Skip to main content

Epistemic Innocence (part 3)

In a series of posts on epistemic innocence, Ema and I are sharing our initial thoughts on this new notion. In my first post, I talked about two conditions that imperfect cognitions (delusional beliefs, distorted memories and confabulatory hypotheses) need to meet to count as epistemically innocent: (1) the "epistemic benefit" condition and (2) the "no relevant alternatives" condition. The idea is that an imperfect cognition is epistemically innocent if it has some genuinely epistemic benefit that could not be obtained otherwise.

In her last post, Ema described in some more detail condition (2). Here, I want to focus on condition (1) by offering an example of the epistemic benefits that imperfect cognitions could have. Take delusions, one of the paradigmatic manifestations of irrationality, what Tony David on this blog called the "hallmark of madness". Delusions can be regarded as irrational in many ways: they are likely to conflict with other beliefs the subject has, they are implausible given what the subject knows, they are strenuously resistant to counter-evidence (as we discussed previously, DSM 5 defines them as "fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in the light of conflicting evidence").


Can delusions have any epistemic benefit notwithstanding their many epistemic faults? Arguments to this effect can be put forward, based on the situation in which a subject finds herself prior to adopting a delusion. Consider the phase preceding the formation of a delusion in the context of schizophrenia. The aberrant salience hypothesis and the prediction-error theory (sketches can be found in the contributions by Phil Gerrans and Phil Corlett to this blog) tell us that the subject experiences reality in a distressing way. Random events around her seem to acquire a new significance, but they are like messages that cannot be deciphered and cause anxiety as a result, preventing the subject from responding to cues in the environment and acquiring true beliefs. The emergence of a delusional hypothesis puts an end to this.

Via the delusion, the subject attributes meaning to her anomalous experiences. The anxiety caused by hypersalience is relieved, although the often deeply disturbing content of the delusion can be a new source of anxiety. Some sense of control is regained, as temporary and illusory as this may be. In people with elaborated and systematic delusions, this sense of control can also translate into enhanced "sense of coherence", that is, the capacity to see the world as meaningful and predictable, often positively correlated to health and longevity (Bergstein et al. 2008). Arguably, the increased sense of purpose and the regained confidence can be instrumental to the pursuit of epistemic projects, although the outcomes of these are bound to be heavily influenced by the content of the delusion.

Other potential epistemic benefits will be discussed in future posts.The impression I have from the literature is that benefits are always accompanied by high costs in the context of a delusion, and thus the delusion remains an irrational belief (at least, for people who are doxastically inclined, like me). But what I would like to explore as part of the project is the possibility that the epistemic benefits associated with delusions are such that they could not be obtained otherwise, due to there not being relevant cognitions with fewer epistemic costs that would deliver the same benefits (e.g., release the subject from the perpetual delusional mood characterised by hypersalience).

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph