Knowledge and Asymmetric Loss

Alexander Dinges1
1Institut für Philosophie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

Tóm tắt

AbstractThis paper offers a novel account of practical factor effects on knowledge attributions that is consistent with the denial of contextualism, relativism and pragmatic encroachemt. The account goes as follows. Knowledge depends on factors like safety, reliability or probability. In many cases, it is uncertain just how safe, how reliably formed or how probable the target proposition is. This means that we have to estimate these quantities in order to form knowledge judgements. Such estimates of uncertain quantities are independently known to be affected by pragmatic factors. When overestimation is costlier than underestimation, for instance, we tend to underestimate the relevant quantity to avoid greater losses. On the suggested account, high stakes and other pragmatic factors induce such “asymmetric loss functions” on quantities like safety, reliability and probability. This skews our estimates of these quantities and thereby our judgements about knowledge. The resulting theory is an error-theory, but one that rationlizes the error in question.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Brown, Jessica. 2006. Contextualism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres. Philosophical Studies 130 (3): 407–435.

Brown, Jessica. 2018. Fallibilism: Evidence and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buckwalter, Wesley. 2010. Knowledge isn’t closed on Saturday. A study in ordinary language. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3): 395–406.

Brown, Jessica. 2014. The mystery of stakes and error in ascriber intuitions. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology, ed. J.R. Beebe, 145–173. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Buckwalter, Wesley, and Jonathan Schaffer. 2015. Knowledge, stakes, and mistakes. Noûs 49 (2): 201–234.

Builes, David; Sophie Horowitz and Miriam Schoenfield (2020), “Dilating and contracting arbitrarily”, Noûs, Early View.

Christoffersen, Peter F., and Francis X. Diebold. 1997. Optimal prediction under asymmetric loss. Econometric Theory 13 (6): 808–817.

Cohen, Stewart. 2008. Ascriber contextualism. In The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, ed. J. Greco, 415–436. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DeRose, Keith. 1995. Solving the skeptical problem. The Philosophical Review 104 (1): 1–52.

DeRose, Keith (2009), The Case for Contextualism (Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Dimmock, Paul. 2018. Strange-but-true. A (quick) new argument for contextualism about ‘know’. Philosophical Studies 175 (8): 2005–2015.

Dinges, A. 2020. Relativism and conservatism. Erkenntnis 85 (4): 757–772.

Dinges, Alexander. 2018. Anti-intellectualism, egocentrism and bank case intuitions. Philosophical Studies 175 (11): 2841–2857.

Dinges, Alexander (2020), “Knowledge and non-traditional factors. Prospects for doxastic accounts”, Synthese.

Dinges, Alexander and Julia Zakkou (2020), “Much at stake in knowledge”, Mind & Language, Early View: 1–21.

Dorst, Kevin and Matthew Mandelkern (forthcoming), “Good guesses”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

Fantl, Jeremy and Matthew McGrath (2002), “Evidence, pragmatics, and justification”, The Philosophical Review, 111/1: 67–94.

Fantl, Jeremy, and Matthew McGrath. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Francis, Kathryn B., Philip Beaman, and Nat Hansen. 2019. Stakes, scales, and skepticism. Ergo 6 (16): 427–487.

Gao, Jie. 2019. Credal pragmatism. Philosophical Studies 176 (6): 1595–1617.

Gerken, Mikkel. 2017. On Folk Epistemology: How We Think and Talk about Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Granger, C. W. J. (1969), “Prediction with a generalized cost of error function”, OR, 20/2: 199.

Harris, Adam J. L. and Adam Corner (2011), “Communicating environmental risks. Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37/6: 1571–1578.

Harris, Adam J.L., Adam Corner, and Ulrike Hahn. 2009. Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition 110 (1): 51–64.

Harris, Adam J.L., Laura de Molière, Melinda Soh, et al. 2017. Unrealistic comparative optimism. An unsuccessful search for evidence of a genuinely motivational bias. PloS one 12 (3): 1–35.

Hawthorne, John. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horowitz, Sophie. 2019. Accuracy and educated guesses. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, volume 6, ed. T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne, 85–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins, Benjamin Jarvis, and Katherine Rubin. 2012. Pragmatic encroachment and belief-desire psychology. Analytic Philosophy 53 (4): 327–343.

Khoo, Justin (2017), “The disagreement challenge to contextualism”, in J. J. Ichikawa (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism (New York, NY: Routledge).

Kukla, Rebecca. 2015. Delimiting the proper scope of epistemology. Philosophical Perspectives 29 (1): 202–216.

MacFarlane, John. 2014. Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nagel, Jennifer. 2008. Knowledge ascriptions and the psychological consequences of changing stakes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2): 279–294.

Patton, Andrew J., and Allan Timmermann. 2007. Properties of optimal forecasts under asymmetric loss and nonlinearity. Journal of Econometrics 140 (2): 884–918.

Pinillos, Nestor Ángel. 2012. Knowledge, experiments and practical interests. In Knowledge Ascriptions, ed. J. Brown and M. Gerken, 192–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pinillos, Nestor Ángel, and Shawn Simpson. 2014. Experimental evidence supporting anti-intellectualism about knowledge. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology, ed. J.R. Beebe, 9–44. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Rose, David, Edouard Machery, Stephen Stich, et al. 2019. Nothing at stake in knowledge. Noûs 53 (1): 224–247.

Rubin, Katherine. 2015. Total pragmatic encroachment and epistemic permissiveness. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (1): 12–38.

Rysiew, Patrick. 2001. The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions. Noûs 35 (4): 477–514.

Shin, Joseph. 2014. Time constraints and pragmatic encroachment on knowledge. Episteme 11 (2): 157–180.

Sosa, Ernest. 2000. Skepticism and contextualism. Philosophical Issues 10 (1): 1–18.

Sripada, Chandra Sekhar, and Jason Stanley. 2012. Empirical tests of interest-relative invariantism. Episteme 9 (1): 3–26.

Stanley, Jason (2005), Knowledge and Practical Interests (Short Philosophical Books, Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Turri, John. 2017. Epistemic contextualism. An idle hypothesis. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95 (1): 141–156.

Turri, John, and Wesley Buckwalter. 2017. Descartes’s schism, Locke’s reunion. Completing the pragmatic turn in epistemology. American Philosophical Quarterly 54 (1): 25–46.

Turri, John, Wesley Buckwalter, and David Rose. 2016. Actionability judgments cause knowledge judgments. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 5 (3): 212–222.

Turri, John, and Ori Friedman. 2014. Winners and loosers in the folk epistemology of lotteries. In Advances in Experimental Epistemology, ed. J.R. Beebe, 45–69. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Weatherson, Brian. 2005. Can we do without pragmatic encroachment? Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1): 417–443.

Weatherson, Brian. 2017. Interest-relative invariantism. In The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism, ed. J.J. Ichikawa, 240–254. New York, NY: Routledge.

Weber, Elke U. 1994. From subjective probabilities to decision weights. The effect of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psychological Bulletin 115 (2): 228–242.

Weisberg, Jonathan. 2013. Knowledge in action. Philosophers’ Imprint 22: 1–23.

Wright, Crispin. 2017. The variability of ‘knows’. An opinionated overview. In The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism, ed. J.J. Ichikawa, 13–31. New York, NY: Routledge.