Papers in English by Martin Justin
Episteme, 2025
The view that epistemic peers should conciliate in cases of disagreement-the Conciliatory View-ha... more The view that epistemic peers should conciliate in cases of disagreement-the Conciliatory View-had been an important view in the early days of the peer disagreement debate. Over the years, however, the view has been the target of severe criticism; an "obituary" was already written for the view, and, as a recent proclamation has it, there is "no hope" for it. In this paper, I will argue that we should keep the hope alive by defending the Conciliatory View of peer disagreement. The primary strategy of my defense will be to separate the claims made by the view specific to peer disagreement and claims that concern higher-order evidence more generally. This separation allows us to see which problems cannot be addressed in the context of peer disagreement alone. As I will argue, the upshot of making this distinction is that although the jury is still out on whether higher-order evidence should affect our first-order doxastic states, the Conciliatory View likely follows if it does.
Analiza: časopis za kritiko znanosti, 2024
Despite our best efforts, we often fail to act in a perfectly rational manner. Recently, some epi... more Despite our best efforts, we often fail to act in a perfectly rational manner. Recently, some epistemologists have suggested that we should admit our failings and develop a modest epistemology that would take our fallibility seriously. This includes accounting for the role of evidence of our irrationality, usually called higher-order evidence. It seems intuitive that modest reasoners should take such evidence into account. However, it turns out that incorporating higher-order evidence into a principled theory of what rationality requires is not an easy task. In this paper, I first review the debate about higher-order evidence, describing in detail the puzzle of higherorder evidence and the main positions about it in the literature. Then, I provide two novel examples of higher-order evidence, taken from science. I argue that these examples put pressure on the views that reject the role of higher-order evidence. These views commit themselves to the conclusion that some common scientific practices, such as evaluating evidence in systematic reviews or even running null hypothesis significance tests, are irrational.
Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 2024
In this article, I will review existing arguments for and against this philosophical pessimism ab... more In this article, I will review existing arguments for and against this philosophical pessimism about using deep learning models in science. Despite the remarkable results achieved by deep learning models networks in various scientific fields, some philosophers worry that because of their opacity, using these systems cannot improve our understanding of the phenomena studied. First, some terminological and conceptual clarification is provided. Then, I present a case for optimism, arguing that using opaque models does not hinder the possibility of gaining new understanding. After that, I present a critique of this argument. Finally, I present a case for pessimism, concluding that there are reasons to be pessimistic about the ability of deep learning models to provide us with new understanding of phenomena, studied by scientists.
Proceedings of the 25th International Multiconference Information Society 2022: Cognitive Science, 2022
In the paper, I review some of the emerging philosophical literature on the problem of using arti... more In the paper, I review some of the emerging philosophical literature on the problem of using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and deep learning in science. Specifically, I focus on the problem of opacity in such systems and argue that although using deep neural networks in cognitive science can produce better results, it can also acts as a barrier to gaining new understanding of cognitive processes.
Analiza: Časopis za kritično misel, 2021
The paper examines whether it can be said that older authors like Aristotle anticipated the claim... more The paper examines whether it can be said that older authors like Aristotle anticipated the claim that System 2 is uniquely human, made by some dual-system theorists. Anticipation is understood as implying a hierarchical relation between a prior, naïve theory, and a later, more elaborated one. Thus, it is examined whether the claim that System 2 is uniquely human made by dual-system theorists can be understood as a mature and empirically well corroborated articulation of the intuition that humans have unique cognitive capacities, or rather a vague repetition of that intuition. The first part of the paper briefly presents Aristotle’s theory of the soul and modern dual-system theories respectively. In the second part, dual-system theories are examined in more detail using three criteria. It is concluded that dual-system theories do not present a mature articulation the intuition about human uniqueness. Thus, it is not the case that authors like Aristotle anticipated these dual-system claims.
Papers in Slovene by Martin Justin
Analiza: časopis za kritično misel, 2023
V slavni 56. opombi Imenovanja in nujnosti Kripke ponudi argument za trditev, da je materialni iz... more V slavni 56. opombi Imenovanja in nujnosti Kripke ponudi argument za trditev, da je materialni izvor esencialna lastnost materialnih predmetov. V literaturi se je kmalu uveljavilo prepričanje, da je Kripke z njim poskušal esencializem materialnega izvora izpeljati zgolj iz svoje teorije imen. Obveljala je tudi trditev, da mu to ni uspelo. V članku poskušam ponuditi novo branje Kripkejevega argumenta. Trdim, da bi morali besedilo 56. opombe brati kot argument, utemeljen na istem sklopu intuicij o kontingentnosti in nujnosti, ki jih Kripke uporabi za zagovor svoje teorije togih označevalcev. Sicer se izkaže, da na ta način lahko utemelji zgolj šibko obliko esencializma materialnega izvora, a trdim, da je Kripkejeva nejasna ubeseditev teze o esencializmu skladna tudi s to šibko obliko. Najprej predstavim uveljavljeno rekonstrukcijo Kripkejevega argumenta in izpostavim njegove pomanjkljivosti. Nato povzamem dva pristopa k dopolnitvi argumenta in pokažem, zakaj ne uspeta. Na koncu predstavim še svoje branje Kripkejevega argumenta.
Analiza: časopis za kritično misel, 2021
V okoljski etiki se kot teoretična prepreka ukrepom za preprečevanje podnebnih sprememb pogosto o... more V okoljski etiki se kot teoretična prepreka ukrepom za preprečevanje podnebnih sprememb pogosto omenja tako imenovani problem ne-identitete (PNI). Ta temelji na konfliktu med intuicijo, da imajo nekatera naša dejanja, ki vplivajo na prihodnjike, moralno vrednost, in ugotovitvijo, da zaradi njihove narave vplivanja na identiteto težko pokažemo na ljudi, ki jim škodujejo. V članku poskušam pokazati, da PNI ne predstavlja takšnih težav. PNI najprej natančno predstavim. Nato analiziram dva pristopa, ki pokažeta, da ne moremo samoumevno sprejeti premise, da dejanja, kot je sprejetje ene energetske politike namesto druge, vplivajo na identiteto prihodnjikov. Prvi predstavljen pristop pod vprašaj postavi pojmovanje identitete, ki ga ta premisa predpostavlja, drugi pa pojmovanje vplivanja na identiteto. Izpostavim tudi nekaj možnih kritik obeh pristopov in odgovorim na njih. V zaključku razmišljam še o praktičnih implikacijah PNI za okoljevarstvene ukrepe in sklenem, da so odločitve, ki zadevajo prihodnjike, iz praktičnega vidika analogne odločitvam, ki zadevajo sodobnike.
Master's Thesis by Martin Justin
Disagreements are an everyday part of our lives. They are also an everyday part of scientific inq... more Disagreements are an everyday part of our lives. They are also an everyday part of scientific inquiry. Given the undeniable epistemic and practical importance of science, scientific disagreements present an interesting philosophical problem: how should individual scientists respond to disagreements with their peers? Two ways of answering this question have been suggested. One, from social epistemology, focuses on the rationality of individual scientists’ beliefs and states that when disagreeing with an epistemic peer (i.e., someone who is in an equally good epistemic position), they should conciliate: that is, move their beliefs closer to the belief of the peer. The other, from philosophy of science, says that scientists should remain steadfast in their beliefs, since epistemic diversity (i.e., diversity in beliefs of scientists in a community) helps scientific inquiry. Since resolving a group disagreement by moving the beliefs of group members closer together can negatively affect the epistemic diversity of the group, these two answers seem to be in conflict. I call this The Dilemma of Scientific Disagreement. The thesis examines this Dilemma in more detail. It does so by simulating the effects of different responses to peer disagreement on the inquiry of agents using an agent-based model of scientific interaction. It concludes that, although conciliation can affect the success of scientific inquiry, how it does so crucially depends on the way scientists conduct their inquiry.
Undergraduate Theses by Martin Justin
The undergraduate thesis analyzes and compares gender roles and national identity as crucial asp... more The undergraduate thesis analyzes and compares gender roles and national identity as crucial aspects of two contemporary European novels, Sandy Hill (Piaskowa Góra, 2009), written by a Polish author Joanna Bator, and Purge (Puhdistus, 2007), written by a Finnish author Sofi Oksanen. In the first part of thesis, the theory of narrative hermeneutics, first introduced by a Finnish literary critic Hanna Meretoja, is presented. The presentation proceeds in two steps. First, the main concepts of narrative hermeneutics are presented. Second, starting from a critique of the underlying assumptions of the theory, a more developed version of the theory is presented. In the second part of the thesis, the historical background of the two novels is presented, as well as the concepts of national identity and gender roles. In the third part, the two novels are analyzed and finally compared. First, Sandy Hill is analyzed. The analysis especially focuses on the use of a narrative perspective in the novel. The concept of narrative perspective is also discussed in detail. In Purge, on the other hand, the analysis focuses on the psychologicalconsequences that systematic physical and discursive violence has on the characters, especially women. Finally, it is argued that both novels focus on a similar conflict, i.e., they both deal with the consequences that an unnarrated traumatic event can have for multiple generations of women in a family. Nevertheless, they propose quite different solutions which are shown to stem from the novels’ different structural and discursive characteristics.
***
Diplomsko delo analizira in primerja aspekte družbenospolnih vlog in nacionalne identitete v dveh sodobnih evropskih romanih, Peščeni gori (Piaskowa Góra, 2009) poljske pisateljice Joanne Bator in Očiščenju (Puhdistus, 2007) finske pisateljice Sofi Oksanen. V prvem delu naloge je predstavljena teorija pripovedne hermenevtike finske teoretičarke Hanne Meretoja, ki služi kot teoretično izhodišče analize. Najprej so predstavljene osnovne teze teorije, nato pa je skozi kritiko nekaterih predpostavk teorije predstavljena njena razširjena oblika. V drugem delu je predstavljeno zgodovinsko ozadje romanov, za tem pa koncept nacionalne identitete v povezavi s konceptom družbenospolnih vlog. V tretjem delu sledi analiza romanov. Najprej je analizirana Peščena gora, predvsem z vidika uporabe pripovedne perspektive, pri čemer je ta pojem tudi natančneje teoretsko obravnavan. Pri Očiščenju pa se analiza osredotoča predvsem na obravnavo psiholoških posledicsistematičnega fizičnega in diskurzivnega nasilja nad (predvsem) ženskimi liki. Naloga se sklene z ugotovitvijo, da oba romana v osredje postavljata podoben konflikt – posledice neubesedenega travmatičnega dogodka na več generacijah pripadnic neke družine –, a ga razrešujeta na precej različne načine, pri čemer je razrešitev odvisna od strukturnih in diskurzivnih značilnosti tekstov.
The undergraduate thesis explicates a theory of induction introduced by a French philosopher Maur... more The undergraduate thesis explicates a theory of induction introduced by a French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty in the light of his critique of John Stuart Mill’s theory of eliminative induction. It starts with an observation that Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of induction can be summarized by the statement that “the genuine inductive method is not a ‘method of differences,’ [but] it consists in correctly reading phenomena, in grasping their sense, that is in treating them as modalities and variations of the subject’s total being.” In chapter 2, the first, negative, part of the claim is analyzed in detail, first by presenting Mill’s theory and then by presenting Merleau Ponty’s critique of it. In chapter 3, the second, positive, part of the claim is interpreted: after outlining Merleau-Ponty’s understanding of science, it is shown how he conceptualizes induction with the help of Edmund Husserl’s concept of intuition of essences. In chapter 4, Merleau-Ponty’s theory is critically evaluated. The thesis concludes that Merleau-Ponty’s conception can be understood as an existentialist alternative to empiricist and transcendentalist conceptions of induction.
***
Diplomsko delo predstavi pojmovanje indukcije francoskega filozofa Mauricea Merleau-Pontyja, kot se to kaže v luči njegove kritike teorije indukcije britanskega filozofa Johna Stuarta Milla. Izhajam iz ugotovitve, da je bistvo Merleau-Pontyjevega razumevanja indukcije zajeto v trditvi: »Prava induktivna metoda ni 'metoda razlik', [ampak gre za] pravilno branje fenomenov, razumevanje njihovega smisla, tj. obravnavanje le-teh kot modalnosti in variacij subjektove celotne biti.« V drugem poglavju je tako natančno analiziran prvi, negativni del te sintagme, pri čemer je najprej natančneje predstavljena Millova teorija, nato pa Merleau-Pontyjeva kritika le-te. V tretjem poglavju je analiziran pozitivni del Merleau-Pontyjevega argumenta: v splošnih obrisih je predstavljeno njegovo pojmovanje znanosti, v nadaljevanju poglavja pa je predstavljeno, kako v tem kontekstu indukcijo razume s pomočjo pojma bistvogledja nemškega filozofa Edmunda Husserla. V četrtem poglavju je Merleau-Pontyjeva teorija kritično pretresena. Naloga sklene z ugotovitvijo, da lahko Merleau-Pontyjevo pojmovanje indukcije razumemo predvsem kot eksistencialistično alternativo empiristični in transcendentalistični utemeljitvi indukcije.
Drafts by Martin Justin
In contrast to Plato's and Aristotle's theory of dialectic, the Stoics put a strong emphasis on a... more In contrast to Plato's and Aristotle's theory of dialectic, the Stoics put a strong emphasis on a defensive role dialectic should play in their philosophy. The primary aim of this paper is to explore their possible motivations for this. In doing so, first the role of dialectic is Stoic philosophy will be analyzed, showing that their theories themselves hardly promote a defensive view of dialectic. Therefore, I will argue that the motivation for emphasizing a defensive role should be sought in the debates the Stoics had with rivalry schools. Two examples of such debates with the Skeptic Academy, one from the field of epistemology and other from ethics, will be discussed in detail. In this way, I will show that dialectical skills were crucial for Stoics philosophers, if they wanted to defend they philosophy as a coherent system.
In this paper, I will try to establish what sets Mill's and Whewell's theories of induction apart... more In this paper, I will try to establish what sets Mill's and Whewell's theories of induction apart and argue that it is not the frequently supposed distinction between inductivism (Mill) and hypothetic-deductivism (Whewell) about the scientific method. First, I will analyze their disagreement about the role and nature of concepts in induction. Whewell argued that in scientific discovery, e.g., when Kepler discovered his law of planetary motion, a new concept, in Kepler's case that of an ellipse, is provided by the mind and then "superinduced" upon empirical facts. In contrast to this, Mill argued that the concept of an ellipse was present in the facts themselves, therefore nothing new was added by the mind. In other words, what Whewell calls "colligation of facts" and understands as a crucial part of his theory of induction, Mill dismisses as a mere description of observed facts. I will show that the argument about colligation of facts ends in a disagreement about their underlying epistemological views. Given their different epistemological commitments, the two authors respective theories have different emphasis. Mill’s theory is a theory of inductive inference – he hopes to provide a rigorous, logically sound, method of verification of generalizations. Whewell, on the other hand, thinks about induction as a method of scientific practice and thus puts emphasis both on the discovery of an appropriate concept (or a theory) and on its verification. Rather than accepting that Mill is an inductivist and Whewell a deductivist about scientific method, I will argue that they differ in their understanding of philosophy of science, its scope and aims.
Papers by Martin Justin
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2025
What is the rational response to a scientific disagreement? Many epistemologists argue that disag... more What is the rational response to a scientific disagreement? Many epistemologists argue that disagreement with an epistemic peer should generally lead to conciliation by lowering confidence in the disputed belief or even suspending judgment altogether. Although this conciliatory approach is widely regarded as a norm of individual rationality, its value in the context of collective scientific inquiry is less clear. Some have even raised concerns that conciliating in scientific disagreements may slow progress or reduce the efficiency of inquiry. In this article, we introduce a novel agent-based model that captures key aspects of scientific disagreement by incorporating both epistemic norms, which govern belief revision, and zetetic norms, which guide how scientists pursue inquiry. Our results indicate that the effects of conciliating in the face of disagreement-whether detrimental or beneficial-depend on the zetetic norms that scientists follow. When scientists focus on exploiting the hypothesis that they believe is most likely to succeed, remaining steadfast is more effective. However, with exploratory scientists, conciliation does not negatively affect group performance. These findings highlight the critical role of zetetic norms in determining the rational response to disagreement in scientific practice.
Uploads
Papers in English by Martin Justin
Papers in Slovene by Martin Justin
Master's Thesis by Martin Justin
Undergraduate Theses by Martin Justin
***
Diplomsko delo analizira in primerja aspekte družbenospolnih vlog in nacionalne identitete v dveh sodobnih evropskih romanih, Peščeni gori (Piaskowa Góra, 2009) poljske pisateljice Joanne Bator in Očiščenju (Puhdistus, 2007) finske pisateljice Sofi Oksanen. V prvem delu naloge je predstavljena teorija pripovedne hermenevtike finske teoretičarke Hanne Meretoja, ki služi kot teoretično izhodišče analize. Najprej so predstavljene osnovne teze teorije, nato pa je skozi kritiko nekaterih predpostavk teorije predstavljena njena razširjena oblika. V drugem delu je predstavljeno zgodovinsko ozadje romanov, za tem pa koncept nacionalne identitete v povezavi s konceptom družbenospolnih vlog. V tretjem delu sledi analiza romanov. Najprej je analizirana Peščena gora, predvsem z vidika uporabe pripovedne perspektive, pri čemer je ta pojem tudi natančneje teoretsko obravnavan. Pri Očiščenju pa se analiza osredotoča predvsem na obravnavo psiholoških posledicsistematičnega fizičnega in diskurzivnega nasilja nad (predvsem) ženskimi liki. Naloga se sklene z ugotovitvijo, da oba romana v osredje postavljata podoben konflikt – posledice neubesedenega travmatičnega dogodka na več generacijah pripadnic neke družine –, a ga razrešujeta na precej različne načine, pri čemer je razrešitev odvisna od strukturnih in diskurzivnih značilnosti tekstov.
***
Diplomsko delo predstavi pojmovanje indukcije francoskega filozofa Mauricea Merleau-Pontyja, kot se to kaže v luči njegove kritike teorije indukcije britanskega filozofa Johna Stuarta Milla. Izhajam iz ugotovitve, da je bistvo Merleau-Pontyjevega razumevanja indukcije zajeto v trditvi: »Prava induktivna metoda ni 'metoda razlik', [ampak gre za] pravilno branje fenomenov, razumevanje njihovega smisla, tj. obravnavanje le-teh kot modalnosti in variacij subjektove celotne biti.« V drugem poglavju je tako natančno analiziran prvi, negativni del te sintagme, pri čemer je najprej natančneje predstavljena Millova teorija, nato pa Merleau-Pontyjeva kritika le-te. V tretjem poglavju je analiziran pozitivni del Merleau-Pontyjevega argumenta: v splošnih obrisih je predstavljeno njegovo pojmovanje znanosti, v nadaljevanju poglavja pa je predstavljeno, kako v tem kontekstu indukcijo razume s pomočjo pojma bistvogledja nemškega filozofa Edmunda Husserla. V četrtem poglavju je Merleau-Pontyjeva teorija kritično pretresena. Naloga sklene z ugotovitvijo, da lahko Merleau-Pontyjevo pojmovanje indukcije razumemo predvsem kot eksistencialistično alternativo empiristični in transcendentalistični utemeljitvi indukcije.
Drafts by Martin Justin
Papers by Martin Justin