S. Orestis Palermos

One of the central bioconservative objections to pursuing human enhancement technologies highlights the risk that the development and dissemination of such technologies will exacerbate existing inequalities, with a particular focus on general considerations of distributive justice. This line of objection, typically framed to target cognitive enhancement's potential to exacerbate inequality, has also been extended to moral enhancement, which will be this chapter's focus. What will be suggested here is a comparatively more optimistic picture of the relationship between moral enhancement and inequality. It will be shown that there are at least two very specific kinds of moral enhancement proposals—i.e. Socratic artificial intelligence (AI) and psychedelic moral enhancement—which offer promising resources for combatting existing patterns of marginalisation and injustice in the case of both gender and race, and with important relevance to both feminism and social equality and justice effort more broadly. By exploring these benefits, we'll see that the question of whether moral enhancement would threaten to exacerbate existing inequalities is much more complex than some critics have appreciated, and consequently, that inequality-related risks identified by such critics should be suitably weighted against the kinds of benefits outlined herein.

While mainstream epistemology has recently turned its focus on individual know-how (e.g., knowing-how to swim, ride a bike, play chess, etc.), there is very little, if any, work on group know-how (e.g., sports-team performance, jazz improvisation, knowing-how to tango, etc.). This chapter attempts to fill the gap in the existing literature by exploring the relevant philosophical terrain. It starts by surveying recent debates on individual knowledge-how and argues that group know-how (G-KH) cannot always be reduced to individual knowledge-how. Rather, certain cases of G-KH call for a non-reductive analysis. A natural place to look for a theory of irreducible G-KH is the literature on joint intentionality and distributed cognition. First, the chapter explores what a joint intentionality approach to G-KH might look like. Then it considers an alternative approach that views G-KH as a form of distributed cognition. Finally, the chapter discusses a potential link between the two approaches.

One of the most important research programs in contemporary cognitive science is that of extended cognition. In this area of study, features of a subject’s cognitive environment can, in certain conditions, become constituent parts of the cognitive process itself. The aim of this volume is to explore the epistemological ramifications of this idea. The book brings together papers written by a range of distinguished and emerging academics, from a variety of different perspectives, to investigate the very idea of an extended epistemology. The first part of the volume explores foundational issues with regard to an extended epistemology as well as from a critical perspective. The second part of the volume examines the applications of this idea, and the new theoretical directions that it might take us. These include the relevance of Chinese philosophy, the ethical ramifications of extended epistemology, and its import to the epistemology of education, moral ethics, and emerging digital technologies.

This essay discusses Fichte’s account of the discipline of logic within the project of his Wissenschaftslehre or Doctrine of Science by focusing, in particular, on the 1812 lectures on Transcendental Logic. At stake is Fichte’s understanding of the distinction between formal and transcendental logic and the way in which he advocates for a new transcendental foundation of logic in opposition to Kant’s own transcendental logic. Finally, the implications of Fichte’s proposed transcendental logic are investigated and weighted against a different model of logic such as Hegel’s dialectical-speculative logic. In diesem Essay wird Fichtes Darstellung der Disziplin der Logik im Projekt seiner Wissenschaftslehre behandelt. Der Fokus liegt vor allem auf den Vorlesungen von 1812 über Transzendentale Logik. Diskutiert wird Fichtes Verständnis vom Unterschied zwischen formaler und transzendentaler Logik und die Art und Weise, wie er für eine neue transzendentale Grundlage der Logik im Gegensatz zu Kants eigener transzendentaler Logik argumentiert. Schließlich werden die Implikationen der von Fichte vorgeschlagenen transzendentalen Logik untersucht und gegen Hegels dialektisch- spekulative Logik als einem anderen Modell der Logik abgewogen.

This volume explores urgent questions surrounding the bidirectional relationship between feminist philosophy and emerging technologies. It underlines the exigency of feminist philosophical reflections on the design, use, and understanding of emerging technologies and at the same time accentuates how emerging technologies can uniquely impact the shape of future feminist critique and intervention. While feminist philosophers have attended to problems posed by a few specific technologies that emerged in the previous century-especially reproductive technologies-broader philosophical questions concerning the challenges various new technologies present to feminism have yet to receive the sustained, critical attention they deserve. Feminist Philosophy and Emerging Technologies responds to this problem. It is divided into two sections. Section 1 provides theoretical considerations about the links between feminist philosophy and philosophy of technology (broadly construed) by developing-against the background of emerging technologies-methodological approaches and guidance for bringing those two fields of philosophical research together. Section 2 is dedicated to analyses of specific emerging technologies and user trends, their relation to extant structures of oppression, and to bringing to the fore various ways in which a feminist philosophy of technology can impact the design of current and future technologies. Feminist Philosophy and Emerging Technologies is an excellent resource for scholars and advanced students working in feminist philosophy, philosophy of technology, ethics, political philosophy, feminist theory, gender and cultural studies, and science and technology studies.

The place of social epistemology within contemporary philosophy, as well as its relation to other academic disciplines, is the topic of an ongoing debate. One camp within that debate holds that social epistemology should be pursued strictly from within the perspective of individualistic analytic epistemology. In contrast, a second camp holds that social epistemology is an interdisciplinary field that should be given priority over traditional analytic epistemology, with the specific aim of radically transforming the latter to fit the results and methodology of the former. We are rather suspicious of this apparent tension, which we believe can be significantly mitigated by paying attention to certain recent advances within philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Accordingly, we attempt to explain how extended knowledge, the result of combining active externalism from contemporary philosophy of mind with contemporary epistemology, can offer an alternative conception of the future of social epistemology.

The paper argues that (i) the notion of epistemic reliability, as it is standardly defined within mainstream epistemology, is a multidimensional concept, and that (ii) paying attention to reliability’s multidimensional nature can significantly expand reliabilism’s purview both in the theoretical and practical domain. Reliabilist theories of knowledge and justification agree that a process is reliable just in case it leads to a ‘sufficiently high preponderance of true over false beliefs.’ Given this straightforward definition, reliability appears to be, and so far has been implicitly treated by epistemologists as, a mono-dimensional concept. Nevertheless, the terminology and formulas that statisticians and computers scientists have developed for assessing the reliability of binary classification processes reveal that for any belief-forming process whose aim is to identify the presence or the absence of some quality ι, there are at least four different interpretations of the above definition. These interpretations correspond to four separate dimensions of reliability: Precision, Negative Predictive Value (NPV), Recall and Specificity. Though epistemologists do not explicitly specify how they interpret the above definition of reliability, due to their main interest in ‘know-that’, their mono-dimensional focus seems to have so far been mainly directed at Precision alone (or, at best, to both Precision and NPV—but without distinguishing between the two). As it transpires, however, the (entirely) neglected dimensions of Recall and Specificity can guide the satisfaction of another important epistemic goal, best captured by the locution ‘know-most/all.’ The upshot is that different epistemic goals call for high levels of reliability along different dimensions (and, often, their combinations too). This observation invites upgrading reliabilism into dimensional reliabilism, according to which assessing whether a process is knowledge-conducive depends on whether it manifests high reliability along the appropriate dimension(s), given the epistemic goal at hand.

This paper proposes epistemic environmentalism as a novel framework for accounting for the contribution of the environment – broadly construed – to epistemic standings and which can be used to improve or protect epistemic environments. The contribution of the environment to epistemic standings is explained through recent developments in epistemology and cognitive science, including embodied cognition, embedded cognition, extended cognition and distributed cognition. The paper examines how these developments support epistemic environmentalism, as well as contributes theoretical resources to make epistemic assessments of dynamic environments. The epistemic environmentalist procedure from the assessment of an individual environment to changes made to that environment based on promoting the attainment of epistemic goods is also discussed.

Within analytic philosophy, the existence of collective knowledge has been motivated by means of two apparently distinct, and in direct competition with one another, theoretical approaches: (i) the commitment model and (ii) the distributed model. This paper agues, however, that to fully account for collaborative knowledge—i.e., a special kind of collective knowledge—both models are required. In other words, there is at least one kind of collective knowledge, the account of which requires treating the two models not as competitors but as complementary to each other. If that’s correct, not only can we gain a deeper understanding of the specifics surrounding collaborative knowledge but also a clearer picture of the broader debate surrounding collective knowledge.

This essay discusses Fichte’s account of the discipline of logic within the project of his Wissenschaftslehre or Doctrine of Science by focusing, in particular, on the 1812 lectures on Transcendental Logic. At stake is Fichte’s understanding of the distinction between formal and transcendental logic and the way in which he advocates for a new transcendental foundation of logic in opposition to Kant’s own transcendental logic. Finally, the implications of Fichte’s proposed transcendental logic are investigated and weighted against a different model of logic such as Hegel’s dialectical-speculative logic. In diesem Essay wird Fichtes Darstellung der Disziplin der Logik im Projekt seiner Wissenschaftslehre behandelt. Der Fokus liegt vor allem auf den Vorlesungen von 1812 über Transzendentale Logik. Diskutiert wird Fichtes Verständnis vom Unterschied zwischen formaler und transzendentaler Logik und die Art und Weise, wie er für eine neue transzendentale Grundlage der Logik im Gegensatz zu Kants eigener transzendentaler Logik argumentiert. Schließlich werden die Implikationen der von Fichte vorgeschlagenen transzendentalen Logik untersucht und gegen Hegels dialektisch- spekulative Logik als einem anderen Modell der Logik abgewogen.

Strong epistemic anti-individualism—i.e., the claim that knowledge can be irreducibly social—is increasingly debated within mainstream and social epistemology. Most existing approaches attempt to argue for the view on the basis of aggregative analyses, which focus on the way certain groups aggregate the epistemic attitudes of their members. Such approaches are well motivated, given that many groups to which we often ascribe group knowledge—such as juries and committees—operate in this way. Yet another way that group knowledge can be generated is on the basis of epistemic collaborations, such as scientific research teams and Transactive Memory Systems. To produce knowledge, epistemic collaborations rely heavily on the mutual interactions of their group members. This is a distinctive feature of epistemic collaborations that renders them resistant to aggregative analyses. To accommodate this kind of group knowledge, the paper combines virtue reliabilism with the hypothesis of distributed cognition in order to introduce the hybrid approach of distributed virtue reliabilism. On this view, beliefs produced by epistemic collaborations entertain positive epistemic standing in virtue of the mutual interactions of their group members; this positive epistemic standing is a collective property; epistemic collaborations qualify as epistemic group agents; collaborative knowledge is a special kind of group knowledge, motivating strong epistemic anti-individualism in a distinctive way.

To avoid the problem of regress, externalists have put forward defeaters-based accounts of justification. The paper argues that existing proposals face two serious concerns: (i) They fail to accommodate related counterexamples such as Norman the clairvoyant, and, more worryingly, (ii) they fail to explain how one can be epistemically responsible in holding basic beliefs—i.e., they fail to explain how basic beliefs can avoid being arbitrary from the agent’s point of view. To solve both of these problems, a new, externalist, defeaters-based account of justification is offered—viz., System Reliabilism. The core message of the view—and the way it deals with both (i) and (ii)—is the claim that the justificatory status of justified basic beliefs originates from being the undefeated outputs of a reliable, cognitively integrated system that is capable of defeating them. Simply put, to be candidates for being justified, basic beliefs must be epistemically responsible and to be so they must be undefeated while being defeasible. The paper also offers a detailed, naturalistic analysis of the notion of cognitive integration. This long-due, mechanistic account of cognitive integration is then used to argue that an additional advantage of System Reliabilism is its unique position to account for the as yet unexplained intuition that responsible beliefs are also likely to be true.

It has been recently suggested that if the Extended Mind thesis is true, mental privacy might be under serious threat. In this paper, I look into the details of this claim and propose that one way of dealing with this emerging threat requires that data ontology be enriched with an additional kind of data—viz., mental data. I explore how mental data relates to both data and metadata and suggest that, arguably, and by contrast with these existing categories of informational content, mental data should not be merely legally protected. Rather, if we value mental privacy as we know it, technological measures should be employed to ensure that one’s mental data are practically—not just legally—impossible for others to obtain.

According to distributed virtue reliabilism (Palermos, 2020b), epistemic collaborations—such as Transactive Memory Systems and Scientific Research Teams—can be held epistemically responsible at the collective level. This raises the question of whether participants of epistemic collaborations are exempt from being held individually responsible. In response, this paper explores two possible ways in which attributions of individual responsibility may still be appropriate within epistemic collaborations: (I) Individuals can be held epistemically responsible for their individual shortcomings, but no amount of individual epistemic responsibility can replace collective epistemic responsibility. (II) Even if it is denied that participants of epistemic collaborations can be held epistemically responsible at the individual level, they may be held structurally, perhaps morally, and even legally responsible at the individual level for breaking joint commitments necessary for the effective coordination of the epistemic collaboration.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have, in recent years, become increasingly popular. An important challenge facing MOOCs is the ‘teacher bandwidth problem’: In the MOOC environment, where there are potentially hundreds of thousands of students, it is impossible for a few teachers to interact with individual students—there is not enough ‘teacher bandwidth’. According to Siemens and Downes’s theory of ‘connectivism’ (Siemens, 2004) one can make up for the lack of teacher bandwidth by relying on collaboration between students; philosophically speaking, however, this theory is underdeveloped. In this paper, we consider the question of learner collaboration in online courses, and the theory of connectivism, from the perspective of social epistemology. We note the similarities between Siemens and Downes’s theory and virtue reliabilist theories of epistemic collaboration more broadly. Our paper has two main aims. First, we offer an illustration of how it is possible to conceptualise learner collaboration in online settings as analogous to collaboration between scientists. Second, we attempt to expand on and clarify what Siemens and Downes had in mind when they proposed the theory of connectivism.

Strong epistemic anti-individualism—i.e., the claim that knowledge can be irreducibly social—is increasingly debated within mainstream and social epistemology. Most existing approaches attempt to argue for the view on the basis of aggregative analyses, which focus on the way certain groups aggregate the epistemic attitudes of their members. Such approaches are well motivated, given that many groups to which we often ascribe group knowledge—such as juries and committees—operate in this way. Yet another way that group knowledge can be generated is on the basis of epistemic collaborations, such as scientific research teams and Transactive Memory Systems. To produce knowledge, epistemic collaborations rely heavily on the mutual interactions of their group members. This is a distinctive feature of epistemic collaborations that renders them resistant to aggregative analyses. To accommodate this kind of group knowledge, the paper combines virtue reliabilism with the hypothesis of distributed cognition in order to introduce the hybrid approach of distributed virtue reliabilism. On this view, beliefs produced by epistemic collaborations entertain positive epistemic standing in virtue of the mutual interactions of their group members; this positive epistemic standing is a collective property; epistemic collaborations qualify as epistemic group agents; collaborative knowledge is a special kind of group knowledge, motivating strong epistemic anti-individualism in a distinctive way.

Combining active externalism in the form of the extended and distributed cognition hypotheses with virtue reliabilism can provide the long sought after link between mainstream epistemology and philosophy of science. Specifically, by reading virtue reliabilism along the lines suggested by the hypothesis of extended cognition, we can account for scientific knowledge produced on the basis of both hardware and software scientific artifacts. Additionally, by bringing the distributed cognition hypothesis within the picture, we can introduce the notion of epistemic group agents, in order to further account for collective knowledge produced on the basis of scientific research teams

Two arguments against the compatibility of epistemic internalism and content externalism are considered. Both arguments are shown to fail, because they equivocate on the concept of justification involved in their premises. To spell out the involved equivocation, a distinction between subjective and objective justification is introduced, which can also be independently motivated on the basis of a wide range of thought experiments to be found in the mainstream literature on epistemology. The subjective/objective justification distinction is also ideally suited for providing new insights with respect to central issues within epistemology, including the internalism/externalism debate and the New Evil Demon intuition.

In order to solve the problem of the traditional account of knowledge, according to which justification is the ability to provide reflectively accessible positive reasons in support of one’s beliefs, a number of epistemologists have suggested that knowledge is true belief that is the product of cognitive ability. According to this alternative, a belief-forming process may count as a knowledge- conducive cognitive ability if and only if it has been cognitively integrated on the basis of processes of mutual interactions with other aspects of the agents’ cognitive system. One of the advantages of this approach is that it allows knowledge and justification to be extended to such artifacts as telescopes, microscopes, smartphones and Augmented Reality systems. Augmented Reality systems, however, rely on deceptive reality augmentations that could significantly deteriorate the epistemic efficiency of users’ cognitively integrated natures. This could lead to a form of ‘augmented skepticism’, whereby it will be impossible to tell augmented from physical reality apart. In order to solve this problem, epistemology should play an active role in the design of future Augmented Reality systems and practices. To this end, this chapter puts forward some initial suggestions, concerning the training of Augmented Reality users and the design of certain reality augmentation features, in order to ensure that everyday epistemic practices won’t be disrupted by the introduction of emerging Augmented Reality technologies.

First, a theoretical background to the volume’s topic, extended epistemology, is provided by a brief outline of its cross-disciplinary theoretical lineage and some key themes. In particular, it is shown how and why the emergence of recent and more egalitarian thinking in the cognitive sciences about the nature of human cognizing and its bounds—viz., the so-called ‘extended cognition’ program, and the related idea of an ‘extended mind’—has important and interesting ramifications in epistemology. Second, an overview is provided of the papers included as chapters in the volume. The sixteen contributions are divided into two categories: those that engage with foundational issues to do with extended epistemology, and those that pursue applications of extended epistemology to new areas of research.

The aim of the present thesis is to reconcile two opposing intuitions; one originating from mainstream individualistic epistemology and the other one from social epistemology. In particular, conceiving of knowledge as a cognitive phenomenon, mainstream epistemologists focus on the individual as the proper epistemic subject. Yet, clearly, knowledge-acquisition many times appears to be a social process and, sometimes, to such an extent—as in the case of scientific knowledge—that it has been argued there might be knowledge that is not possessed by any individual alone. In order to make sense of such contradictory claims, I combine virtue reliabilism in mainstream epistemology with two hypotheses from externalist philosophy of mind, viz., the extended and distributed cognition hypotheses. Reading virtue reliabilism along the lines suggested by the hypothesis of extended cognition allows for a weak anti-individualistic understanding of knowledge, which has already been suggested on the basis of considerations about testimonial knowledge: knowledge, many times, has a dual nature; it is both social and individual. Provided, however, the possibility of distributed cognition and group agency, we can go even further by making a case for a robust version of antiindividualism in mainstream epistemology. This is because knowledge may not always be the product of any individual’s cognitive ability and, thereby, not creditable to any individual alone. Knowledge, instead, might be the product of an epistemic group agent’s collective cognitive ability and, thus, attributable only to the group as a whole. Still, however, being able—on the basis of the hypothesis of distributed cognition—to recognize a group as a cognitive subject in itself allows for proponents of virtue reliabilism to legitimately apply their individualistic theory of knowledge to such extreme cases as well. Put another way, mainstream individualistic epistemologists now have the means to make sense of the claim that p is known by S, even though it is not known by any individual alone.

Philosophy of mind and cognitive science (e.g., Clark and Chalmers 1998; Clark 2010; Palermos 2014) have recently become increasingly receptive tothe hypothesis of extended cognition, according to which external artifacts such as our laptops and smartphones can—under appropriate circumstances—feature as material realisers of a person’s cognitive processes. We argue that, to the extent that the hypothesis of extended cognition is correct, our legal and ethical theorising and practice must be updated, by broadening our conception of personal assault so as to include intentional harm towards gadgets that have been appropriately integrated. We next situate the theoretical case for extended personal assault within the context of some recent ethical and legal cases and close with some critical discussion.

The present volume explores the topic of socially extended knowledge. This is a topic of research at the intersection of epistemology and philosophy of mind and cognitive science. The core idea of socially extended epistemology is that epistemic states such as beliefs, justification, and knowledge can be collectively realized by groups or communities of individuals. Typical examples that are being studied in the literature include collective memory in old partners, problem-solving by juries, and the behaviors of hiring committees, scientific research teams, and intelligence agencies. This volume attempts to further our understanding of socially extended knowledge while also exploring its potential practical and societal impact by inviting perspectives not just from philosophy but from cognitive science, computer science, Web science, and cybernetics too. Contributions to the volume mostly fall within two broad categories: (i) foundational issues within socially extended epistemology (including elaborations on, defences and criticisms of core aspects of socially extended epistemology), and (ii) applications and new directions, where themes in socially extended epistemology are connected to these other areas of research. The volume is accordingly divided into two parts corresponding to these broad categories. The topics themselves are of great conceptual interest, and wider interdisciplinary perspectives suggest many connections with social concerns and policy-making.

We very often grant that a person can gain knowledge on the basis of epistemic artifacts such as telescopes, microscopes and so on. However, this intuition threatens to undermine virtue reliabilism according to which one knows that p if and only if one’s believing the truth that p is the product of a reliable cognitive belief-forming process; in an obvious sense epistemic artifacts are not parts of one’s overall cognitive system. This is so, unless the extended cognition hypothesis (HEC) is true. According to HEC when parts of the environment become properly coupled to the agent’s brain then they too can be considered constitutive parts of the overall cognitive mechanism—i.e. cognition potentially extends to the world surrounding the agent. Interestingly, HEC and the broader framework of virtue reliabilism share some intriguing similarities, which render these two views mutually supportive. Making these similarities explicit provides a principled account of the way in which our knowledge-conducive cognitive characters may extend beyond our natural cognitive capacities by incorporating epistemic artifacts