A conceptual defense for when groups should be regarded as epistemic agents with understanding
Avant, Vol. XI, No. 2, doi: 10.26913/avant.2020.02.01
published under license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Sven.Delariviere @ vub.be
Received 29 August 2018; accepted 19 July 2019; published Online First 6 January 2020
Abstract: Could groups ever be an understanding subject (an epistemic agent ascribed with understanding) or should we keep our focus exclusively on the individuals that make up the group? The way this paper will shape an answer to this question is by starting from a case we are most willing to accept as group understanding, then mark out the crucial differences with an unconvincing case, and, ultimately, explain why these differences matter. In order to concoct the cases, however, we need to elucidate what it means to be attributed with understanding and what makes up an epistemic agent. I shall argue that it is abilities, above all, that guide our attributions of understanding. While it is true that understanding must go beyond single acts, this is not going beyond as in going behind them (to private occurrences which are impossible to discern and don’t themselves contribute anything of value), but beyond as in considering what people could and would do: their discernable and valuable abilities. To conceptualize whom the abilities belong to, I will specify what it means to be an epistemic agent. I shall argue that it is being a successful target of the epistemic stance. The epistemic stance (heavily inspired by Dennett’s intentional stance) forms an instrumental abstraction by attributing epistemic properties (i.e., beliefs, epistemic aims, problem-solving tactics) to an entity to explain or predict its behavior. Macro-systematicity (a higher-level pattern which a theory can exploit) is what makes the epistemic stance’s abstraction an explanatory powerful one (regardless of how that macro-systematicity is realized) and emergence (the lack of a straightforward mapping-relation between the micro and the macro) is what makes its power unique to a particular level of explanation. To end, I suggest two kinds of mapping-relations and walk through the shift from reducibility to emergence.
Keywords: cognition; collective understanding; group agents; epistemic stance; emergence
|Bird, A. (2014). When is There a Group that Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject. In J. Lackey (Ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology (pp. 42-63). Oxford University Press. Could not find a publisher location in this book chapter reference.
|Block, N. (1978). Troubles with functionalism. Minnesota Studies in The Philosophy of Science, 9, 261-325.|
|Bratman, M. E. (2013). Shared agency: A planning theory of acting together. Oxford University Press. Could not find a publisher location in this book reference.
|Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.|
|Dennett, D. C. (2009). Intentional systems theory. In A. Beckermann, B. P. McLaughlin, & S. Walter (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind (pp. 339-349). Oxford: Oxford University Press.|
|Delarivière, S., & Van Kerkhove, B. (2017). The “Artificial Mathematician” Objection: Exploring the (Im)possibility of Automating Mathematical Understanding. In B. Sriraman (Ed.), Humanizing Mathematics and its Philosophy (pp. 173-198). Basel: Birkhäuser.
|De Regt, H. W., & Dieks, D. (2005). A contextual approach to scientific understanding. Synthese, 144(1), 137-170.
|Gilbert, M. (2013). Joint commitment: How we make the social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|Goldman, Al. & Blanchard, T. (2018). Social Epistemology. In E. N. Zalte (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemology-social/|
|Grimm, S. R. (2014). Understanding as knowledge of causes. In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue epistemology naturalized (pp. 329-345). Dordecht: Springer.
|Hills, A. (2016). Understanding Why. Noûs, 50(4), 661-688.
|Hofstadter, D. R. (1999). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books.|
|Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT press.|
|Khalifa, K. (2013). Understanding, grasping and luck. Episteme (Edinburgh), 10(1), 1-17.
|Kvanvig, J. L. (2003). The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|List, C. & Pettit, P. (2011). Group Agency. The Possibility, Design and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|O’Connor, T. & Wong, H. Y. (2015). Emergent Properties. In E. N. Zalte (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/|
|Pettit, P. (2014). How to Tell if a Group is an Agent. In J. Lackey (Ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology (p.97-121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|Rupert, R. D. (2011). Empirical arguments for group minds: A critical appraisal. Philosophy Compass, 6(9), 630-639.
|Ryle, G. (2000). The Concept of Mind. London: Penguin.|
|Van Camp, W. (2014). Explaining understanding (or understanding explanation). European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4(1), 95-114.
|Wilkenfeld, D. A. (2013). Understanding as representation manipulability. Synthese, 190(6), 997-1016.
|Theiner, G. (2017). Groups as Distributed Cognitive Systems. In Ludwig, K. & Jankovic, Marija (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality (pp. 233-248). New York, Routledge.
|Tollefsen, D. P. (2002). Collective intentionality and the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(1), 25-50.
|Tollefsen, D. P. (2015). Groups as Agents. Cambridge: John Wiley and Sons.|
|Tuomela, R. (2013). Social ontology: Collective intentionality and group agents. Oxford University Press.
|Trout, J. D. (2002). Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), 212-233.
|Ylikoski, P. (2009). The Illusion of Depth of Understanding in Science. In H. de Regt, S. Leonelli, and K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 100-119). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
|Zagzebski, L. (2001). Recovering understanding. Knowledge, truth, and duty. Essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue, 2001, 235-252.
“Avant” journal – the task financed under the contract 711/P-DUN/2019 from the funds of the Minister of Science and Higher Education for the dissemination of science.
Czasopismo „Avant” – zadanie finansowane w ramach umowy 711/P-DUN/2019 ze środków Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.