Raphaël Künstler

The term ‘post-truth’ refers, at least in part, to factual disagreements that continue to exist despite free speech and unrestricted access to information and argumentative discourse. One of the main problems in the philosophy of philosophy is how to explain the persistence of intractable theoretical disagreements despite a long and intense history of debate. Bas van Fraassen, Paul Teller, and Anjan Chakravartty have recently suggested that this irreducibility is due to stances. There is an analogy here that suggests that the meta-philosophical model of the stance might also be used to explain post-truth phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to test this hypothesis and offer two different ways of seeing post-truth as a stance.

Should historians studying mass crimes set aside the emotions that these crimes evoke? Positive and negative responses to this question can be referred to as methodological objectivism and subjectivism, respectively. This paper addresses this debate based on a case study: Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s methodological sentimentalism. First, I reconstruct Goldhagen’s position and then criticize its central assumption. The upshot of this case study is that methodological sentimentalists should decide between two conceptions of inferential self-knowledge, esthetic and scientific.

I argue here that the theoretically central aspect of Stanley Milgram’s “experiments on obedience to authority” continues to elude main current commentators because it does not fit into the current paradigm of Milgram’s studies: the presentation and the justification of a set of rules to the subjects. I argue that taking this fact into account radically changes the interpretation of the subjects’ conduct: they are not submitting to an authority, they are not obeying orders, but they are applying a justified rule. If such is indeed the case, the interpretation of the experiments should not be primarily psychological, but normative.

Since the publication of “Behavioral studies of obedience” in 1963, and then of “Obedience to Authority” in 1974, the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale in the early 1960s has provoked many lively debates. The opening of his archives by Yale University (Blass 2002), the partial replication of the experiment (Burger 2009), interviews with former “guinea pigs” or collaborators (Perry 2012), as well as the more general context of the replicability crisis in experimental psychology (Ritchie 2020) have triggered a revival of these debates.On the basis of these new data, several aspects of Milgram’s experiments have been reexamined: their experimental protocol, which does not exactly match Milgram's account of it (Gibson 2019); the decision not to include in the interpretation interviews in which subjects claimed not to have been fooled by the device designed to deceive them (Perry, Brannigan & alii 2018); the lessons to be learned from the behavior observed (Burger, Girgis & Manning 2011; Reicher, Haslam & Smith 2012); the usefulness of these findings in explaining the behavior of ordinary perpetrators during genocides, and in particular the Shoah (Russell & Gregory 2015; Roth 2022); the moral legitimacy of the device itself (Perry 2012). Moreover, all of these investigations converge on the question of whether the crisis of reproducibility affects experiments on authority and, if so, to what extent. As Stuart Ritchie's (2020) cautious treatment of the Milgram case in his review of the reproducibility crisis shows, this question remains open.The fact remains that debates around one of the founding and paradigmatic works of experimental social psychology ultimately call into question the very value of this discipline or at least the direction it should take. Augustine Brannigan goes so far as to call for “the end of experimental social psychology” (Brannigan 2017, p. 141) in this regard. Finally, both Milgram and the psychologists and philosophers following in his wake interpreted the astonishment that his results aroused as a symptom of adherence to a mistaken anthropology. The situationist research program thus aimed to understand what this error is, where it comes from, and how to rectify it (Ross & Nisbett 1991; Doris 2005; Sabini & Silver 2005; Roth 2022). The subsequent interrogation of Milgram's results thus also calls into question the value of this philosophical program.The authority experiments were based on epistemological and ontological presuppositions that conditioned their design and interpretation, and that have thus far rarely been drawn out and directly discussed. For example, by designating his task as an “experiment on authority”, Milgram presupposed the existence of a concept of authority that would apply to the experiment in question, but about which he remained confused, because he was theoretically eclectic, relying as much on Hannah Arendt as on cybernetics (Milgram 1974). Stephen Gibson (2019) thus looked for a concept that could adequately describe what was actually taking place during the experiment and suggested that the Foucauldian concept of power was more suitable than the concept of authority.To take another example, Milgram's explicit goal was not only to reproduce in the laboratory an ordinary relationship of subordination, but to simulate the administrative and social structure that made possible the implementation of the extermination of the European Jews (Milgram 1963; Milgram 1974; Blass 2002). Against the prejudice according to which historical events are non-repeatable singularities, he thus presupposed the possibility of solving experimentally some of the explanatory problems that plague historians.In order to contribute productively to current debates on the value of Milgram's experiments, and more generally of social psychology, this special issue tries to identify the presuppositions, theoretical consequences, and justifications of the experiments.

This paper argues that standard theories of judgment aggregation cannot apply to scientific practice, since science is a temporally extended process that involves both different individuals and different hypotheses during that process. Thus, for example, we seem to have no idea how to determine the judgments of dead scientists about theoretical alternatives that were proposed after their death. The paper then proposes an algorithm for judgment aggregation to try to address some of these challenges.

À la question de savoir comment concevoir la relation entre le concept de science et celui de métaphysique, une réponse très influente de nos jours prône la naturalisation méthodologique de la science. Selon cette thèse, même si sciences et métaphysique sont des entreprises épistémiquement indépendantes l’une de l’autre, elles sont ou devraient être méthodologiquement analogues : l’enquête métaphysique serait ou devrait être menée par des moyens scientifiques. L’objet de mon article est de montrer qu’une telle manière de concevoir la métaphysique a un effet inverse à celui escompté. Au lieu d’élever la certitude métaphysique à un niveau scientifique, elle abaisse la certitude scientifique au niveau métaphysique. Je soutiens que, si on ne se résout ni à accepter cette conséquence ni à renoncer à une certaine forme de naturalisation, émerge un nouveau problème de démarcation entre science et métaphysique. 2.12.0.0.

Les expériences de pensée sont à la fois un instrument de la pratique philosophique et un stimulant pour l’imagination. La question ici posée est celle de la détermination de la valeur de ces expériences de pensée quand elles sont employées dans des œuvres de fiction. On répond que la mise en fiction d’une expérience de pensée, si elle reste associée à une visée argumentative, rend le public moins apte à penser correctement et peut conduire à la remise en question de ses valeurs les plus fondamentales, mais pour de mauvaises raisons. La puissance qu’a la fiction de mettre en scène ces scénarios imaginaires la munit donc du pouvoir de détériorer son public. Afin de justifier cette thèse, l’article s’appuie sur une analyse de la manière dont la série 24 heures chrono met en scène l’expérience de pensée de la bombe à retardement.

L’une des principales questions préoccupant la philosophie de la philosophie est celle de l’explication de la persistance de désaccords théoriques malgré d’intenses échanges argumentatifs. Bas van Fraassen, Paul Teller et Anjan Chakravartty ont récemment suggéré que cette irréductibilité était causée par des « stances ». Le terme « post-vérité » quant à lui renvoie au moins en partie à des désaccords factuels persistant malgré un accès ouvert à l’information et aux échanges argumentatifs. Il y a là une analogie qui suggère l’hypothèse selon laquelle le modèle méta-philosophique des stances pourrait être également employé pour expliquer les phénomènes de post-vérité. L’objet de cet article est de tester cette hypothèse.

"La métaphysique de tradition analytique ou continentale est florissante. Elle n'est plus seulement travaillée comme objet de l'histoire de la philosophie, elle est redevenue sujet de l'activité philosophique et productrice d'oeuvres nouvelles - qu'il s'agisse de la tradition dite continentale ou de celle dite analytique. Du côté "continental", hérité de Heidegger, c'est estimer que la métaphysique, en tant qu'enquête rationnelle sur l'être, doit être dépassée au profit d'un questionnement poétique. Du côté analytique, hérité du Cercle de Vienne, et notamment de Carnap, c'est prolonger l'oeuvre de philosophes qui estimaient que la logique symbolique nouvellement façonnée devait permettre d'établir le fait que tous les énoncés métaphysiques étaient dénués de sens. L'apologiste de la science que fut Carnap, tout comme son pourfendeur que fut Heidegger, ont l'un et l'autre convergé sur un même mot d'ordre :"le dépassement de la métaphysique". Ce renouveau actuel est donc d'autant plus étonnant que ces deux courants se réclamaient l'un et l'autre de l'héritage de Kant, lequel récusait déjà la triple ambition de la métaphysique théorique à connaître rationnellement la surnature, les choses en soi et les faits ultimes constituant la nature. Cet ouvrage, qui réunit d'éminents spécialistes de la question, propose ainsi un état des lieux de la réflexion métaphysique contemporaine."--Page 4 of cover.

The anti-metaphysical argument against scientific realism is the following: Knowledge of unobservable entities implies metaphysical knowledge; There is no metaphysical knowledge. Therefore, there is no knowledge of unobservable entities. This argument has strangely received little attention in the profuse literature on scientific realism. This paper claims that the AMA is logically more fundamental than both the pessimistic meta-induction and the underdetermination argument. The second and main claim of this paper is that the instrumentalists’ use of AMA is incoherent. The gist of my argument is that experimental knowledge requires minimally metaphysical knowledge, and that minimally metaphysical knowledge—when associated with empirical knowledge—suffices to yield a minimal knowledge of the unobservable. I then examine and reject two possible responses: minimally metaphysical instrumentalism and algebraic instrumentalism.