Filters

Topics (hold ctrl / ⌘ to select more)

Languages (hold ctrl / ⌘ to select more)

Traditions (hold ctrl / ⌘ to select more)

Times

Current step: 1
- or

Medium:

 
 
 
 

Recommended use:

 
 
 
 

Difficulty:

 
 
 

Full textRead free
Taylor, Elanor. Explanation and The Right to Explanation
2023, Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1:1-16
Expand entry
Added by: Deryn Mair Thomas
Abstract:

In response to widespread use of automated decision-making technology, some have considered a right to explanation. In this paper I draw on insights from philosophical work on explanation to present a series of challenges to this idea, showing that the normative motivations for access to such explanations ask for something difficult, if not impossible, to extract from automated systems. I consider an alternative, outcomes-focused approach to the normative evaluation of automated decision-making, and recommend it as a way to pursue the goods originally associated with explainability.

Comment: This paper offers a clear overview of the literature on the right to explanation and counters the mainstream view that, in the context of automated decision-making technology, that we hold such a right. It would therefore offer a useful introduction to ideas about explanability in relation to the ethics of AI and automated technologies, and could be used in a reading group context as well as in upper undergraduate and graduate level courses.
Read free
Srinivasan, Amia. Sex as a Pedagogical Failure
2020, Yale Law Journal 129 (4)
Expand entry
Abstract:

In the early 1980s, U.S. universities began regulating sexual relationships between professors and students. Such regulations are routinely justified by a rationale drawn from sexual-harassment law in the employment context: the power differential between professor and student precludes the possibility of genuine consent on the student’s part. This rationale is problematic, as feminists in the 1980s first observed, for its protectionist and infantilizing attitude toward (generally) women students. But it is also problematic in that it fails to register what is truly ethically troubling about consensual professor-student sex. A professor’s having sex with his student constitutes a pedagogical failure: that is, a failure to satisfy the duties that arise from the practice of teaching. What is more, much consensual professor-student sex constitutes a patriarchal failure: such relationships often feed on, and reinforce, women’s second-class standing in higher education. As such, these relationships can thwart the legal right of women students, under Title IX, to exist in the university on equal terms with their male counterparts. Whether or not we should ultimately favor such an interpretation of Title IX—whether or not, that is, it would render campuses ultimately more equal for women and other marginalized people—it is clear that university professors need to attend more carefully to the sexual ethics of their own practice.

Comment: Srinivasan made international headlines in 2021 with her book, The Right to Sex (2021), which includes an adapted version of this essay. In the midst of the #MeToo movement and global reckoning with cultures of sexual harrassment, she turned a sharp, philosophical lens towards many of the topics regarding power, sexuality, and feminism that not only had been brushed under the rug in popular media, but had also been largely considered irrelevant for philosophical investigation. This essay would make for fruitful discussion in courses or reading groups specifically focused on feminist themes, or could be used in more interdisciplinary contexts to study the #MeToo movement and the current state of modern feminist thought (other essays on similar topics can also be found in the book). For the purposes of offering the version of the essay in its most academic form, this entry cites the earlier version which was published in the Yale Law Review in 2020.
Full textBlue print
Irigaray, Luce. Is the Subject of Science Sexed?
1987, Hypatia, 2 (3): 65-87, trans. C. Bové
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: The premise of this paper is that the language of science, like language in general, is neither asexual nor neutral. The essay demonstrates the various ways in which the non-neutrality of the subject of science is expressed and proposes that there is a need to analyze the laws that determine the acceptability of language and discourse in order to interpret their connection to a sexed logic.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Full textBlue print
Irigaray, Luce. The “Mechanics” of Fluids
1985, In This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. C. Porter and C. Burke
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: The paper argues that science's focus on the ideal and stable hides, and thus contributes to the silencing of, the real and fluid, which corresponds to womanhood.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Full textBlue print
Irigaray, Luce, Carlston, Erin G.. The Language of Man
1989, Cultural Critique, 13: 191-202
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: This paper enumerates Irigaray's main arguments and thoughts regarding the gendered nature of language and "the logos".
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Full textBlue print
Alcoff, Linda. Is the Feminist Critique of Reason Rational?
1995, Philosophical Topics, 23 (2): 1-26
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: Recent criticism of feminist philosophy poses a dilemma. Feminism is taken to be a substantive set of empirical claims and political commitments, whereas philosophy is taken to be a discipline of thought organized by the pursuit of truth, but uncommitted to any particular truth. This paper responds to this dilemma, and defends the project of feminist philosophy.The first task toward understanding the feminist critique of reason, Alcoff argues, is to historically situate it within the rather long tradition of critiquing reason that has existed within the mainstream of philosophy itself.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Read freeBlue print
Yap, Audrey. The Logical Syntax of Prejudice: Oppression and the Constitutive A Priori
2024, In R. Cook and A. Yap (eds.), Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic. University of Minnesota Press
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: I argue that a thoroughgoing naturalized epistemology can easily underestimate the extent to which certain background assumptions will infl uence arguments. Instead, then, I suggest that we can borrow a conceptual tool from neo-Kantian philosophy of science, namely the constitutive a priori. This idea originates in neo-Kantian philosophers who understood, in light of Einsteinian physics, that Kantian views about the a priority of space were untenable. Frameworks that adopt some version of a constitutive a priori take certain propositions to play the role of a priori principles, without granting them the universality or necessity that such principles traditionally hold. I will argue that thinking of certain views or values as having the status of constitutive a priori principles can help us understand what would be required for an epistemic agent to change them, and thus illustrate the extent to which they are resistant to being dislodged by evidence.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Full textBlue print
Mangraviti, Franci. The Liberation Argument for Inconsistent Mathematics
2023, The Australasian Journal of Logic, 20 (2): 278-317
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: Val Plumwood charged classical logic not only with the invalidity of some of its laws, but also with the support of systemic oppression through naturalization of the logical structure of dualisms. In this paper I show that the latter charge - unlike the former - can be carried over to classical mathematics, and I propose a new conception of inconsistent mathematics - queer incomaths - as a liberatory activity meant to undermine said naturalization.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Read freeBlue print
Eckert, Maureen. De-centering and Genderqueering Val Plumwood’s Feminist Logic
2024, In R. Cook and A. Yap (eds.), Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic. University of Minnesota Press
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: The strongest and, until recently, least-explored approach to feminist logic holds that some formal logics have structural features that perpetuate sexism and oppression, whereas other logics are helpful for resisting and opposing these social phenomena. Our choice of logics may not be purely formal on this view: for example, some logics are preferrable to others on the grounds of feminist commitments. This strong account of feminist logic was first articulated by Val Plumwood. We will critically engage salient features of her view, especially her critique of classical logic and the centering and dominating functions she believes classical negation has. We will see that her understanding of classical negation captures neither the development of Intersectional Feminism, nor the position the concept of centering holds in transformative justice. However, Plumwood's critique of classical negation does lead us to a deeper insight regarding which logics to apply in social justice contexts. Robin Dembroff's analysis of genderqueer as a critical gender kind helps us delineate a non-classical context in which a four-valued logic, such as FDE, can structurally account for the critical feature of this gender kind in a way classical logic cannot. We will also observe how four-valued logics precisely capture the destabilization of, and resistance to, the exclusive and exhaustive gender binary categories Dembroff describes.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Read freeBlue print
Saint-Croix, Catharine. Activist Epistemology
2024, In R. Cook and A. Yap (eds.), Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic. University of Minnesota Press
Expand entry
Added by: Franci Mangraviti and Viviane Fairbank
Abstract: I propose a model on which epistemic frameworks are understood in terms of not only beliefs, but also sets of evidential support relations. We are generally responsive to multiple frameworks, some more compatible than others.The model allows for prioritizing certain frameworks by drawing on van Benthem and Pacuit's work on logics for evidence-based belief. This prioritization allows us to capture the idea that some epistemic frameworks are "held come what may" with nuance and complexity.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Can’t find it?
Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!