Matteo Baggio

The importance of abductive inference has recently been rekindled by ongoing discussions in the epistemology of logic, as advanced by proponents of logical anti-exceptionalism. Some scholars within this framework contend that abductive reasoning is integral to warranting, acquiring knowledge, and revising logical theories. Accordingly, these authors appear to assert that this methodology indirectly accounts for warrant, knowledge acquisition, and the revision of logical principles. Against this backdrop, the primary aim of this article is to argue that the epistemological role of abduction requires reconsideration. Specifically, we contend that abduction is a subordinate epistemic method, one that depends on more traditional epistemic sources.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has brought a host of new epistemological challenges. One particularly pressing question is whether, and to what extent, AI systems can serve as sources of epistemic goods. Can they effectively transmit knowledge or understanding? And if they do not possess these epistemic goods themselves, can they still generate them for human users? This article explores these questions by critically examining the constraints posed by counter-closure principles – epistemological principles that allegedly cast doubt on the epistemic potential of AI. By addressing these principles, we aim to lay the groundwork for a systematic inquiry into the social epistemology of AI.

Recent epistemological debates have increasingly focused on the contentious Counter-Closure principle, which holds that, necessarily, if an agent S believes that q based solely on a competent inference from p, and knows q, then S also knows p. This principle has drawn attention due to various challenges, particularly the issue of inferential knowledge derived from false premises. In this article, we pursue two objectives. First, we argue that the Counter-Closure principle is untenable but for reasons that depart from traditional critiques. Specifically, we will present a novel argument against the internalist approach that supports the cases of knowledge from falsehoods. Second, we show that the Counter-Closure principle’s failure can be better addressed within an externalist framework by exploring novel theories of defeaters and the relationship between doxastic and propositional warrant.

The ongoing debate in logical epistemology, particularly influenced by neo-Quinean perspectives such as logical anti-exceptionalism, has greatly advanced our understanding of logical knowledge. Recently, Martin and Hjortland introduced a refined taxonomy of logical anti-exceptionalism, distinguishing between two key approaches: methodological anti-exceptionalism and Quine’s evidential naturalism, which they term “evidential anti-exceptionalism”. This article critically examines their taxonomy, with a particular focus on their preferred account of methodological anti-exceptionalism, known as logical predictivism. Martin and Hjortland argue that methodological anti-exceptionalist accounts can preserve the apriority of logic while avoiding the exceptionalist commitments traditionally associated with logical epistemology. However, this article challenges that claim, arguing that predictivism’s reliance on empirical methods for developing and testing logical theories introduces a new methodological assumption – the practice-based approach – which ultimately undermines predictivism’s ability to account for the apriority of logic. Moreover, this critique extends to other accounts within the methodological anti-exceptionalist framework, showing that they, too, fail to account for the apriority of logic adequately.

Logical realism is the metaphysical view asserting that the facts of logic exist and are mind-and-language independent. McSweeney argues that if logical realism is true, we encounter a dilemma. Either we cannot determine which of the two logically equivalent theories holds a fundamental status, or neither theory can be considered fundamental. These two conclusions together constitute what is known as the _Unfamiliarity Dilemma_, which poses significant challenges to our understanding of the epistemological and metaphysical features of logic. In this article, I present two strategies to address McSweeney’s dilemma. If these arguments prove effective, they would demonstrate that our knowledge of logic is not susceptible to the skeptical concerns raised by McSweeney’s hypothesis.

By playing a crucial role in settling open issues in the philosophical debate about logical consequence, logical evidence has become the holy grail of inquirers investigating the domain of logic. However, despite its indispensable role in this endeavor, logical evidence has retained an aura of mystery. Indeed, there seems to be a great disharmony in conceiving the correct nature and scope of logical evidence among philosophers. In this paper, I examine four widespread conceptions of logical evidence to argue that all should be reconsidered. First, I argue that logical apriorists are more tolerant of logical evidence than empiricists. Second, I argue that evidence for logic should not be read out of natural language. Third, I argue that if logical intuitions are to count as logical evidence, then their evidential content must not be propositional. Finally, I argue that the empiricist proposal of treating experts' judgments as evidence suffers from the same problems as the rationalist conception.