Doubt as a mechanism of the change of epistemic states (on the materials of the philosophy of pragmatism and neuropsychology)

Science has not yet found a solution to the question of how cognitive mechanisms, which are crucial for the subjective processes of evaluating the reliability of information and doubt, are arranged. This ability is usually associated with both the pragmatic consequences of accepting a belief and the material substance of consciousness. In this article, the author proposes to compare one of the largest conceptions of doubt in philosophy, the pragmatic conception, with the theory of false tags, which was presented in the last decade by the neuropsychologist E. Asp in order to explain the phenomena of doubt. The article presents the theoretical aspects of both conceptions, which allows to derive the properties of doubt as an epistemic state, that is, the state of the subject’s cognitive reality, formed under the influence of external (situational, pragmatic) and internal (neuropsychological) factors. The results of the study presented in the article allow us to conclude the possibility of an interdisciplinary approach in further studies of human cognitive activity as a mechanism of various epistemic states. It is concluded that doubt itself is not one of these states, but is a secondary psychological act that ensures the transition from one epistemic state to another. This offers an alternative view to the approach established in philosophy, in which doubt precedes the fact of accepting knowledge and is an essential stage of the cognitive process.

Restriction without Quantification: Embedding and Probability for Indicative Conditionals

Many modern theories of indicative conditionals treat them as restricted epistemic necessity modals. This view, however, faces two problems. First, indicative conditionals do not behave like necessity modals in embedded contexts, e.g., under ‘might’ and ‘probably’: in these contexts, conditionals do not contribute a universal quantification over epistemic possibilities. Second, when we assess the probability of a conditional, we do not assess how likely it is that the consequent is epistemically necessary given the antecedent. I propose a semantics which solves both problems, while still accounting for the data that motivated the necessity modal view. The account is based on the idea that the semantics of conditionals involves only a restriction of the relevant epistemic state, and no quantification over epistemic possibilities. The relevant quantification is contributed by an attitude parameter in the semantics, which is shifted by epistemic modals. If the conditional is asserted, the designated attitude is acceptance, which contributes a universal quantification, producing the effect of a restricted necessity modal.

Changing Minds ― Epistemic Interventions in Causal Reasoning

Did Tom’s use of nuts in the dish cause Billy’s allergic reaction? According to counterfactual theories of causation, an agent is judged a cause to the extent that their action made a difference to the outcome (Gerstenberg, Goodman, Lagnado, & Tenenbaum, 2020; Gerstenberg, Halpern, & Tenenbaum, 2015; Halpern, 2016; Hitchcock & Knobe, 2009). In this paper, we argue for the integration of epistemic states into current counterfactual accounts of causation. In the case of ignorant causal agents, we demonstrate that people’s counterfactual reasoning primarily targets the agent’s epistemic state – what the agent doesn’t know –, and their epistemic actions – what they could have done to know – rather than the agent’s actual causal action. In four experiments, we show that people’s causal judgment as well as their reasoning about alternatives is sensitive to the epistemic conditions of a causal agent: Knowledge vs. ignorance (Experiment 1), self-caused vs. externally caused ignorance (Experiment 2), the number of epistemic actions (Experiment 3), and the epistemic context (Experiment 4). We see two advantages in integrating epistemic states into causal models and counterfactual frameworks. First, assuming the intervention on indirect, epistemic causes might allow us to explain why people attribute decreased causality to ignorant vs. knowing causal agents. Moreover, causal agents’ epistemic states pick out those factors that can be controlled or manipulated in order to achieve desirable future outcomes, reflecting the forward-looking dimension of causality. We discuss our findings in the broader context of moral and causal cognition.

A syntactically-driven approach to indefiniteness, specificity and anti-specificity in Romance

In this paper we present an original approach to analyze the compositionality of indefinite expressions in Romance by investigating the relevance of their syntactic distribution in relation to their meaning. This approach has the advantage of allowing us to explore the question of how syntactic structure can determine the meaning of different forms of indefiniteness. To that end, we postulate a common derivation for bare plurals, bare mass and de phrases, whereby an abstract operator de is adjoined to definite determiners and shifts entities into property-type expressions. Quantificational specificity is proposed to be derived from a syntactic structure in which weak quantifiers select for indefinite de-phrases, no matter whether de is overt at Spell-Out or not; these quantifiers turn properties into generalized quantifiers. The anti-specificity meaning of some indefinites is derived by adjoining in the syntactic structure an abstract operator alg that encodes the speaker’s epistemic state of ignorance to a quantifier encoded for specificity, and it turns a generalized quantifier into a modified generalized quantifier. The paper also brings some general predictions on how indefiniteness is expressed in Romance, as it provides extensive support from five Romance languages: Brazilian Portuguese, Catalan, French, Italian and Spanish.

An Account of Intensional and Extensional Actions, and its Application to Belief, Nondeterministic Actions and Fallible Sensors

In general, an agent may have incomplete and inaccurate knowledge about its environment. As well, actions may not turn out as intended or may have nondeterministic effects, and sensors may on occasion give incorrect results. We present a general, qualitative approach to reasoning about action and change in such a setting. The approach is expressed as an extension to basic action theories in the situation calculus, where an agent's epistemic state is modelled by a set of situations, where each situation is assigned a non-negative integer representing its plausibility. The agent's epistemic state is updated by modifying these plausibility values after the execution of an action, taking into account the possibility of unexpected results. To this end, we consider actions to have an intensional aspect, under the control of and determined by the agent, and an extensional aspect, not directly accessible to the agent and controlled by "nature". This leads to two distinct but related related notions of belief, an extensional "bird's eye" view which models an agent's beliefs wrt actually-executed actions, and an intensional view representing beliefs from the agent's point of view. We argue that the approach is significantly more general and comprehensive than previous accounts, and leads to a unified view of failed actions and nondeterminism with respect to physical and sensing actions.

Assertion is weak

Recent work has argued that belief is weak: the level of rational credence required for belief is relatively low. That literature has  contrasted belief with assertion, arguing that the latter requires an epistemic state much stronger than (weak) belief---perhaps knowledge or even certainty.  We argue that this is wrong: assertion is just as weak as belief.  We first present a variety of new arguments for this, and then show that the standard arguments for stronger norms are not convincing.  Finally, we sketch an alternative picture on which the fundamental norm of assertion is to say what you believe, but both belief and assertion are weak. To help make sense of this, we propose that both belief and assertion involve navigating a tradeoff between accuracy and informativity, and so it can makes sense to believe/say something you only have weak evidence for, if it is informative enough.

Ignorance implicatures of modified numerals

Modified numerals, such as at least three and more than five, are known to sometimes give rise to ignorance inferences. However, there is disagreement in the literature regarding the nature of these inferences, their context dependence, and differences between at least and more than. We present a series of experiments which sheds new light on these issues. Our results show that (a) the ignorance inferences of at least are more robust than those of more than, (b) the presence and strength of the ignorance inferences triggered by both at least and more than depends on the question under discussion (QUD), and (c) whether ignorance inferences are detected in a given experimental setting depends partly on the task that participants are asked to perform (e.g., an acceptability task versus an inference task). We offer an Optimality Theoretic account of these findings. In particular, the task effect is captured by assuming that in performing an acceptability task, participants take the speaker’s perspective in order to determine whether an expression is optimal given a certain epistemic state, while in performing an inference task they take the addressee’s perspective in order to determine what the most likely epistemic state of the speaker is given a certain expression. To execute the latter task in a fully rational manner, participants have to perform higher-order reasoning about alternative expressions the speaker could have used. Under the assumption that participants do not always perform such higher-order reasoning but also often resort to so-called unidirectional optimization, the task effect finds a natural explanation. This also allows us to relate our finding to asymmetries between comprehension and production that have been found in language acquisition.

The key to the knowledge norm of action is ambiguity

Knowledge-first epistemology includes a knowledge norm of action: roughly, act only on what you know. This norm has been criticized, especially from the perspective of so-called standard decision theory. Mueller and Ross provide example decision problems which seem to show that acting properly cannot require knowledge. I argue that this conclusion depends on applying a particular decision theory (namely, Savage-style Expected Utility Theory) which is ill-motivated in this context. Agents’ knowledge is often most plausibly formalized as an ambiguous epistemic state, and the theory of decision under ambiguity is then the appropriate modeling tool. I show how to model agents as acting rationally on the basis of their knowledge according to such a theory. I conclude that the tension between the knowledge norm of action and formal decision theory is illusory; the knowledge-first paradigm should be used to actively select the decision-theoretical tools that can best capture the knowledge-based decisions in any given situation.

I can tell you know a lot, although I'm not sure what: Modeling broad epistemic inference from minimal action

Inferences about other people's knowledge and beliefs are central to social interaction. In many situations, however, it's not possible to be sure what other people know because their behavior is consistent with a range of potential epistemic states. Nonetheless, this behavior can give us coarse intuitions about how much someone might know, even if we cannot pinpoint the exact nature of this knowledge. We present a computational model of this kind of broad epistemic-state inference, centered on the expectation that agents maximize epistemic utilities. We evaluate our model in a graded inference task where people had to infer how much an agent knew based on the actions they chose. Critically, the agent's behavior was always under-determined, but nonetheless contained information about how much knowledge they possessed. Our model captures nuanced patterns in participant judgments, revealing a quantitative capacity to infer amorphous knowledge from minimal behavioral evidence.

The Third Paralogism

This chapter analyses the third paralogism of ‘personality’ (or, equivalently, of ‘personhood’), situating the paralogistic argument in its Wolffian context. The chapter contends that Kant treats personality as an epistemic state. It offers accounts of Kant’s envisaged ‘practical use’ of the concept of a person and of his conception of what immortality would have to consist in if there were to be such a state. It scrutinizes in detail Kant’s criticisms of the separate arguments of Moses Mendelssohn and of David Fordyce for the immortality of the soul. Finally, it examines Kant’s sympathetic adaptation of Fordyce’s argument to his own, rather less ambitious, purposes—namely, the justification, or, more accurately, production and stabilization, of a ‘doctrinal belief’ in an afterlife. It offers an evaluation of the argument when it is so construed.