a defense of temperate epistemic transparency
DESCRIPTION
A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency. ELEONORA CRESTO CONICET (Argentina) University of Konstanz – July 2011. EPISTEMIC TRANSPARENCY. If S knows that p , S knows that she knows that p : KK Principle : Kp KKp Knowledge reflexivity Positive introspection - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A DEFENSE OF TEMPERATE EPISTEMIC TRANSPARENCY
ELEONORA CRESTOCONICET (Argentina)
University of Konstanz – July 2011
![Page 2: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
EPISTEMIC TRANSPARENCY
If S knows that p, S knows that she knows that p:
KK Principle: Kp KKp
Knowledge reflexivity Positive introspection Self-knowledge Transparency Luminosity
![Page 3: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
GOAL
A defense of a moderate version of KK
![Page 4: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
RISE AND FALL OF KK
1960 s: Dogma
Then….
Externalism – e.g.: Reliabilism
Williamson (2000)
![Page 5: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
STRATEGY
(A) Why do we want transparency?
(B) Indirect argument
![Page 6: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT TRANSPARENCY?
Ideal agentsIdeally rational?
![Page 7: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT TRANSPARENCY?
Knowledge and responsibility
How?
![Page 8: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT TRANSPARENCY?
Responsibility demands us to be in an appropriate reflective state.
What reflective state?Epistemic responsibility entails
“ratifiability”.
![Page 9: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
A MODAL FRAME
F = <W, R, Pprior>
K = {w W: x W (wRx x )}
R(w) = {x W: wRx}
![Page 10: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
WILLIAMSON: IMPROBABLE KNOWING
Pw(): the evidential probability of in w.
Pw() = Pprior( | R(w)) = Pprior ( R(w)) / Pprior (R(w))
Pw(R(w)) = 1 [P() = r] =def. {w W: Pw() = r}
![Page 11: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
IMPROBABLE KNOWING
“The KK principle is equivalent to the principle that if the evidential probability of p is 1, then the evidential probability that the evidential probability of p is 1 is itself 1” (Williamson, p. 8).
We can build a model in which
Pw([P(R(w))=1]) is as low as we want.
![Page 12: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
PROBLEMS
Why should we say that the evidential basis (in w) is always R(w)?
![Page 13: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
PROBLEMS
Recall that:
[P() = r] = {w W: Pw() = r}
[Pw() = r] ?
![Page 14: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
PROPOSAL (FIRST VERSION)
We’ll have a sequence of languages L0, L1, … Ln….with probability operators P0, …Pn…
We’ll have a sequence of functions P1w…
Pnw… on sentences i of language Li
Piw: Li-1 ℝ
![Page 15: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
PROPOSAL (FIRST VERSION)
Expressions of the form Pprior() or Piw() do
not belong to any language of the sequence L0, L1…Ln….
“Pi()=r” is true in w iff Piw()=r.
![Page 16: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
PROPOSAL (FIRST VERSION)
How should we conditionalize?
![Page 17: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
PROPOSAL (FIRST VERSION)
For P1w(), the relevant evidence is R(w).
For P2w(P1()=r), the relevant evidence is
KR(w).
![Page 18: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
CONDITIONALIZATION (FIRST VERSION)
C* rule:For i 1: Pi
w (Pi-1(…P()=r...)) =
Pprior(Pi-1(…P()=r…) | Ki-1...KR(w))
where Ki-1 is the same K-operator iterated i-1 times
![Page 19: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
DIFFICULTIES
C* divorces probability 1 from knowledge.
![Page 20: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
A MODEL FOR MODERATE TRANSPARENCY (SECOND VERSION)
M = <W, R1,...,Rn..., Pprior, v>
New operators K0…Kn…, in addition to P0, …Pn…
We define a sequence of relations R1…Rn which correspond to the different Ks.
The Rs are nested: Ri Ri-1 ... R1
Ri is a reflexive relation over W, for all i, and transitive for i > 1.
![Page 21: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
A MODEL FOR MODERATE TRANSPARENCY
Our conditionalization rule now incorporates operators K1,… Kn… defined on the basis of relations R1,… Rn…
C** rule: For i 1: Pi
w (Pi-1(…P()=r...)) =
Pprior(Pi-1(…P()=r | Ki-1...KR(w))
where “Ki-1…KR(w)” includes i-1 higher-order K-operators
![Page 22: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
A MODEL FOR MODERATE TRANSPARENCY Intended interpretation of the formalism:
“K2p” does not make sense!
A second-order evidential probability claim is the evidential probability of a probability statement.
Mutatis mutandis for higher-order levels and for conditional evidential probabilities.
![Page 23: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
SOME CONSEQUENCES
Why should we demand such requirements for the Rs? They are not ad hoc!
Higher-order probability requires increasingly complex probabilistic claims.
For second-order evidential probability in w: We conditinalize over KR(w) Thus the second-order probability of P1(R(w)) is 1 Thus the agent knows that KR(w) K2KR(w) should be true in w
![Page 24: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
SOME CONSEQUENCES
K K2K KK2 Principle (if [K2KR(w)] is not empty, for any w)
(K K2K) KK Principle (if [K2KR(w)] is not empty, for some w)
K2K K3K2K KK+ Principle
![Page 25: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
SOME CONSEQUENCES
A restricted version of possitive introspection holds:
Quasi-transparency principles
KK+, KK and KK2 result from conditionalizing over higher-order levels of evidence and from the attempt to adjust probability language and knowledge attribution in a progressively coherent way.
![Page 26: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
SOME CONSEQUENCES
Links between lower- and higher-order probabilities:
If P1w() = r = 1 or 0, then P2
w(P1()=r) = 1.
If R1 is an equivalence relation, P2
w(P1()=r) is either 1 or 0.
Suppose P2w(P()=r) = s. If 0 r 1 and
R1 is not transitive, then s need not be either 1 or 0.
![Page 27: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
ON THE PROBABILISTIC REFLECTION PRINCIPLE (PRP)
PRP: P2
w ( | P1()=r) = r (for w W)
Iterated PRP:Pi
w ( | Pi-1( | Pi-2(|…)….)=r) = r
Is PRP a theoretical truth of M ?
![Page 28: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
ON PROBABILISTIC REFLECTION
Necessary and sufficient condition for Iterated PRP
Ri is an equivalence relation and Ri = Ri-1
iff
for all w W and any L0: if Pi+1
w(-|-) exists, then Pi+1
w( | Pi( | Pi-1(|…)….) = r) = r
![Page 29: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
RELATION TO OTHER WORK
Paul Egré/ Jérôme Dokic Principal motivation: to deactivate Williamson’s
soritic argument on inexact knowledge
Perceptual vs. reflective knowledge
(KK’) K KK
Transparency failures do not generalize
![Page 30: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
RELATION TO OTHER WORK
Differences
1. Egré/ Dokic do not offer a probabilistic framework.
2. They focus on reflection over perceptual knowledge, exclusively.
3. KK’ Principle is imposed “from the outside”.
The present model for quasi-transparency can be seen as a refinement and extension of some aspects of the system suggested by Egré - Dokic.
![Page 31: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
CONCLUSIONS
Once we clarify some conceptual aspects of higher-order probabilities…
…we obtain the vindication of a number of introspective principles, or principles of quasi-transparency.
![Page 32: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
CONCLUSIONS
Quasi-transparency principles were not just assumed to hold, but they have been obtained as a result of implementing a number of natural constraints on the structure of the system.
Formally speaking, they behave quite differently from presuppositions of
consistency or deductive closure.
![Page 33: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
CONCLUSIONS
The framework vindicates the intuition that first- and second-order knowledge differ substantially:
Different attitudes about ignorance
Different attitudes toward “margin of error” principles
Second-order knowledge is concerned with the “ratification” of first-order attitudes.
![Page 34: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
CONCLUSIONS
Quasi-transparency fully vindicates the normative link between self-knowledge and responsibility.
K+Kp: “responsible knowledge” of p.
![Page 35: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
CONCLUSIONS
Second-order knowledge, as a state of epistemic responsibility, is a
desideratum we have qua agents.
![Page 36: A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062411/56816688550346895dda3a90/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Thank you!