (variation condition), and (4) If p were true, S would believe it (adherence condition). Jointly, Nozick refers to conditions 3 and 4 as the sensitivity condition: for they require that the belief be sensitive to the truth-value of the proposition—such that if the proposition were false, the subject would not have believed it, and if the proposition remains true in a slightly different situation, the subject would have still believed it. In other words, they ask us to consider the status of the belief in close possible situations (those that obtain in close possible worlds); specifically, in situations that would obtain if the proposition is false, and in those in which it remains true. Condition 3 specifies how belief should vary with the truth of what is believed, while condition 4 specifies how belief shouldn’t vary when the truth of the belief does not vary. I will discuss some notable problem cases for Nozick’s analysis and then look at why the sensitivity condition he proposes fails in these cases.

Spader identifies and addresses in this work three enigmas that continue to overshadow the merits of Scheler's ethical personalism (9-10): (a) the lack of phenomenological evidences, (b) the sudden change of path from ethics to religion and metaphysics, and (c) the movement from theism to panentheism. Spader's book is thus an attempt to rid Scheler's ethical theory of its illusive reputation by making explicit the rationale behind the obscurities that Scheler seems to have intentionally embraced.

This article is a general introduction to the psychology of reasoning. Specifically, it focuses on the dual process theory of human cognition. Proponents of the said two-system view hold that human cognition involves two processes (viz., System 1 and System 2). System 1 is an automatic, intuitive thinking process where judgments and reasoning rely on fast thinking and ready-to-hand data. On the other hand, System 2 is a slow, logical cognitive process where our judgments and reasoning rely on reflective, careful analysis and data evaluation. Supposedly, these two cognitive processes are at play in every thinking task, and they sometimes work together and sometimes go against each other.

In January 1995, at the age of 22, Annabel Chong (whose real name is Grace Quek), a former pornographic actress/director set a world record (which has since been topped) for having the most number of sex acts, 251 with about 70 men, over a period of about ten hours, for a film called the World’s Biggest Gangbang. Chong claims in subsequent interviews that more than anything else, she did it to challenge the stereotypical notion that female sexuality is passive—that women like to be “seduced, kissed and cuddled, and [are] basically biologically monogamous”. She quips that “if a guy did 251 women in one day... everyone would think he’s a real stud”; But if a girl does the same “she’s considered a terrible slut.” This paper is my attempt to investigate what Annabel Chong’s dissent means for feminism: Is Annabel Chong the quintessential feminist, defying an oppressive system, asserting her individuality, redefining the parameters of a gender-determined sexuality? Or is she a victim of her own misguided ideals, objectifying herself in the belief that this affirms her subjectivity, submitting herself to domination to reclaim control, eventually propagating the same oppressive system she professes to end? I want to approach this inquiry using Foucault’s framework of power-discourse-sexuality for two reasons: First, I believe that Foucault’s genealogy of sexuality successfully exploits how sexuality as a discursive construct is used as a technique of control; Second, I believe that Foucault provides us a way of understanding how an individual responds to various systems of control, as well as a framework that explains the many power relations that determine an individual’s mode of existence. However, since in effect, I would be presenting a Foucauldian analysis of the gendered experience of a feminist subject, I find it necessary to first overcome what I consider as theoretical barriers, alluding to the ongoing debate concerning the usefulness of Foucault’s framework for feminists. To address this issue, I will present a brief survey of the criticisms directed to the inadequacy of Foucault’s theory of the subject posed by some notable feminists, as well as the proposed resolutions to them. This also establishes the framework on which I ground my inquiry. My contention is that to some extent these criticisms have already been resolved, and that it is now possible to present an analysis of the gendered experience of the feminist subject using a Foucauldian framework.

Iniaalok ng pag-aaral na ito ang isang panunuring Foucauldian sa pangkasariang karanasan ng babaeng may breast cancer (BRCA). Inihahain din ng mga may-akda ang mga sumusunod na tanong: Paano naaapi ang babaeng may BRCA? Paano hinahamon ng kanyang karanasan ang konsepto ng seksuwalidad? Maaari bang ituring ang kanyang karanasan bilang anyo ng pagbalikwas? Tutugunan ng mga may-akda ang naturang mga tanong gamit ang kapangyarihan-diskurso-seksuwalidad ni Foucault habang ipinapalagay na: (1) matagumpay na naipapakita ng talaangkanan ng seksuwalidad ni Foucault kung paanong ang seksuwalidad, bilang isang diskursibong kontrak, ay ginagamit bilang isang teknik ng pangongontrol, at (2) nabibigyan tayo ni Foucault ng isang paraan ng pag-unawa sa kung papaano tumutugon ang indibidwal sa iba’t ibang sistema ng kontrol, maging ng isang balangkas na makapagpapaliwanag sa maraming relasyong pangkapangyarihan na siyang tumutukoy sa moda ng pag-iral ng indibidwal. Nahahati ang papel na ito sa tatlong pangunahing bahagi: (1) Ang Panunuring Feminista ng Sabjek na Foucauldian, (2) Ang Pangkasariang Karanasan ng Babaeng may BRCA, at (3) Pagbalikwas bilang Diskurso-Konstrak at Binuong Tugon.