In this paper I develop a genealogical approach for investigating and evaluating conspiracy theories. I argue that conspiracy theories with an epistemically problematic genealogy are (in virtue of that fact) epistemically undermined. I propose that a plausible type of candidate for such conspiracy theories involves what I call ‘second-order conspiracies’ (i.e. conspiracies that aim to create conspiracy theories). Then, I identify two examples involving such conspiracies: the antivaccination industry and the industry behind climate change denialism. After fleshing out the mechanisms (...) by which these industries systematically create and disseminate specific types of conspiracy theories, I examine the implications of my proposal concerning the particularism/generalism debate and I consider the possibility of what I call local generalism. Finally, I tackle three objections. It could be objected that a problematic genealogy for T merely creates what Dentith (2022) calls ‘type-1’ (or ‘weak’) suspicion for T. I also consider a challenge according to which the genealogical method is meta-undermined, as well as an objection from epistemic laundering. (shrink)

I extend the Higher-Order View of Undermining Defeat (HOVUD) defended in Melis (2014) to account for the defeat of propositional justification. In doing so, I clarify the important notion of higher-order commitment, and I make some considerations concerning the defeat of externalist epistemic warrants.

Denying the conclusion of a valid argument is not generally permissible if one suspends on one premise of the argument and believes the other premise. This can happen when one’s only critique of an argument is to undermine one premise. There is incoherence there. Here I examine how this is relevant to the debate on evolutionary debunking of our moral knowledge. I argue that one significant line of response to the debunker is unsuccessful: merely undermining the debunker’s empirical claim. (...) It is not rational to respond this way and believe one has moral knowledge. First I present evidence that prominent critics of the debunking argument merely undermine the debunker’s empirical claim. Then I argue for two premises: merely undermining a premise can only justify a middling amount of doubt towards the premise and we should have no more doubt about the conclusion of a valid argument than we do about the premises. Implications of the argument are explored. (shrink)

As I head home from work, I’m not sure whether my daughter’s new bike is green, and I’m also not sure whether I’m on drugs that distort my color perception. One thing that I am sure about is that my attitudes towards those possibilities are evidentially independent of one another, in the sense that changing my confidence in one shouldn’t affect my confidence in the other. When I get home and see the bike it looks green, so I increase my (...) confidence that it is green. But something else has changed: now an increase in my confidence that I’m on color-drugs would undermine my confidence that the bike is green. Jonathan Weisberg and Jim Pryor argue that the preceding story is problematic for standard Bayesian accounts of perceptual learning. Due to the ‘rigidity’ of Conditionalization, a negative probabilistic correlation between two propositions cannot be introduced by updating on one of them. Hence if my beliefs about my own color-sobriety start out independent of my beliefs about the color of the bike, then they must remain independent after I have my perceptual experience and update accordingly. Weisberg takes this to be a reason to reject Conditionalization. I argue that this conclusion is too pessimistic: Conditionalization is only part of the Bayesian story of perceptual learning, and the other part needn’t preserve independence. Hence Bayesian accounts of perceptual learning are perfectly consistent with potential underminers for perceptual beliefs. (shrink)

Truthmaker theorists hold that there is a metaphysically explanatory relation that holds between true claims and what exists. While some critics try to provide counterexamples to truthmaker theory, that response quickly leads to a dialectical standoff. The aim of this paper is to move beyond that standoff by attempting to undermine some standard arguments for truthmaker theory. Using realism about truth and a more pragmatic account of explanation, I show how some of those arguments can be undermined.

Lougheed argues that a possible solution to the problem of divine hiddenness is that God hides in order to increase the axiological value of the world. In a world where God exists, the goods associated with theism necessarily obtain. But Lougheed also claims that in such a world it’s possible to experience the goods of atheism, even if they don’t actually obtain. This is what makes a world with a hidden God more valuable than a world where God is unhidden, (...) and also more valuable than an atheistic world with no God. We show that Lougheed never considers the comparison between a world where God hides and an atheistic world. We argue that it’s possible for a person to experience theistic goods in a world where God does not exist, a possibility Lougheed never considers. If this is right it undermines his axiological solution to divine hiddenness. We conclude by showing how our discussion of the axiology of theism connects to the existential question of whether God exists; that is, we show that the axiological question is dependent on the existential question. (shrink)

Nietzsche’s injunction to examine “the value of values” can be heard in a pragmatic key, as inviting us to consider not whether certain values are true, but what they do for us. This oddly neglected pragmatic approach to Nietzsche now receives authoritative support from Bernard Reginster’s new book, which offers a compelling and notably cohesive interpretation of Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morality. In this essay, I reconstruct Reginster's account of Nietzsche’s critique of morality as a “self-undermining functionality critique” (...) and raise three problems for it: (i) Is there room within an etiological conception of function for the notion of self-undermining functionality? (ii) If Nietzsche’s critique is internal and based solely on the function it ascribes to morality, where does that critique derive its normative significance from? (iii) Does Reginster’s account not make out ascetic morality to be more universally dysfunctional than it in fact is, given that some priestly types have done remarkably well out of morality? (shrink)

This paper develops a problem for conciliationism that is structurally similar to the self-undermining problem but which is immune to most of the solutions offered against it. A popular objection to conciliationism is that it undermines itself. Given the current disagreement among philosophers about conciliationism, conciliationism seems to require rejecting conciliationism. Adam Elga (2010) has influentially argued that this shows that conciliationism is an incoherent method. By recommending its own rejection, conciliationism recommends multiple, incompatible responses to the same body (...) of experience. Many have offered solutions to this problem, including Elga himself. However, there is another undermining problem. When a peer disagrees about their own peerhood, conciliationism can require the rejection of the peer’s peerhood. The result is that conciliationism recommends two incompatible responses to the same body of experience in a way that parallels the original self-undermining problem. But since many, if not all, of the proposed solutions to the original undermining problem depend on distinctive characteristics of conciliationism undermining itself, they cannot apply to a peer undermining themself. I illustrate this by dividing the solutions that have been offered against the self-undermining problem into two categories: self-exempting solutions and non-exempting solutions. I then show how the proposed solutions under each type do not extend to the peer-undermining problem. If that is right, then conciliationism is faced with a more difficult undermining problem than has been so far acknowledged. (shrink)

In their article, “Immigrant legalization: A Dilemma Between Justice and The Rule of Law,” Sarah Song and Irene Bloemraad address rule of law objections to policies that would regularize the status of undocumented immigrants in the United States. On their view, justice requires that liberal democratic states (i.e., states that are committed to individual liberty and universal equality) provide pathways for undocumented immigrants to regularize their status. We do not disagree with Song and Bloemraad’s account: rule of law and regularization (...) policies are not inconsistent, and in fact regularization supports rule of law, when properly understood. Our view is that there needs to be a deeper investigation into the motivations of “rule of law” objections considered in Song and Bloemraad’s account. We argue that the real purpose of these objections is not necessarily to serve as an alternative to the justice-based claims of undocumented immigrants, but as a way to undermine them. On our account, these rule of law objections accomplish this undermining task through the mechanisms of dog whistling, discrediting and distorting, and ostracizing. (shrink)

The Higher-Order Theory (HOT) of consciousness holds that mental states become conscious when they are represented by another mental state. Most HOT theorists maintain that it is the higher-order, rather than the lower-order, state that supplies the content of conscious experience. This view entails that, for a state to become conscious, its content must be represented in the brain regions that produce higher-order states, which are widely thought to be in the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC). This article argues that this creates (...) a challenge for HOT: current neuroimaging evidence and functional considerations suggest that, if PFC activity is constitutive of consciousness, it enables the consciousness of content represented in visual areas rather than supplying the content itself. The conclusion will be that HOT research should focus more on developing the version in which the first-order state supplies the content of visual experience. (shrink)

In recent years, several philosophers have argued that their discipline makes no progress (or not enough in comparison to the “hard sciences”). A key argument for this pessimistic position appeals to the purported fact that philosophers widely and systematically disagree on most major philosophical issues. In this paper, we take a step back from the debate about progress in philosophy specifically and consider the general question: How (if at all) would disagreement within a discipline undermine that discipline’s progress? We reject (...) two arguments from disagreement to a lack of progress, and spell out two accounts of progress on which progress is compatible with disagreements that persist or increase over time. However, we also argue that disagreement can undermine our ability to tell which developments are progressive (and to what degree). So, while disagreement can indeed be a threat to progress, the precise nature of the threat has not been appreciated. (shrink)

The adage, “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” is offered as a plausible example of evoking moral relativism. Moral relativists recognize no transcultural moral facts. So, for them, even the concept of harm would be subjective or context-sensitive. Yet one can appeal to cogent transcultural moral reasons to distinguish between deliberately and unjustifiably harming impeccably innocent people and those who might engage in justifiably harming those guilty of grave crimes. In the face of the preventable evil acts that (...) terrorists frequently perpetrate against impeccably innocent people, it is argued that moral relativists have a substantive burden of proof to demonstrate that no cogent transcultural moral reasons exist against the practice of terrorism. In the absence of such a demonstration, it is reasonable to believe that the practice of terrorism, while not totally defeating moral relativism, seems to undermine its credibility. (shrink)

In a recent article, Gordon Belot uses the so-called undermining phenomenon to try to raise a new difficulty for reductive accounts of objective probability, such as Humean Best System accounts. In this paper I will give a critical discussion of Belot’s paper and argue that, in fact, there is no new difficulty here for chance reductionists to address.

Phronesis, or practical wisdom, is a capacity the possession of which enables one to make good practical judgments and thus fulfill the distinctive function of human beings. Nir Eisikovits and Dan Feldman convincingly argue that this capacity may be undermined by statistical machine-learning-based AI. The critic questions: why should we worry that AI undermines phronesis? Why can’t we epistemically defer to AI, especially when it is superintelligent? Eisikovits and Feldman acknowledge such objection but do not consider it seriously. In this (...) paper, we argue that there is a way to reconcile Eisikovits and Feldman with their critic by adopting the principle of epistemic heed, according to which we should exercise our rational capacity as much as possible while heeding a superintelligence’s output whenever possible. (shrink)

Seeing a red hat can (i) increase my credence in the hat is red, and (ii) introduce a negative dependence between that proposition and po- tential undermining defeaters such as the light is red. The rigidity of Jeffrey Conditionalization makes this awkward, as rigidity preserves inde- pendence. The picture is less awkward given ‘Holistic Conditionalization’, or so it is claimed. I defend Jeffrey Conditionalization’s consistency with underminable perceptual learning and its superiority to Holistic Conditionalization, arguing that the latter is (...) merely a special case of the former, is itself rigid, and is committed to implausible accounts of perceptual con- firmation and of undermining defeat. (shrink)

I argue racial injustice undermines the reliability of news source reports in the information domain of racial injustice. I argue that this in turn undermines subjects’ doxastic justification in inferences they base on these news sources in the racial injustice information domain. I explain that racial injustice does this undermining through the effect of racial prejudice on news organizations’ members and the effect of society's racially unjust structure on non-dominant racial group-controlled news sources.

In some unfortunate scenarios, whatever credence one adopts generates evidence which undermines the rational adoption of that credence. These seem to create epistemic dilemmas. We consider the possibility that one’s credences are indeterminate and require for rationality that one’s indeterminate credences should follow any indeterminate evidence. We will show that rationality principles like these can always be satisfied. This allows the epistemic dilemma to be avoided, however it mandates indeterminate epistemic states and modifications of the rationality principles to apply to (...) the indeterminate state. (shrink)

The cosmological fine-tuning debate is often taken to support multiverse hypotheses via observer-selection effects. The most persistent objection is the This Universe Objection (TUO), often illustrated by the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy: fine-tuning, it is argued, concerns _this_ universe, and once indexical evidence is taken into account, fine-tuning provides no confirmation of a multiverse over a single-universe hypothesis. This paper argues that once the evidential situation is reconstructed in third-person modal terms, TUO loses its force. At the intuitive level, I diagnose (...) two sources of error: inferring evidential neutrality from causal independence, and treating the demonstrative "this" as contributing a privileged, likelihood-relevant fact rather than merely serving to pick out the observed domain. At the formal level, I develop a Bayesian reconstruction compatible with the Requirement of Total Evidence while preserving the role of anthropic reasoning. The key move is to replace label-dependent evidence with a third-person, non-privileging modal correlate of the indexical explanandum: that there exists a fine-tuned domain containing an epistemic system capable of fine-tuning inquiry. Under transparent toy assumptions, this formulation yields a Bayes-factor advantage for a multiverse hypothesis over a single-universe hypothesis. TUO therefore establishes no evidential neutrality result on its own: in its thin demonstrative form, it collapses into ordinary modal evidence, which on the account supports a multiverse hypothesis over a single-universe hypothesis; in its haecceitistic form, it relies on auxiliary commitments about ``thisness,'' centered information, or predestination that fail to preserve neutral cross-hypothesis comparison and without which the appeal to "thisness" is evidentially idle. (shrink)

Suppose that a patient is receiving treatment options from her doctor. In one case, the doctor says, “the surgery has a 90% survival rate.” Now, suppose the doctor instead said, “the procedure has a 10% mortality rate.” Predictably, the patient is more likely to consent on the first description and more likely to dissent on the second. This is an example of a framing effect. A framing effect occurs when “the description of [logically-equivalent] options in terms of gains (positive frame) (...) rather than losses (negative frame) elicits systematically different choices.” Framing effects are ubiquitous, but they are particularly troublesome in medicine. Many worry that there is tension between valuing informed consent and using framing effects in clinical settings. In this paper, I answer this question: if an individual is subject to a framing effect when she gives her consent, does this undermine the validity of her consent? I argue that framing effects do not undermine consent in general. (shrink)

After outlining sceptical theism (ST) and the fine-tuning argument (FTA), I demonstrate how arguments for the former undercut the latter. I then consider and reject three recent proposals for ameliorating the conflict: positive ST, considerations about normative superiors, and appeal to theistic metaethics. I contend, however, that Kirk Durston’s complexity argument for ST does not undercut the FTA but in fact supports it. In defending that thesis, I respond to Climenhaga’s contention that ST undermines all warrant for theistic belief, the (...) FTA included. (shrink)

Arguments from disagreement against moral realism begin by calling attention to widespread, fundamental moral disagreement among a certain group of people. Then, some skeptical or anti-realist-friendly conclusion is drawn. Chapter 2 proposes that arguments from disagreement share a structure that makes them vulnerable to a single, powerful objection: they self-undermine. For each formulation of the argument from disagreement, at least one of its premises casts doubt either on itself or on one of the other premises. On reflection, this shouldn’t be (...) surprising. These arguments are intended to support very strong metaphysical or epistemological conclusions about morality. They must therefore employ very strong metaphysical or epistemological premises. But, given the pervasiveness of disagreement in philosophy, especially about metaphysics and epistemology, very strong premises are virtually certain to be the subject of widespread, intractable disagreement—precisely the sort of disagreement that proponents of these arguments think undermine moral claims. Thus, these arguments undermine their own premises. If Chapter 2’s argument is sound, it provides realists with a single, unified strategy for responding to any existing or forthcoming arguments from disagreement. (shrink)

Counterfactual scepticism holds that most ordinary counterfactuals are false. The main argument for this view appeals to a ‘chance undermines would’ principle: if ψ would have some chance of not obtaining had ϕ obtained, then ϕ □→ ψ is false. This principle seems to follow from two fairly weak principles, namely, that ‘chance ensures could’ and that ϕ □→ ψ and ϕ ⋄→ ¬ ψ clash. Despite their initial plausibility, I show that these principles are independently problematic: given some modest (...) closure principles, they entail absurdities. Moreover, on the most promising strategy for saving these principles, they do not, in the relevant sense, entail the chance-undermines-would principle. Instead, they entail a principle that only supports counterfactual indeterminism, the view that most ordinary counterfactuals are chancy, that is, not settled true. I demonstrate this by developing an indeterminist semantics that vindicates the clash and chance-ensures-could principles but not the chance-undermines-would principle. This view, I argue, offers a better account of our credal and linguistic judgements than counterfactual scepticism. (shrink)

Several anti-debunkers have argued that evolutionary explanations of our moral beliefs fail to meet a necessary condition on undermining defeat called modal security. They conclude that evolution, therefore, does not debunk our moral beliefs. This article shows that modal security is false if knowledge is virtuous achievement. New information can undermine a given belief without providing reason to doubt that that belief is sensitive or safe. This leads to a novel conception of undermining defeat, and it shows that (...) successful debunking of moral realism is possible. (shrink)

It is usually taken for granted that orthodox quantum theory poses a serious problem for scientific realism, in that the theory is empirically extraordinarily successful, and yet has instrumentalism built into it. This paper stand this view on its head. I argue that orthodox quantum theory suffers from a number of serious (if not always noticed) defects precisely because of its inbuilt instrumentalism. This defective character of orthdoox quantum theory thus undermines instrumentalism, and supports scientific realism. I go on to (...) consider whether there is here the basis of a general argument against instrumentalism. (shrink)

Do biological relations ground responsibilities between biological fathers and their offspring? Few think biological relations ground either necessary or sufficient conditions for responsibility. Nevertheless, many think biological relations ground responsibility at least partially. Various scenarios, such as cases concerning the responsibilities of sperm donors, have been used to argue in favor of biological relations as partially grounding responsibilities. In this article, I seek to undermine the temptation to explain sperm donor scenarios via biological relations by appealing to an overlooked feature (...) of such scenarios. More specifically, I argue that sperm donor scenarios may be better explained by considering the unique abilities of agents involved. Appealing to unique ability does not eliminate the possibility of biological relations providing some explanation for perceived responsibilities on the part of biological fathers. However, since it is unclear exactly why biological relations are supposed to ground responsibility in the first place, and rather clear why unique ability grounds responsibility in those scenarios where it is exhibited, the burden of proof seems shifted to those advocating biological relations as grounds of responsibility to provide an explanation. Since this seems unlikely, I conclude it is best to avoid appealing to biological relations as providing grounds for responsibility. (shrink)

Quantum entanglement poses a challenge to the traditional metaphysical view that an extrinsic property of an object is determined by its intrinsic properties. So structural realists might be tempted to cite quantum entanglement as evidence for structural realism. I argue, however, that quantum entanglement undermines structural realism. If we classify two entangled electrons as a single system, we can say that their spin properties are intrinsic properties of the system, and that we can have knowledge about these intrinsic properties. Specifically, (...) we can know that the parts of the system are entangled and spatially separated from each other. In addition, the concept of supervenience neither illuminates quantum entanglement nor helps structural realism. (shrink)

Mark Coeckelbergh’s recent book, Why AI Undermines Democracy (2024), argues compellingly that artificial intelligence (AI) intrinsically threatens democratic governance by facilitating epistemic manipulation, deepening knowledge asymmetries, and fostering political alienation. While acknowledging Coeckelbergh’s valuable insights into democratic vulnerabilities exacerbated by digital technologies, this essay critiques his foundational assumption that AI inherently possesses political or epistemic agency. Drawing upon fiduciary epistemic theory—particularly elaborated in my works ‘Epistemic Justice and Institutional Responsibility in Academia’ (205) and “Directors’ Epistemic Duties and Fiduciary Openness” (2025)—I (...) propose an alternative governance framework, termed ‘epistemocracy’, which explicitly locates epistemic and moral responsibility within human institutional actors rather than technological artefacts. Unlike Coeckelbergh’s ‘technodemocracy’, epistemocracy prioritises fiduciary transparency, institutional accountability, and epistemic pluralism as foundational to democratic governance of AI. Ultimately, the essay argues that attributing inherent political agency to AI obscures crucial institutional responsibilities and weakens democratic safeguards. Recognising AI as epistemically neutral and embedding fiduciary epistemic duties into governance structures provides clearer, more robust pathways for institutional reform, democratic accountability, and sustainable epistemic justice in AI governance. (shrink)

While generative AI has been embraced as a powerful tool for research, its integration into academic workflows has paradoxically undermined productivity in several ways. This essay explores four key challenges: secondary source of anxiety, where overreliance on AI-generated summaries fosters doubt about source credibility and scholarly rigor; operational inefficiency, as AI often generates redundant or misleading outputs that necessitate extensive verification; the hidden labor of AI integration, requiring researchers to develop new skills and oversight mechanisms to manage AI-driven processes; and (...) ethical ambiguity, as evolving AI capabilities blur the boundaries of authenticity, originality, and responsible scholarship. These issues are further compounded by diverging institutional and cultural perspectives on what constitutes legitimate intellectual contribution. As AI continues to evolve, so too must the research communities’ strategies for its responsible use—ensuring it functions as a tool for discovery rather than a bottleneck of informational chaos that stifles innovation. (shrink)

Does privacy--the condition of being invisible to public scrutiny--in so emphasizing individual rights, undermine community? One objection to privacy is that it is a license to engage in antisocial activity that undermines social norms. Another objection is that privacy encourages isolation and anonymity, also undermining community. Drawing on the political theory of Hegel, I argue that privacy can promote community. Some invasions of privacy can undermine a sort of autonomy essential for maintaining a community. I also discuss what we (...) need to know before establishing whether privacy empirically promotes or undermines community. (shrink)

Arguments from disagreement against moral realism begin by calling attention to (or supposing) widespread, fundamental moral disagreement among a certain group of people (e.g., the folk, moral philosophers, idealized agents). Then, some skeptical or anti-realist-friendly conclusion is drawn. Chapter 2 proposes that arguments from disagreement share a structure that makes them vulnerable to a single, powerful objection: they self-undermine. For each formulation of the argument from disagreement, at least one of its premises casts doubt either on itself or on one (...) of the other premises. On reflection, this shouldn’t be surprising. These arguments are intended to support very strong metaphysical or epistemological conclusions about morality (e.g., that there are no moral facts, that none of our moral beliefs are justified). They must therefore employ very strong metaphysical or epistemological premises. But, given the pervasiveness of disagreement in philosophy, especially about metaphysics and epistemology, very strong premises are virtually certain to be the subject of widespread, intractable disagreement—precisely the sort of disagreement that proponents of these arguments think undermine moral claims. Thus, these arguments undermine their own premises. If Chapter 2’s argument is sound, it provides realists with a single, unified strategy for responding to any existing or forthcoming arguments from disagreement. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that public trust in science depends not only on the quality of its outputs but also on perceptions of the character and competence of those who control admittance to and endorsements from its institutions--the gatekeepers. Scientific gatekeeping is meant to preserve the value of science by filtering out bad work and elevating good work. But when gatekeepers appear arrogant, biased, or self-serving, the public reasonably infers that the process itself is compromised—even if the outcomes are (...) sound. Because laypeople often lack access to the details of scientific evaluation, they rely on the behavior of gatekeepers as a proxy for institutional integrity. The paper shows how this reliance can erode trust in science, especially when gatekeeping is visibly inconsistent with the values science is thought to embody. The solution is not just procedural reform, but cultural reform—institutions must better incentivize virtuous behavior and more effectively penalize its absence to preserve science’s legitimacy. (shrink)

Based on the discussion of a novel version of the Barn County scenario, the paper argues for a new explication of knowledge undermining luck. In passing, an as yet undetected form of benign luck is identified.

I respond to some challenges to Humean laws deriving from the claimed non-resilience of such laws under counterfactual assumptions.

This paper argues that the Simulation Hypothesis (SH) is structurally incompatible with an aetiological metaphysics grounded in persistence, generativity, and the Free Energy Principle (FEP). While the SH presupposes a teleological architecture in which the universe is a representational artefact created by an external agent, an aetiological universe is self organising, self maintaining, and creative from within. This aetiological stance, unlike the SH, is strongly inferred by empirical evidence and contemporary scientific thought. I begin by analysing the assumed metaphysical commitments (...) shared across strong and weak forms of the SH, including external agency, representational ontology, top down specification of laws, and the reduction of emergence to computational rules. I then develop an alternative metaphysical framework in which persistence functions as the fundamental creative impulse. Drawing on the FEP and Active Inference, I show that systems capable of maintaining their organisation must minimise free energy, generating novel structures and processes, and adaptive behaviour through endogenous dynamics rather than external design. This framework supports a robust account of emergence in which higher level structures possess autonomous causal powers that cannot be reduced to micro level computation. I argue that these commitments are incompatible with the SH’s teleological and representational architecture. The SH cannot accommodate real constitutive emergence, endogenous generativity, or the primal role of persistence. I address several objections, including claims that FEP could be implemented in a simulation, that emergence can be simulated, and that aetiology is itself a metaphysical assumption. I conclude that evidence for an aetiological universe undermines the Simulation Hypothesis: the two cannot both be true. (shrink)

This paper presents a systematic critique of contemporary foundationalist metaphysics, specifically targeting grounding theory and dispositional essentialism through the lens of Ontological Instability. I argue that stability-based theories in analytic metaphysics are not merely empirically inadequate but logically impossible. Through three interconnected mechanisms—the Stabilization Paradox, Temporal Contradiction, and Relational Undermining—I demonstrate that foundationalist approaches necessarily undermine themselves. The paper provides detailed reductio ad absurdum arguments against Jonathan Schaffer's grounding theory and Alexander Bird's dispositional essentialism, supported by case studies from (...) quantum mechanics. I conclude that Ontological Instability represents a fundamental logical constraint that necessitates the development of post-foundationalist metaphysics based on dynamic processes rather than stable foundations. (shrink)

Abstract This paper argues that the Simulation Hypothesis (SH) is structurally incompatible with an aetiological metaphysics grounded in persistence, generativity, and the Free Energy Principle (FEP). While the SH presupposes a teleological architecture in which the universe is a representational artefact created by an external agent, an aetiological universe is self organising, self maintaining, and creative from within. This aetiological stance, unlike the SH, is strongly inferred by empirical evidence and contemporary scientific thought. I begin by analysing the assumed metaphysical (...) commitments shared across strong and weak forms of the SH, including external agency, representational ontology, top down specification of laws, and the reduction of emergence to computational rules. I then develop an alternative metaphysical framework in which persistence functions as the fundamental creative impulse. Drawing on the FEP and Active Inference, I show that systems capable of maintaining their organisation must minimise free energy, generating novel structures and processes, and adaptive behaviour through endogenous dynamics rather than external design. This framework supports a robust account of emergence in which higher level structures possess autonomous causal powers that cannot be reduced to micro level computation. I argue that these commitments are incompatible with the SH’s teleological and representational architecture. The SH cannot accommodate real constitutive emergence, endogenous generativity, or the primal role of persistence. I address several objections, including claims that FEP could be implemented in a simulation, that emergence can be simulated, and that aetiology is itself a metaphysical assumption. I conclude that evidence for an aetiological universe undermines the Simulation Hypothesis: the two cannot both be true. (shrink)

Animalism claims that we are animals, i.e. biological organisms of the primate species Homo sapiens. If there is a case in which the number of persons differs from the number of organisms, then animalism is false. Timothy Campbell and Jeff McMahan hold that there are, at least, two such cases: the dicephalus and the cephalopagus conjoined twinning cases. Recently, Eric Olson argued that either Campbell and McMahan's arguments assume the point at issue, rely on undefended assumptions, or constitute paradigmatic anti-animalist (...) claims. After characterising animalism, we address Campbell and McMahan's arguments and Olson's replies. We endorse Olson's first general objection and reject the second and third, nonetheless concluding that animalism isn't undermined by conjoined twinning cases. (shrink)

No. The paper focuses on self-knowledge of attitudes like belief, desire, and intention. It motivates a constraint on when it is rational to treat a source as an authority. Then, drawing on the “transparency” of belief and other attitudes, it argues that the constraint is not satisfied in the case of knowing one’s own mind by relying on AI or any other technology. Against some AI optimists, the paper argues that there are principled reasons why the task of knowing one’s (...) mind should not be outsourced to computers. Neither is AI a threat to the practice of deferring to avowing subjects. (shrink)

Since the publication of Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue in 1981, tensions inherent to the relationship between morally educative practices and the institutions that house them have been widely noted. We propose a taxonomy of the ways in which the pursuit of external goods by institutions undermines the pursuit of the internal goods of practices. These comprise substitution, where the institution replaces the pursuit of one type of good by another; frustration, where opportunities for practitioners to discover goods or develop new (...) standards of excellence are frustrated by institutional priorities and resource allocation; and injustice, which undermines the integrity of relationships within the organization and/or with partners. These threats, though analytically distinct, are often mutually reinforcing. This conceptual contribution is illustrated both by the extant literature and by a novel context, the three-ring circus. (shrink)

An account of what sort of causal integration is necessary for an agent to exercise agency is offered in support of a soft-line response to Derk Pereboom’s four-case argument against source-compatibilism. I argue that, in cases of manipulation, the manipulative activity affects the identity of the causal process of which it is a part. Specifically, I argue that causal processes involving direct manipulation fail to count as exercises of intentional agency because they involve heteromesial causal deviance. In contrast, standard deterministic (...) causal processes do not involve heteromesial causal deviance and are agency-preserving. The upshot is that there is a relevant difference between a causal process involving direct manipulation by another agent and a deterministic causal process that involves no such intervention. If this is right, then Pereboom’s four-case argument does not pose a threat to source-compatibilist theories of free will and moral responsibility. (shrink)

There is a growing consensus that emotions contribute positively to human practical rationality. While arguments that defend this position often appeal to the modularity of emotion-generation mechanisms, these arguments are also susceptible to the criticism, e.g. by Jones (2006), that emotional modularity supports pessimism about the prospects of emotions contributing positively to practical rationality here and now. This paper aims to respond to this criticism by demonstrating how models of emotion processing can accommodate the sorts of cognitive influence required to (...) make the pro-emotion position plausible whilst exhibiting key elements of modularity. (shrink)

The Principal Principle (PP) says that, for any proposition A, given any admissible evidence and the proposition that the chance of A is x%, one's conditional credence in A should be x%. Humean Supervenience (HS) claims that, among possible worlds like ours, no two differ without differing in the spacetime-point-by-spacetime-point arrangement of local properties. David Lewis (1986b, 1994a) has argued that PP contradicts HS, and the validity of his argument has been endorsed by Bigelow et al. (1993), Thau (1994), Hall (...) (1994), Strevens (1995), Ismael (1996), Hoefer (1997), and Black (1998). Against this consensus, I argue that PP might not contradict HS: Lewis's argument is invalid, and every attempt – within a broad class of attempts – to amend the argument fails. (shrink)

This is the twelfth paper of a series that redescribes physical reality as a causally consistent history of information updates, and the closing panel of its second triptych - observer, then probability and typicality, then epistemic trust - ordered by dependence. The tenth paper defined a record-bearing observer and established that such an observer's grip on its own records secures their downstream usability but never, with certainty, their upstream provenance (Uchida, 2026j). The eleventh paper specified what must be declared before (...) a claim about typical observers or self-locating credence is well posed, and handed forward a hierarchical specification family together with a diagnostic, the provenance prevalence, explicitly marked as an input and not a verdict, with the cosmological measure, reference class, regulator, and self-location bridge held to be independent inputs rather than consequences of the physics (Uchida, 2026k). This paper supplies the missing normative step: the last arrow of the eleventh paper's chain, from self-locating credence to rational trust in records. Its central object is a reflexive consistency condition - not on a cosmology in isolation, but on a cosmology together with the observer, measure and self-location, process-adequacy, inferential, and normative specifications under which it is evaluated, that is, on a theory-specification package. Four commitments shape the construction. Trust is treated as warrant, the entitlement to use a record-derived state as evidence for its referent, and is analyzed in layers: first-order process adequacy (the evidence was in fact formed through a reliable, causally continuous network free of declared objective exclusions, a layer non-factive about token truth), a reflective adequacy credence (a first-person credence that process adequacy holds), and a reflective entitlement (the warrant proper, the verdict a warrant bridge confers on that credence and on any defeater the observer knows of). The content of evidence is separated from the physical token bundle and formation network a given centre actually carries, since centres that share an apparent evidential content can differ in provenance, reliability, and preservation. Evidence is in general a bundle, and its reliability is an aggregate over a whole evidence network, sensitive to redundancy and common-mode dependence. And the criterion, the Non-Self-Undermining Condition (NSU), demands consistency between theory-support and evidence-entitlement: in any applicable case - one in which the evidential content, under a declared inferential specification, supports the theory - the package must license the use of that evidence. The condition is given in majority, threshold, and admissible-family-robust grades, and is positioned relative to the xerographic-distribution program of Hartle and Srednicki and the cognitive-instability arguments of Albrecht and Sorbo, and Carroll. The paper's scope is deliberately negative and bounded. NSU is necessary, not sufficient: in an applicable case, passing establishes package-relative reflective entitlement under the declared bridge, not process adequacy, and a fortiori not truth, rational acceptance over rivals, or the correct measure (No-Self-Certification); where the content does not support the theory the condition is simply not applicable, not passed. NSU does not refute external-world skepticism, since it governs only the reflective layer and lifts no observer out of the predicament that upstream provenance is never directly verifiable from the inside; a package that, by its own combined specifications, withholds entitlement from its own supporting evidence is not thereby false but cognitively unstable - cognitive instability, not refutation. It does not solve the bootstrapping problem, and it derives neither the credence threshold, the bridges, the correct cosmological measure, nor the Born rule. Its contribution is a typed, layered account of epistemic trust, a formal criterion that filters self-undermining theory-specification packages, and the closure of the second triptych from inside the history, with no view from nowhere to certify records. (shrink)

Some feminists hold that surrogacy contracts should be unenforceable or illegal because they contribute to and perpetuate unjust gender inequalities. I argue that in developed countries, surrogacy contracts either wouldn't have these negative effects or that these effects could be mitigated via regulation. Furthermore, the existence of a regulated surrogacy market is preferable on consequentialist grounds.

In the paper, I defend the skeptical view that no one is ever morally responsible in the basic desert sense since luck universally undermines responsibility-level control. I begin in Section 1 by defining a number of different varieties of luck and examining their relevance to moral responsibility. I then turn, in Section 2, to outlining and defending what I consider to be the best argument for the skeptical view--the luck pincer (Levy 2011). I conclude in Section 3 by addressing Robert (...) Hartman's (2017) numerous objections to the luck pincer. I argue that the luck pincer emerges unscathed and the pervasiveness of luck (still) undermines moral responsibility. (shrink)

I examine the claim that theistic and scientific multiverses conflict: the former require that only universes above a certain threshold of value exist, while the latter make no such stipulations. I explore several avenues of reconciliation: appealing to ceteris peribus conditions ostensibly inherent within scientific theories, redefining `universe' in the philosophical context, advocating skeptical theism, contending that God and gratuitous evil are compatible, and adjusting the relevant scientific theories. I conclude that only the last strategy is viable, as long as (...) we grant the coherence of a Molinist account of divine providence. If successful, it would entail that scientific and theistic models conflict only superficially. If not, however, then the theistic multiverse is inconsistent with its scientific counterparts. (shrink)

Byrne offers a novel interpretation of the idea that the mind is transparent to its possessor, and that one knows one’s own mind by looking out at the world. This paper argues that his attempts to extend this picture of self-knowledge force him to sacrifice the theoretical parsimony he presents as the primary virtue of his account. The paper concludes by discussing two general problems transparency accounts of self-knowledge must address.

In some domains experts perform better than novices, and in other domains experts do not generally perform better than novices. According to empirical studies of expert performance, this is because the former but not the latter domains make available to training practitioners a direct form of learning feedback. Several philosophers resource this empirical literature to cast doubt on the quality of philosophical expertise. They claim that philosophy is like the dubious domains in that it does not make available the good, (...) direct kind of learning feedback, and thus there are empirical grounds for doubting the epistemic quality of philosophical expertise. I examine the empirical studies that are purportedly bad news for professional philosophers. On the basis of that examination, I provide three reasons why the empirical study of non-philosophical expertise does not undermine the status of philosophical expertise. First, the non-philosophical task-types from which the critics generalize are unrepresentative of relevant philosophical task-types. Second, empirical critiques of non-philosophical experts are often made relative to the performance of linear models—a comparison that is inapt in a philosophical context. Third, the critics fail to discuss findings from the empirical study of non-philosophical expertise that have more favorable implications for the epistemic status of philosophical expertise. In addition to discussing implications for philosophical expertise, this article makes progress in the philosophical analysis of the science of expertise and expert development. (shrink)

This chapter puts to rest for all of eternity the self-undermining charge against conciliationism.