2026· Epistemology & Philosophy of Science· Vol 63, pp. 94-112· 0 citations
TL;DR
The main claim is that justified ascription of epistemic concepts to AI models is determined not by the system’s intrinsic properties, but by its ability to function as a normative epistemic agent as well as its capability to interact properly with other epistemic agents.
Abstract
The paper explores whether epistemic concepts – such as belief, knowledge, justification, possession of concepts, and doubt – can be justifiably ascribed to AI models. Various positions on this issue are considered, ranging from skepticism to radical optimism. The position defended in this paper, however, leans more towards the optimistic side of the spectrum. The main claim is that justified ascription of epistemic concepts to AI models is determined not by the system’s intrinsic properties, but by its ability to function as a normative epistemic agent as well as its capability to interact properly with other epistemic agents. This optimistic view aims to counter criticisms of unjustified anthropomorphism in our understanding of the design and functioning of AI systems. This is accomplished by advocating for the thesis of de-anthropocentrism. This thesis argues that there is nothing in human nature or in the nature of epistemic concepts that justifies the belief that only humans, due to their unique nature, are capable of possessing ‘real’ knowledge, understanding, reasoning, and possession of concepts. Remarkably, justifying the de-anthropocentrism thesis does not require a reconsideration of human nature or a transformation of views on AI. Instead, it merely requires a certain stance regarding the semantics of epistemic concepts. Thus, the justification for the de-anthropocentrism thesis primarily pertains to the realm of epistemology and the philosophy of language, rather than the study of cognitive science, or specialized research into artificial intelligence.
The paper demonstrates the need to reconfigure the anthropocentric conceptual apparatus of science studies to enhance its explanatory adequacy and proposes a shift in research focus toward the empirical analysis of AI’s actual use in scientific practice and the reconstruction of the emergent normative orders within the...
A. Filatova· Epistemology & Philosoph...· 0 citations
Following Hanegraaff’s (2020: 73) claim that pioneers in our field considered it “to be no less than essential for any adequate understanding of the history of human culture and society as such,” this text answers Schilbrack’s (2013) question: “After we deconstruct ‘religion’, then what?” The answer is formulated wit...
Milan Fujda· Method & Theory in the S...· 0 citations
This commentary argues that the resulting taxonomy remains incomplete because it locates anthropomorphic error in the interpreter’s beliefs or selection of an interpretive stance, which explains why accurate disclosure that a system is artificial may still be ethically insufficient.
The article examines various interpretations in 18th-century philosophy of Locke’s supposition that matter could think. According to Locke, since there is no contradiction between the ideas of matter and thought, we cannot, by our own faculties and without revelation, know whether the Creator has endowed certain system...
Maksim D. Evstigneev· Voprosy filosofii· 0 citations
Deep scientific realism is scientific realism plus the claim that science requires a metaphysical interpretation. Metaphysics is supposed to fill an intelligibility gap: science by itself, it is argued, does not provide a clear image of reality. The metaphysics needed to deliver the goods comes from a toolbox of concep...
Raoni Arroyo, J. B. Becker Arenhart· Synthese· 0 citations
Elzenberg constructed a philosophical system that, was essentially limited to axiology and anthropology. Its foundations rest on two axioms: axiological absolutism and anthropological pessimism. Elzenbergism could be described as analytical existentialism. This may sound like an oxymoron, but the paradox disappears whe...
Paweł Okołowski· Ruch Filozoficzny· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.