This paper summarizes key themes from my Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (OUP, 2007); and it gives replies to commentators.

RESUMEN: A través de un repaso a las teorías científicas más ortodoxas (a fines del siglo XIX) acerca de la diversidad biológica en nuestra especie —tal y como aparecen en la obra de autores como Darwin, Broca, Huxley, Haeckel, Vogt, etc.— el presente artículo propone la existencia de una conexión ideológica entre las teorías evolutivas sobre las así llamadas “razas humanas” (especialmente los modelos darwinistas sobre evolución humana), y las jerarquías raciales que, a su vez, establecía la lógica económica del imperialismo occidental.ABSTRACT: Taking into account the scientific theories about biological diversity in our species, specially those that constituted the orthodoxy in the last part of the XIXth century (i.e. those of authors such as Darwin, Broca, Huxley, Haeckel, Vogt, etc.), this paper analyzes the ideological connections that could be established between evolutionary and biological theories about “human races” (specially the Darwinist models about human evolution) and, on the other hand, the racial hierarchies imposed by the economic logic of victorian imperialism.

Bayesianism and Inference to the best explanation (IBE) are two different models of inference. Recently there has been some debate about the possibility of “bayesianizing” IBE. Firstly I explore several alternatives to include explanatory considerations in Bayes’s Theorem. Then I distinguish two different interpretationsof prior probabilities: “IBE-Bayesianism” (IBE-Bay) and “frequentist-Bayesianism” (Freq-Bay). After detailing the content of the latter, I propose a rule for assessing the priors. I also argue that Freq-Bay: (i) endorses a role for explanatory value in the assessment of scientific hypotheses; (ii) avoids a purely subjectivist reading of prior probabilities; and (iii) fits better than IBE-Bayesianism with two basic facts about science, i.e., the prominent role played by empirical testing and the existence of many scientific theories in the past that failed to fulfil their promises and were subsequently abandoned.

In this paper I argue that the epistemology of trust and testimony should take into account the pragmatics of communication in order to gain insight about the responsibilities speakers and hearers share in the epistemic access they gain through communication. Communication is a rich process of information exchangein which epistemic standards are negotiated by interlocutors. I discuss examples which show the contextual adjustment of these standards as the conversation goes on. Our sensitivity to the contextual dimension of epistemic standards make us more responsible communicators.

A conversation is more than a series of disconnected remarks because it is conducted against a background presumption of cooperation. But what makes it reasonable to presume that one is engaged in a conversation? What makes it reasonable to presume cooperation? This paper considers Grice’s two ways ofanswering this question and argues for the one he discarded. It does so by means of considering a certain problem and analysis of trust.

In this paper, it is argued that both the informer and the hearer in a testimonial situation deserve epistemic merit insofar as they contribute to the collaborative achievement of sharing knowledge. The paper introduces a distinction between the ideals of self-sufficiency and epistemic autonomy. The autonomous exerciseof our epistemic agency is very often carried out under strong conditions of epistemic dependence. Testimony exhibits a kind of social dependence that does not threaten the autonomy of the subjects that need to consider their own epistemic capacities. When involved in a testimonial situation, both speaker and hearer declare, at least implicitly, the standings they occupy in an epistemic space and are obliged to recognise certain epistemic requirements.

Miranda Fricker characterizes the most basic or primary form of epistemic, testimonial injustice by way of a set of negative delimitations. In this paper I raise some doubts about how these delimitations are drawn, about the wrongful harms and disadvantages the testimonial injustice is supposed to entail and produce,and about the way Miranda Fricker clarifies the perfectionist character of the corrective virtue on the part of hearers, the ethical and intellectual virtue of testimonial justice.

Two aspects of Miranda Fricker’s book are criticised: the implicit assumption that ethical theory can solve fundamental problems in epistemology, and the excessive reliance on testimony as a fundamental source of knowledge. Against the former, it is argued that ethical theories are based on cultural prejudicesto a higher extent than epistemological theories. Against the latter, argumentation is proposed as a more important epistemic practice than testimony.

Contrary to most current epistemologists who concentrate on core cases of rather ‘spontaneous’ (deliberately de-contextualized) trust and belief in the face of assertions, Classical rhetoricians addressed the study of ‘testimony’ as an (at least) two-acts phenomenon: that of the ‘disclosure’ of information and that of the ‘appeal’ to its authority in subsequent discursive practices. Moreover, they primarily focused on this second phase as they assumed that it was such argumentative setting that finally gave ‘testimonial’ relevance to the first act. According to this ‘rhetorical’ model, then, it is the dynamics (by means of an in medias res approach) and pragmatics (by means of a deliberate attention to specifically ‘situated’ practices) of such complex process that is the core issue regarding ‘testimony’.

I propose to consider the interpersonal character of testimony as a kind of social bond created by the mutual intention of sharing knowledge. The paper explores the social mechanism that supports this mutual intention starting from an initial situation of modelling the other’s epistemic perspective. Accepting testimony as a joint action creates epistemic duties and responsibilities and the eventual success can be considered as a genuine achievement at the social level of epistemology. Trust is presented here as the symptom that both parties are involved in such a social bond.

RESUMEN: La idea de selección interna, propuesta originalmente por Lancelot Whyte, no sólo sirve para entender el papel causal que los constreñimientos del desarrollo tienen en evolución; sino que además puede hacernos comprender de qué modo esos factores organísmicos o internos, cuya importancia la Biología Evolucionaria del Desarrollo hoy quiere rescatar, son pasibles de ser considerados desde una perspectiva variacional o seleccional compatible, pero no asimilable, a la Teoría de la Selección Natural. Así, considerado como un concepto autónomo y diferente al de selección natural, el concepto de selección interna puede permitirnos comprender de qué modo eso que Wallace Arthur llama developmental bias constituye una causa, efectiva y positiva, de transformacionesevolutivas irreversibles y acumulables.ABSTRACT: The idea of internal selection, originally proposed by Lancelot Whyte, not only helps to understand the causal role that the developmental constraints have in evoltion, but it can also show how these organismic or internal factors, which relevancy the Evolutionary Developmental Biology remarks today, can be considered from a variational or selectional perspective that is compatible with, but not reducible to, Natural Selection Theory. Thus, being considered as a concept autonomous and different from natural selection, the concept of internal selection can allow us to understand how that phenomenon that Wallace Arthur calls developmental bias constitutes an effective and positive cause of irreversible and cumulative evolutionary changes.

According to Jackson, Pettit & Smith (2000), “restricted particularism” is not affected by their supervenience-based consideration against particularism but, they claim, suffer from a different difficulty, roughly that it would violate the platitude about moral argument that, in debating controversial moral issues, a central role is played by various similarity claims. I present a defense of “restricted particularism” from this objection, which accommodates the platitudinous character of the claim that ordinary participants in conversations concerning the evaluative are committed to descriptive similarities and differences being relevant in the way described by Jackson, Pettit and Smith, to moral similarities and differences. My defense exploits a presuppositional component congenial to response-dependent proposals such as Lewis’s (1989).

RESUMEN: Este trabajo ofrece una lectura de la Paradoja de Moore que pone énfasis en su relevancia para nuestra comprensión de la racionalidad y de la interpretación lingüística. Mantiene que las oraciones que dan origen a la paradoja no necesitan entenderse en términos de ausencia de una contradicción, sino más bien en términos de ausencia de racionalidad, entendida esta como un término más amplio que el de coherencia y consistencia lógica. Se defenderá tal posición por medio de tres tesis, dos de las cuales se derivan de los enfoques dominantes (aunque insuficientes) a la paradoja: el de Moore, el de Wittgenstein y el de Shoemaker.ABSTRACT: This paper offers an interpretation of Moore’s Paradox that emphasizes its relevance for our understanding of rationality and linguistic interpretation. The sentences that originate the paradox do not need to be thought of in terms of the absence of a contradiction, but in terms of absence of rationality, where rationality is understood as a broader notion than coherence and logical consistency. This is defended through three theses, two of which stem from the dominant (but insufficient) approaches to the paradox: Moore’s, Wittgenstein’s and Shoemaker’s.

RESUMEN: En este artículo pretendo desmantelar la opinión generalizada según la cual una interpretación relacional del espaciotiempo no es posible. Centro mi atención en el hecho de que las variables dinámicas usualmente están asociadas a objetos materiales en las teorías físicas. El tensor métrico de la Teoría General de la Relatividad (TGR) es un objeto dinámico así que —sostengo— este debe ser mejor entendido como un campo material en toda regla. Este argumento me lleva a vincular la naturaleza relacional del espaciotiempo a las dificultades para formular una genuina ley de conservación de energía-momento en la TGR.ABSTRACT: I will try to dismantle the widespread impression that a relational account of spacetime is not possible. I concentrate on the fact that dynamical variables are usually linked to material objects in physical theories. The metric tensor field of GR is a dynamical object so, I claim, it should be viewed as a matter field. The argument links the relational ontological status of spacetime to the failure to provide a genuine law of energy-momentum conservation within General Relativity.

RESUMEN: En este ensayo presento un análisis comparativo entre los diversos procedimientos creados, respectivamente, por los matemáticos babilonios y Diofanto de Alejandría para resolver ecuaciones de segundo grado. Observaremos cómo los primeros recurrieron a la composición de diagramas mientras Diofanto aplicó un algoritmo abstracto que no consiguió generalizar.ABSTRACT: In this paper I present a comparative analysis among the diverse procedures invented respectively by the Babylonian mathematicians and Diophantus of Alexandria to solve quadratic equations. We will observe how the first ones appealed to the composition of diagrams while Diophantus applied an abstract algorithm that he was not able to generalize.

Christopher Fuchs has recently offered a provocative version of quantum mechanical realism, which is based on the suggestion that quantum probabilities merit a subjective interpretation. His proposal, however, has been charged with inconsistency by Amit Hagar (2003), who argues that interpreting quantum probabilities subjectively is inconsistent with the realist claims Fuchs wants to maintain for the quantum system and the dimensionality of the Hilbert space that accompanies it. In this paper I first outline the fundamentals of Fuchs’s approach and then take up the task of rebutting Hagar’s charge by demonstrating the internal coherence of Fuchs’s realism.