Das primäre Ziel dieses Open-Access-Buches besteht in der Entwicklung einer Theorie pluraler epistemischer Autoritäten. Epistemische Autoritäten spielen in unserer durch Spezialisierung geprägten und hochgradig arbeitsteilig organisierten modernen "Informations-" oder "Wissensgesellschaft" eine zentrale Rolle. Die Philosophie hat diesem Umstand in den letzten Jahren durch eine zunehmend intensive Diskussion Rechnung getragen. Ein entscheidendes Defizit dieser Debatte besteht nach Diagnose des Autors allerdings darin, dass sie sich fast ausschließlich auf individuelle epistemische Autoritäten konzentriert hat. In unserer epistemischen Praxis sind plurale epistemische Autoritäten - (...) d.h. wissenschaftliche Gemeinschaften, Expertengremien, Geschworenenjurys usw. - aber mindestens genauso bedeutsam. Wir berufen uns auf "wissenschaftlichen Konsens", orientieren uns an "herrschenden Meinungen" usw. und stützen uns damit auf plurale epistemische Autoritäten. Das Buch möchte die Potentiale, aber auch die Herausforderungen und Fallstricke analysieren, die diese Praxis des Sich-Stützens auf plurale epistemische Autoritäten mit sich bringt. Der Autor Rico Hauswald ist Privatdozent am Institut für Philosophie der TU Dresden und Teilprojektleiter im BMBF-geförderten interdisziplinären Forschungsvorhaben "Verantwortungsvoller Umgang mit künstlicher Intelligenz in der Medizin". Arbeitsschwerpunkte liegen u. a. in der Wissenschafts-, Erkenntnis- und Medizintheorie. (shrink)

Drawing on the relevant alternatives framework and Mary Kate McGowan’s work on conversational scorekeeping, I argue that usage of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ in ordinary language and public discourse typically entails the performance of what I call a dismissive conversational exercitive, a kind of speech act that functions to exclude certain propositions from (or prevent their inclusion in) the set of alternatives considered relevant in a given conversational context. While it can be legitimate to perform dismissive conversational exercitives, excluding alternatives (...) that deserve to be taken seriously can be highly problematic for a variety of reasons. For one, it can give rise to what I call the problem of premature conclusions when subjects illegitimately dismiss certain propositions as irrelevant and, as a result, prematurely take certain conclusions or claims to be warranted. Depending on the kind of conclusion or claim, the problem can come in different variants, three of which I shall examine in more detail: the problem of premature knowledge claims, the problem of premature causal claims, and the problem of premature generic generalizations. (shrink)

In psychiatry there is no sharp boundary between the normal and the pathological. Although clear cases abound, it is often indeterminate whether a particular condition does or does not qualify as a mental disorder. For example, definitions of ‘subthreshold disorders’ and of the ‘prodromal stages’ of diseases are notoriously contentious. -/- Philosophers and linguists call concepts that lack sharp boundaries, and thus admit of borderline cases, ‘vague’. Although blurred boundaries between the normal and the pathological are a recurrent theme in (...) many publications concerned with the classification of mental disorders, systematic approaches that take into account philosophical reflections on vagueness are rare. This book provides interdisciplinary discussions about vagueness in psychiatry by bringing together scholars from psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, history, and law. It draws together various lines of inquiry into the nature of gradations between mental health and disease and discusses the individual and societal consequences of dealing with blurred boundaries in medical practice, forensic psychiatry, and beyond. -/- Part I starts with an overview chapter that helps readers to navigate through the philosophy of vagueness and through the various debates surrounding demarcation problems in the classification and diagnosis of mental illness. Part II encompasses historical and recent philosophical positions on gradualist approaches to health and disease. Part III approaches the vagueness of present psychiatric classification systems, and the debates concerning their revisions by scrutinizing controversial categories, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, and the difficulties of day-to-day diagnostic and therapeutic practice. Part IV finally focuses on social, moral, and legal implications that arise when being mentally ill is a matter of degree. (shrink)

In psychiatry there is no sharp boundary between the normal and the pathological. Although clear cases abound, it is often indeterminate whether a particular condition does or does not qualify as a mental disorder. For example, definitions of ‘subthreshold disorders’ and of the ‘prodromal stages’ of diseases are notoriously contentious. Philosophers and linguists call concepts that lack sharp boundaries, and thus admit of borderline cases, ‘vague’. This overview chapter reviews current debates about demarcation in psychiatry against the backdrop of key (...) issues within the philosophical discussion of vagueness: Are there various kinds of vagueness? Is all vagueness representational? How does vagueness relate to epistemic uncertainty? What is the value of vagueness? Given the immense social, moral, and legal importance of demarcating the normal from the pathological in psychiatry, what are the pros and cons of gradualist approaches to mental disorders, that is, of construing boundaries as matters of degree? (shrink)

The distinction between institution types and institution tokens plays an important role in Francesco Guala’s philosophy of institutions. In this commentary, I argue that this distinction faces a number of difficulties that are not sufficiently addressed in Understanding Institutions. In particular, I critically discuss Guala’s comparison between the taxonomy of organisms and the taxonomy of institutions, consider the semantics of institution terms on different levels in this taxonomy, and argue for an alternative solution to the problem of how to reconcile (...) reformism and realism about institutions like marriage. (shrink)

I examine situations in which we say that different subjects have ‘different’, ‘competing’, or ‘conflicting understandings’ of a phenomenon. In order to make sense of such situations, we should turn our attention to an often neglected ambiguity in the word ‘understanding’. Whereas the notion of understanding that is typically discussed in philosophy is, to use Elgin’s terms, tethered to the facts, there is another notion of understanding that is not tethered in the same way. This latter notion is relevant because, (...) typically, talk of two subjects having ‘different’, ‘competing’, or ‘conflicting understandings’ of a phenomenon does not entail any commitment to the proposition that these subjects understand the phenomenon in the tethered sense of the word. This paper aims, first, to analyze the non-tethered notion of understanding, second, to clarify its relationship to the tethered notion, third, to explore what exactly goes on when ‘different’, ‘competing’, or ‘conflicting understandings’ clash and, fourth, to discuss the significance of such situations in our epistemic practices. In particular, I argue for a version of scientific pluralism according to which such situations are important because they help scientific communities achieve their fundamental epistemic goals—most importantly, the goal of understanding the world in the tethered sense. (shrink)

According to preemptionism, a layperson should treat the fact that an epistemic authority believes p as a reason to believe p that replaces her other reasons relevant to believing p and is not simply added to them. Many authors have found the unqualified version of preemptionism, as defended by Linda Zagzebski, too strong. At the same time, a number of them have recently advocated weakened or qualified preemptionist accounts. In this paper, I criticise these accounts. I argue that some of (...) them cannot explain the possibility of rational persistent disagreements between laypeople and epistemic authorities, while those that can explain it fail to account either for the extent to which justification is a holistic phenomenon or for the role of what I call ‘control reasons’ in the laypeople's epistemic conduct. (shrink)

According to Kant's most important definition an analytic judgement obtains when the predicate of a judgement is already contained intensionally in the subject. It has been objected (most recently by Robert Hanna) that whereas this containment is a sufficient criterion, nevertheless there are analytic judgements that do not have a corresponding conceptual content. In these cases one needs to add an extensional criterion. The chief goal of this essay is to examine this argument critically and to reject it on the (...) grounds that although an analytic judgement can be defined extensionally, this does not achieve anything more than a conventional intensional definition. To this end Kant's argumentation on intension and extension will be reconstructed and this distinction will then be set in relation to the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. This discussion requires especially a clarification of the role of modality. (shrink)

What is the correct epistemic stance that laypeople should take vis-a-vis epistemic authorities? The author provides an answer to this question based on a critical examination of Linda Zagzebski’s Preemption Thesis, according to which the fact that an authority has a belief p is a reason for a layperson to believe p that replaces her other reasons relevant to believing p and is not simply added to them. In contrast, the author argues that epistemic deference requires a layperson to perform (...) a number of epistemic tasks and involves an active and critical stance that conflicts with the Preemption Thesis. (shrink)

There are a number of research fields that exhibit a special connection to some particular activist movement. Typically in these cases, we observe a remarkable degree of personnel overlap between the movements and the scientific communities. I have two primary aims. First, I shall explore the reasons why there are such close entanglements between some research fields and some activist movements. I argue that both scientists and activists have specific epistemic interests that help explain why both practices tend to intersect (...) functionally. Second, I shall evaluate these entanglements from an epistemological point of view. Drawing on a conception of science that has science consisting of two essential tasks—asking significant questions and adequately answering them—, I argue that activists’ contribution to science is ambivalent with regard to the first task because they can help to overcome the unjust distribution of resources, but they can also be the source of new inequalities. Regarding the second task, I similarly suggest that activists can serve a useful purpose in science, since they tend to exhibit certain epistemically valuable properties and can help compensate for what I call collective biases, although in certain situations they tend to reinforce collective biases. (shrink)

Die Frage ›Warum ist überhaupt etwas und nicht vielmehr nichts?‹ gehört zu den ebenso traditionsreichen wie umstrittenen Problemen der Philosophie. Bereits mehrmals in die Mottenkiste der Philosophiegeschichte verbannt, erlebt sie doch zuverlässig ihre Renaissancen. Der vorliegende Band nimmt sich der ›Grundfrage‹ in einer ideengeschichtlichen Perspektive an. Dabei stellt sich heraus, dass die systematisch keineswegs erst mit Leibniz auftauchende Frage in ihrer Geschichte von der Antike bis zur gegenwärtigen analytischen Philosophie nicht nur jeweils unterschiedliche Antworten provoziert hat, sondern vor allem auch (...) ganz verschieden gestellt worden ist: Formuliert Leibniz »Pourquoi il y a plus tôt quelque chose que rien?«, heißt es bei Schelling »Warum ist nicht nichts, warum ist überhaupt etwas?«, während Schopenhauer ihr eine existentielle Wendung gibt (»Lieber nichts als etwas«). Heideggers Auseinandersetzung mit dem Nihilismus führt zu der Frage: »Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?«, während Arendt sie ins Politische wendet (»Warum ist überhaupt jemand und nicht niemand?«). Der Band wird durch einen Überblick über die vielschichtige Diskussion der ›letzten Warum-Frage‹ in der Tradition der Analytischen Philosophie sowie einen Antwortversuch aus Sicht der aktuellen Physik und Kosmologie abgerundet. (shrink)

_ Source: _Page Count 39 What is the correct epistemic stance that laypeople should take vis-a-vis epistemic authorities? The author provides an answer to this question based on a critical examination of Linda Zagzebski’s _Preemption Thesis_, according to which the fact that an authority has a belief p is a reason for a layperson to believe p that replaces her other reasons relevant to believing p and is not simply added to them. In contrast, the author argues that _epistemic deference_ (...) requires a layperson to perform a number of epistemic tasks and involves an active and critical stance that conflicts with the Preemption Thesis. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie Jahrgang: 67 Heft: 3 Seiten: 373-391.

According to John Searle, money is an institutional entity; it is among the things “that exist only because we believe them to exist”. I believe that Searle’s view is correct in some important respects. At the same time, I argue that money is a real or natural kind, much in the same way as biological species or chemical substances are real kinds about which empirical knowledge can be accumulated. The paper attempts to show the consistency of these assumptions. My argument (...) proceeds in two steps. First, I introduce homeostatic property cluster theory and characterize it as the most adequate account of real kinds that has been developed so far. Second, I reexamine, and to some extent reinterpret, money – one of Searle’s central examples of an institutional kind – and argue that it meets the conditions of a real kind as stated by HPC theory. An important part of the argument is a reconsideration of the circularity problem, i.e., the problem that Searle’s way of analyzing money already seems to presuppose the concept of money. (shrink)

Die Corona-Krise hat zugleich eine Krise der Wissens- und Informationsgesellschaft ausgelöst und tiefgreifende Auswirkungen auf die Generierung und Vermittlung von Wissen mit sich gebracht. Von Beginn der Pandemie an mussten Politik und Öffentlichkeit unter erheblichen Unsicherheiten agieren, während sich die wissenschaftliche Forschung mit der Herausforderung konfrontiert sah, schnellstmöglich belastbare Erkenntnisse bereitzustellen. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellen sich zahlreiche Fragen zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit in grundlegender Form: Fragen nach der Funktion von Wissenschaft in der Politikberatung, dem Zusammenhang zwischen Faktenwissen (...) und normativen Bewertungen sowie den Implikationen von "Fast Science", dem vernünftigen Umgang mit Nichtwissen und Unsicherheit, der Rolle von epistemischem Vertrauen, Skepsis und kritischem Denken im Experten-Laien-Verhältnis oder dem Einfluss von Fake News und Verschwörungstheorien - aber auch dem Einfluss von Vorwürfen, solche zu verbreiten - auf den öffentlichen Diskurs. Der Band versammelt eine Reihe von Originalbeiträgen, die aus wissenschafts- und erkenntnistheoretischer Perspektive versuchen, Antworten auf diese und ähnliche Fragen zu formulieren. Dabei bilden sie ein breites Spektrum teils deutlich unterschiedlicher Positionen ab. Ein Anliegen des Bandes besteht auch darin, die Pluralität dieser Positionen sichtbar zu machen und einen Dialog zwischen ihnen anzuregen. (shrink)

Die Corona-Krise hat zugleich eine Krise der Wissens- und Informationsgesellschaft ausgelöst und tiefgreifende Auswirkungen auf die Generierung und Vermittlung von Wissen mit sich gebracht. Von Beginn der Pandemie an mussten Politik und Öffentlichkeit unter erheblichen Unsicherheiten agieren, während sich die wissenschaftliche Forschung mit der Herausforderung konfrontiert sah, schnellstmöglich belastbare Erkenntnisse bereitzustellen. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellen sich zahlreiche Fragen zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit in grundlegender Form: Fragen nach der Funktion von Wissenschaft in der Politikberatung, dem Zusammenhang zwischen Faktenwissen (...) und normativen Bewertungen sowie den Implikationen von "Fast Science", dem vernünftigen Umgang mit Nichtwissen und Unsicherheit, der Rolle von epistemischem Vertrauen, Skepsis und kritischem Denken im Experten-Laien-Verhältnis oder dem Einfluss von Fake News und Verschwörungstheorien - aber auch dem Einfluss von Vorwürfen, solche zu verbreiten - auf den öffentlichen Diskurs. Der Band versammelt eine Reihe von Originalbeiträgen, die aus wissenschafts- und erkenntnistheoretischer Perspektive versuchen, Antworten auf diese und ähnliche Fragen zu formulieren. Dabei bilden sie ein breites Spektrum teils deutlich unterschiedlicher Positionen ab. Ein Anliegen des Bandes besteht auch darin, die Pluralität dieser Positionen sichtbar zu machen und einen Dialog zwischen ihnen anzuregen. (shrink)