Skip to main content

Workshop on Epistemic Emotions

On August 25th and 26th, the Swiss Centre for the Affective Sciences held a workshop on epistemic emotions and epistemic feelings.  Epistemic emotions are a type of mental state that includes the feeling of understanding, the feeling of knowledge, and the feeling of interest.  The workshop was put on by the Phrontis research group on attention, interest, and epistemic emotions and organized by Anne Meylan and network member Richard Dub.

The workshop opened with a presentation by Brian McLaughlin (Rutgers) entitled 'Delusions and Feelings'.  McLaughlin presented a model of the Capgras delusion (the delusion that a loved one has been replaced with an imposter).  McLaughlin argued that it is necessary to posit the "cognitive feeling" of unfamiliarity to explain how Capgras belief is acquired.  The experience of unfamiliarity has a strongly affective aspect that causes the sufferer to straightaway acquire the belief that the person in front of her is unfamiliar.  Anxiety and paranoia then cause a tunneling of attention, and a full-fledged delusional theory thus grows from the single delusional belief.

Richard Dub (University of Geneva) followed up with a talk entitled 'Epistemic Emotions and Cognitive Feelings'.  Dub argued that the category of epistemic emotions is too narrow to be of much use in psychological theory-building.  Epistemic emotions are typically said to be metacognitive: they inform an agent about his or her own mental states.  For instance, a feeling of knowledge informs the agent about what he or she knows.  Using evidence from the literature on delusions, Dub argued that some non-metacognitive experiences (such as the feeling of safety, the feeling of invulnerability, or the feeling of physical capability) function very much like these paradigmatic epistemic emotions, and should be considered members of the same psychological type.  He then considered whether these sorts of experiences are emotional experiences (a subject previously discussed on this blog).

Kevin Mulligan (University of Geneva) closed the first day of the workshop with a 'Is Un/certainty an affective phenomenon?'.  Mulligan endorsed a picture of belief on which belief is all-or-nothing and does not admit of degrees.  The feeling of certainty, however, does admit of degrees.  Is this feeling of certainty affective, or an emotion?  According to Mulligan, a state is affective only if it is properly evaluative, and many so-called epistemic emotions do not appear to be evaluative.  However, Mulligan argued that the feeling of certainty is evaluative, and so is an affective state: to feel certain of something is to feel that there are reasons for believing it.  He ended his session with a discussion of interest, considering its relation to ignorance and boredom.

The second day of the workshop began with Joëlle Proust (Jean Nicod) presenting her work on "noetic feelings".  Noetic feelings are feelings that occur in metacognitive episodes: they evaluate correctness in past or future cognitive performance; they motivate epistemic decisions and reasoning, and they act as a source of epistemic entitlement.  Noetic feelings are generated through the comparisons of observed with expected values.  These comparisons affect processing fluency, and processing fluency regulates epistemic evaluations.  Proust considered whether noetic feelings are representational, and if they are representational, what they can be said to represent.

The workshop concluded with Danny Dukes (University of Neuchâtel) presenting experimental studies that he and Fabrice Clément (University of Neuchâtel) have performed on interest.  Dukes went through various criteria that it might take for a mental state to count as an emotion, and argued that interest satisfied all of these criteria.  For example, just like other emotions, interest generates behavioral patterns that appear developmentally early (people shift their gaze, lean in, etc.).  Many cute videos of interested babies were shown.

One of the prominent themes that emerged throughout the workshop concerned the definition of 'affective'.  What does it mean for a feeling to be an affective state?  What exactly is the relation between paradigmatic emotions and epistemic emotions, cognitive feelings, or noetic feelings?  The workshop solidified our convictions that this is a rich and profitable field of study with much more exploration to be done.

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