Starving to death and the anorexic frame of mind

Because some forms of self-starvation such as hunger striking are exempt from attributions of pathology, and due to incomplete understanding of its etiology, anorexia nervosa (AN) is and must presently be defined by psychological criteria as well as behavioral and bodily measures. Although opaque, typical motivational frames of mind in AN lack the apparent cognitive and volitional dysfunction usually indicating disorder. In contrast to other conditions that exhibit more evident dysfunction, this distinguishes AN from the perspective of medical epistemology: the opacity of AN motivation jeopardizing the epistemic warrant for assigning it to the category of a mental disorder (and so influencing decisions over diagnosis and recovery). This seems to invite non-medical approaches to its prevention and care.

The spectrum of metametaphysics

Scientific realism is typically associated with metaphysics. One current incarnation of such an association concerns the requirement of a metaphysical characterization of the entities one is being a realist about. This is sometimes called “Chakravartty’s Challenge”, and codifies the claim that without a metaphysical characterization, one does not have a clear picture of the realistic commitments one is engaged with. The required connection between metaphysics and science naturally raises the question of whether such a demand is appropriately fulfilled, and how metaphysics engages with science in order to produce what is called “scientific metaphysics”. Here, we map some of the options available in the literature, generating a conceptual spectrum according to how each view approximates science and metaphysics. This is done with the purpose of enlightening the current debate on the possibility of epistemic warrant that science could grant to such a metaphysics, and how different positions differently address the thorny issue concerning such a warrant.

Getting to the source of the illusion of consensus

Consensus between informants is a valuable cue to a claim’s epistemic value, when informants’ beliefs are developed independently of each other. Recent work (Yousif et al., 2019) described an illusion of consensus such that people did not generally discriminate between the epistemic warrant of true consensus, where a majority claim is supported by multiple independent sources, and false consensus arising from repeated claims from the same source. Three experiments tested a novel account of the illusion of consensus; that it arises when people are unsure about the independence of the primary sources on which informant claims are based. When this independence relationship was ambiguous we foundevidence for the illusion. However, when steps were taken to highlight the independence between data sources in the true consensus conditions, and confidence in a claim was measured against a no consensus baseline (where there was an equal number of reports supporting and opposing a claim), we eliminated the illusion of consensus. Under these conditions, more weight was given to claims based on true consensus than false consensus. These findings show that although the illusion of consensus is prevalent, people do have the capacity to distinguish between true and false consensus.

Epistemic austerity: limits to entitlement

Epistemic entitlement is a species of internalist warrant that can be had without any evidential support. Unfortunately, for this kind of warrant the so-called problem of demarcation arises, a form of epistemic relativism. I first present entitlement theory and examine what the problem of demarcation is exactly, rejecting that it is either based on bizarreness or disagreement in favour of the thesis that the problem of demarcation is based on epistemic arbitrariness. Second, I argue that arbitrariness generates a problem for entitlement because it undermines epistemic warrant. Third, I draw out some of the consequences that arbitrariness has for an entitlement epistemology, notably that it threatens to generalise to all our beliefs. Finally, I examine how different solutions to the problem of demarcation fare with respect to the danger of arbitrariness. I argue that none of the considered options succeeds in dealing with the risks of arbitrariness.

Internalism and Externalism

This chapter explores in some detail the question of whether Buddhist accounts of knowledge should be regarded as supportive of epistemic internalism or externalism. After unpacking how the distinction between internalism and externalism can or cannot be extended to the Buddhist epistemological context, it is argued that the Buddhist account stands largely in accord with an externalist account of epistemic warrant. The second half of the chapter examines Buddhist claims about whether the determination of a cognition’s knowledge status is intrinsic or extrinsic to a given cognition. Finally, the chapter concludes by arguing that the Buddhist account must be understood to endorse a version of externalism about the constitutive nature of cognitions.

The Multicriterial Approach to the Problem of Demarcation

The problem of demarcating science from nonscience remains unsolved. This article executes an analytical process of elimination of different demarcation proposals put forward since the professionalization of the philosophy of science, explaining why each of those proposals is unsatisfactory or incomplete. Then, it elaborates on how to execute an alternative multicriterial scientific demarcation project put forward by Mahner (2007, 521–522; 2013, 29–43). This project allows for the demarcation not only of science from non-science and from pseudoscience, but also of different types of sciences and of scientific fields (e.g., formal sciences, natural sciences, social sciences) from each other. This article also offers arguments in favor of accepting two types of scientific demarcations, namely epistemic-warrant scientific demarcations and territorial scientific demarcations, and argues in favor of accepting a territorially broad scientific demarcation.

Faith and Epistemology: Religious Truth Claims and Epistemic Warrant

This essay argues for the rationality of truth claims arising from religious faith over against the contention that such claims are, at best, viewed as subjective “value” language or, at worst, strictly irrational. An argument will be offered for the epistemic warrant of faith-based claims, not for the objective veracity of the religious claims themselves.

Entitlement

The chapter is comprised of five sections. First, it situates knowledge and epistemic warrant in a frame of representational and epistemic norms. It distinguishes two types of epistemic warrant–entitlement (warrant without reason) and justification (warrant through reason). Second, it argues that epistemic internalism—according to which epistemic warrant supervenes on psychological states of the warranted individual—is unacceptable. Third, it discusses the status of scepticism in epistemology. Fourth, it criticizes an argument that believing that we are entitled to perceptual beliefs would commit us to an unacceptable way of validating the reliability of those beliefs. Fifth, it rebuts an argument that believing that we are entitled to perceptual beliefs is inconsistent with intuitions about confirmation and with Bayesian principles of subjective probability.

Against epistemic pessimism about moral testimony

My aim in this paper is to argue against what I call “epistemic” pessimism about moral testimony. Epistemic pessimists argue that moral testimony fails to transmit epistemic warrant as non-moral testimony does. I reject epistemic pessimism by defending the No Difference Thesis, that there is no in principle difference between the transmission of epistemic warrant by moral and non-moral testimony. The main thrust of my argument is that there is a good prima facie case to be made for the thesis, namely, that it is supported by all of the major current epistemological views of testimonial warrant, both reductionist and non-reductionist. After making this case, I consider five pessimist attempts to undermine the No Difference Thesis, and argue that none of these attempts succeeds. So, in the absence of any other compelling criticisms, we are justified in rejecting epistemic pessimism and accepting the No Difference Thesis.