Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T11:18:33.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Myth of Stochastic Infallibilism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Adam Michael Bricker Open the ORCID record for Adam Michael Bricker [Opens in a new window]
Adam Michael Bricker*
Affiliation:
University of Oulu and University of Turku, Finland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: adam.michael.bricker@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a widespread attitude in epistemology that, if you know on the basis of perception, then you couldn't have been wrong as a matter of chance. Despite the apparent intuitive plausibility of this attitude, which I'll refer to here as “stochastic infallibilism”, it fundamentally misunderstands the way that human perceptual systems actually work. Perhaps the most important lesson of signal detection theory (SDT) is that our percepts are inherently subject to random error, and here I'll highlight some key empirical research that underscores this point. In doing so, it becomes clear that we are in fact quite willing to attribute knowledge to S that p even when S's perceptual belief that p could have been randomly false. In short, perceptual processes can randomly fail, and perceptual knowledge is stochastically fallible. The narrow implication here is that any epistemological account that entails stochastic infallibilism, like safety, is simply untenable. More broadly, this myth of stochastic infallibilism provides a valuable illustration of the importance of integrating empirical findings into epistemological thinking.

Keywords

Infallibilismperceptual knowledgesignal detection theoryneural noisesafety
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 523 - 538
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amitay, S., Guiraud, J, Sohoglu, E., Zobay, O., Edmonds, B.A., Zhang, Y.-X. and Moore, D.R. (2013). ‘Human Decision Making Based on Variations in Internal Noise: An EEG Study.’ PLoS ONE 8(7), Article e68928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arazi, A., Gonen-Yaacovi, G. and Dinstein, I. (2017). ‘The Magnitude of Trial-By-Trial Neural Variability Is Reproducible over Time and across Tasks in Humans.’ ENeuro 4(6).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernasconi, F., De Lucia, M., Tzovara, A., Manuel, A., Murray, M. and Spierer, L. (2011). ‘Noise in Brain Activity Engenders Perception and Influences Discrimination Sensitivity.’ Journal of Neuroscience 31(49), 17971–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branco, T. and Staras, K. (2009). ‘The Probability of Neurotransmitter Release: Variability and Feedback Control at Single Synapses.’ Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10(5), 373–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branco, T., Staras, K., Darcy, K. and Goda, Y. (2008). ‘Local Dendritic Activity Sets Release Probability at Hippocampal Synapses.’ Neuron 59(3), 475–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bricker, A. (2018). ‘Do Judgements about Risk Track Modal Ordering?’ Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 7(3), 200–8.Google Scholar
Bricker, A. (2019). ‘There are Actual Brains in Vats Now.’ Logos and Episteme 10(2), 135–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. and Maunsell, J. (2009). ‘Attention Improves Performance Primarily by Reducing Interneuronal Correlations.’ Nature Neuroscience 12(12), 1594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comesaña, J. (2005). ‘Unsafe Knowledge.’ Synthese 146(3), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diba, K., Lester, H. and Koch, C. (2004). ‘Intrinsic Noise in Cultured Hippocampal Neurons: Experiment and Modeling.’ Journal of Neuroscience 24(43), 9723–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drouin, M., Kaiser, D. and Miller, D. (2012). ‘Phantom Vibrations Among Undergraduates: Prevalence and Associated Psychological Characteristics.’ Computers in Human Behavior 28(4), 1490–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, O. and Turri, J. (2015). ‘Is Probabilistic Evidence a Source of Knowledge?’ Cognitive Science 39(5), 1062–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, M. (2017). On Folk Epistemology: How We Think and Talk About Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. (2007). ‘Worries About Pritchard's Safety.’ Synthese 158(3), 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D. and Swets, J. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Helton, G. and Nanay, B. (Forthcoming). ‘Amodal Completion and Knowledge.’ Analysis.Google Scholar
Kole, M.H., Stuart, G.J. and Hallermann, S. (2006). ‘Single Ih Channels in Pyramidal Neuron Dendrites: Properties, Distribution, and Impact on Action Potential Output.’ Journal of Neuroscience 26(6), 1677–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Körber, C. and Kuner, T. (2016). ‘Molecular Machines Regulating the Release Probability of Synaptic Vesicles at the Active Zone.’ Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience 8, 5. doi: 10.3389/fnsyn.2016.00005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecar, H. and Nossal, R. (1971). ‘Theory of Threshold Fluctuations in Nerves. II. Analysis of Various Sources of Membrane Noise.’ Biophysical Journal 11(12), 1068–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, Z. and Dosher, B. (2014). Visual Psychophysics from Laboratory to Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. and Creelman, C. (2005). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McDonnell, M. and Ward, L. (2011). ‘The Benefits of Noise in Neural Systems: Bridging Theory and Experiment.’ Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12(7), 415–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, J.F., Sundberg, K.A. and Reynolds, J.H. (2007). ‘Differential Attention-Dependent Response Modulation across Cell Classes in Macaque Visual Area V4.’ Neuron 55(1), 131–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagel, J. (2010). ‘Knowledge Ascriptions and the Psychological Consequences of Thinking About Error.’ Philosophical Quarterly 60(239), 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, W. and Baschnagel, J. (2013). Stochastic Processes: From Physics to Finance. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2012). ‘Anti-luck Virtue Epistemology.’ Journal of Philosophy 109(3), 247–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, D. (2015). ‘Risk.’ Metaphilosophy 46(3), 436–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothberg, M.B., Arora, A., Hermann, J., Kleppel, R., St Marie, P. and Visintainer, P. (2010). ‘Phantom Vibration Syndrome Among Medical Staff: A Cross Sectional Survey.’ BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 341, C6914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanderson, T.M., Bradley, C.A., Georgiou, J., Hong, Y.H., Ng, A.N., Lee, Y., Kim, H.D., Amici, M., Son, G.H., Zhuo, M., Kim, K., Kaang, B.K., Kim, S.J. and Collingridge, G.L. (2018). ‘The Probability of Neurotransmitter Release Governs AMPA Receptor Trafficking via Activity-Dependent Regulation of mGluR1 Surface Expression.’ Cell Reports 25(13), 3631–46.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. (2016). Between Probability and Certainty: What Justifies Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traynelis, S. and Jaramillo, F. (1998). ‘Getting the Most Out of Noise in the Central Nervous System.’ Trends in Neurosciences 21(4), 137–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsodyks, M. and Markram, H. (1997). ‘The Neural Code Between Neocortical Pyramidal Neurons Depends on Neurotransmitter Release Probability.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94(2), 719–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winer, E. and Snodgrass, M. (2015). ‘Signal Detection Theory.’ In Matthen, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar