Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-10 of 22 documents

Show/Hide alternate language

editorial
1. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Ilya T. Kasavin, Vladimir N. Porus Илья Теодорович Касавин
Contemporary Epistemology and Its Critics: on Crisis and Perspectives
Современная эпистемология и ее критики: о кризисах и перспективах

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article considers the basic arguments of some “critics of epistemology”, according to which the philosophical analysis of the problems associated with the processes of cognition (including science) should be eventually replaced by the study of these problems by means of special cognitive sciences. It is shown that these arguments are in part incorrect and in part can be seen as an indication of the real difficulties in the modern philosophy of cognition. A future philosophical epistemology is associated with the reform of its conceptual apparatus, the methodological arsenal and problem field. An interaction between epistemology and the sciences dealing with cognition is the only and necessary way of development for philosophical epistemology. There are two ways of such interaction. Firstly, there is an analysis of scientific discussions, on the basis of which one identifies new opportunities to overcome the well-known philosophical controversies (between rationalism and empiricism, realism and constructivism, fundamentalism and relativism, etc.). On this way, epistemology moves into a position of horizontal moderation of interdisciplinary discourse and creates a trading (Harry Collins). Secondly, epistemology provides a rational criticism of the foundations of special sciences, and selects semantic levels in the content of its own categories (truth, rationality, agent, object, etc.) referring to different cognitive practices. These practices are evaluated normatively in terms of a value perspective of modern culture. Both ways are complementary to each other.
panel discussion
2. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Oleg A. Domanov Олег Анатольевич Доманов
Type Theory in the Semantics of Propositional Attitudes
Теория типов в семантике пропозициональных установок

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article deals with an approach to the analysis of propositional attitudes based on the type-theoretical semantics proposed by A. Ranta and originating from the type theory of P. Martin-Löf. Type-theoretical semantics contains the notion of context and tools of extracting information from it in an explicit form. This allows us to correctly formalize the dependence on contexts typical of propositional attitudes. In the article the context is presented as a dependent sum type (Record type in the proof assistant Coq). Ranta’s approach is refined and applied to the analysis of Quine’s phrase “Ralph believes that someone is a spy”. Three variants of formalization for this phrase are described which differ in the content of contextual knowledge and the way the truth values of the phrase are derived. Contexts are connected through the function of conversion, making it possible to relate truth values. As a result, it is shown that the instruments for working with contexts provided by type-theoretical semantics allow us to avoid the problem of opacity described by Quine. Provided formalization along with proofs is coded in Coq and made freely available.
3. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Daniel B. Tiskin Даниил Борисович Тискин
New Machinery, Olden Tasks?
На новой машине – старым путём?

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This reply to Oleg Domanov’s target paper is not concerned with the technicalities of the proposed approach. Rather, I discuss the fruitfulness of the underlying ideas in dealing with Quine’s famous “double vision” scenario, for which the approach is designed. I point out some key ingredients of Domanov’s proposal: (a) context dependence of propositional attitude ascription (and ascribability); (b) replacement of individuals with finer-grained entities for reference and quantification, such as Kaplan’s “vivid names”, Frege and Yalcin’s senses or Percus and Sauerland’s concept generators; and (c) using the apparatus of cross-identification functions. I show that those ingredients were already present in a body of work preceding the target paper. On the other hand, there are known problems related to the fact that sometimes the choice of the pertinent mode of presentation depends on the choices associated with quantifiers higher in the syntactic tree. No account based on manipulations with the global context, such as Domanov’s in its current form, can handle them.
4. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Andrei V. Rodin Андрей Вячеславович Родин
Martin-Löf Type Theory as a Multi-Agent Epistemic Formal System
Теория типов Мартина-Лёфа как мультиагентная формальная эпистемическая система

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Ranta’s view that all substitutions of variables between MLTT contexts in some sense “extend” these contexts, so the MLTT contexts always form a partial order, is not justified. It is well known that the category of MLTT contexts is, generally, locally Cartesian closed but not necessarily a poset. Thus, Domanov’s reading of such general substitutions as mutual interpretations between contexts, which represent their corresponding epistemic agents, is more adequate. The formal analysis offered by Domanov can be improved if this latter viewpoint is developed more systematically than the author does it in his paper.
5. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Lev D. Lamberov Лев Дмитриевич Ламберов
New Analytic Philosophy: A Comment on Oleg A. Domanov’s Paper
Новая аналитическая философия: комментарий к статье О.А. Доманова

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The present paper is a commentary on O.A. Domanov’s paper devoted to the use of modern type theory in the analysis of quantification in opaque contexts (e. g., propositional attitudes and believe reports). The article briefly mentions several recent attempts to use type theory to solve a number of philosophical problems. The paper suggests that the use of modern type theory, which has a number of significant advantages over classical logic and set theory, is a very promising direction in the development of philosophical problems in the spirit of analytic philosophy. In addition, the paper indicates a number of questions on which it would be desired to receive a clarification from the author of the paper being commented.
6. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Ivan B. Mikirtumov Иван Борисович Микиртумов
Type Theoretical Grammar, Intensional Entities and Epistemic Attitudes
Теоретико-типовая грамматика, интенсионалы и эпистемические установки

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In the article, I discuss some ideas of the type theoretical grammar of Aarne Ranta and the analysis of the problem of Quine (Ralph and Ortcutt), which Oleg Domanov implemented by means of this theory. There are more similarities than differences in TT grammar with well-known ideas, including “fine grinding” of meanings, counterparts, procedural understanding of – intensions. The main problem, which, in my opinion, exists in the TT grammar, consists in understanding how another agent’s epistemic attitudes can be justified for me. Ranta proceeds from the metaphor of the agent as a calculator, which for the general case is unacceptable. I believe that the interpretation of the epistemic attitudes of another agent must be externalistic, that is, referring not to the agent’s worlds, but to his actions in the actual world: “agent X believes that A” is true when the interpreter sees the behavior of the agent in situations that the interpreter would consider adequate for himself if he believed A and would be “in place” of X. To formalize here, it would take complicated tools which are used for describing actions. I’ve come to the conclusion that an understanding of the type in TT grammar makes it intensional in some extended sense, since the working with the naming relation is already an element of a specific pragmatics.
7. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Evgeny V. Borisov Евгений Васильевич Борисов
Quine’s Problem is Coming Back
Проблема Куайна возвращается

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In ‘Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes’ (1956), Quine demonstrated that the naïve model-theoretic formalization of belief ascriptions de re, applied to cases of recognition failure, produces two unwelcome effects: 1) the seeming inconsistency of belief systems ascribed to rational agents, and 2) the contradictoriness of some (apparently well justified) belief reports. In the paper under discussion, Domanov claims that proof-theoretical formalization of belief ascriptions, based on the constructive type theory, precludes those effects. I challenge this claim by showing that the formalism used by him reproduces at least the first of them. I suggest that this is so because of the identifying of variables from different contexts in Domanov’s definition of context extension functions.
8. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Oleg A. Domanov Олег Анатольевич Доманов
Remarks on the Type Theory in the Semantics of Propositional Attitudes
Замечания о теории типов в семантике пропозициональных установок

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article contains concise comments on issues addressed in responses to the article “Type theory in the semantics of propositional attitudes”. I agree that the opening paper suggests no new solutions for problems of propositional attitudes. It aims at developing a method of their more convenient and effective description. Type theory is more expressive in comparison with many traditional approaches. I also agree that the connection between this approach and operations of epistemic subject needs further clarification. However, this disadvantage belongs not to Martin-Löf’s theory itself but to the approach chosen by me. As regards to the intuitinism of type theory, it does not need to be intuitionistic in its logic, but for semantics it is important for it to preserve the constructivist character. Relations between type theory and intensional logic also call for clarification. It seems that it is rather closer to situation semantics. The criticism by E. Borisov and A. Rodin reveals problems of the concept of the context relation function. The chief result of the discussion is the awarenness that means similar to conterpart relations are more appropriate here than this function.
language and mind
9. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Garris S. Rogonyan Гаррис Сергеевич Рогонян
Davidson on Truth, Norms, and Dispositions
Дэвидсон об истине, нормах и диспозициях

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Normative dualism between descriptions of the mental and the physical is still a problem for many philosophers that provokes more and more attempts to justify it, or, on the contrary, to overcome it by means of reduction. The problem of a special normative status of mental states is usually considered in isolation from the concept of truth. Moreover, the definition of truth is often construed only as a part of the problem of normativity: in this case, truth is only a kind of norm, for example, a goal of scientific research. Donald Davidson, however, believed that truth is not the norm and that, on the contrary, norms are possible only through the use of the primitive and original concept of truth already available to us. In this paper, we propose that if one develops an idea of such a conceptual dependence between truth and norms in a certain way, then it will become possible to solve the problem of a normative gap between our descriptions of the mental and the physical. In other words, if the assimilation of the concept of truth precedes the learning of norms pertaining to the mental and the physical, then the solution for the problem of the gap between these norms can be directly related to conditions and differences in the use of the notion of truth.
epistemology and cognition
10. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Volume > 55 > Issue: 4
Amanda Machin Аманда Мэчин
Bodies of Knowledge and Knowledge of Bodies: “We Can Know More than We Can Tell”
Тела знания и знание тел

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Classic epistemological accounts, as far back as Plato, have regarded knowledge as essentially disembodied. Bodies are seen as either distracting objects or passive instruments of knowledge. In this paper I attend to the knowledge of human bodies. Using insights from Michael Polanyi and feminist epistemology, I not only argue that bodies have a tacit and habitual knowledge of their own, but I also challenge the idea that scientific knowledge is itself separable from the bodies of scientists. I focus upon the arena of environmental governance, an arena in which scholars have already challenged the dominance of scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge. I aim to extend this challenge, by highlighting the bodily knowledge that is relevant in environmental science and policy. I do not query the value of the knowledge of scientific experts, but I show that this knowledge is always embodied. I consider, first, critiques that challenge the assumption that scientific knowledge is universally applicable and demand the inclusion of different type of knowledge in environmental governance. Second, I argue that not only local, but also bodily knowledge is relevant in detecting, understanding and responding to environmental concerns and implementing, resisting and extending policy. Third, using Polanyi I show that science itself is entangled with bodily knowledge. Finally, I suggest that far from undermining the value of scientific knowledge, acknowledging its corporeality may allow a reassessment of the role and responsibilities of scientists. Polanyi’s ideas lead him to defend the authority of “the body of scientists”. In contrast, I argue that his ideas rather compel an on-going critical attentiveness to the constitution of this body. The aim of the paper is to underline is the omission of the body from prevailing epistemological discussions, and to show that bodies are tricky objects, critical subjects and situated agents of knowledge.