Report 4 — Disciplined Uncertainty: The Epistemology of AMIANISM

Full report

On this page

1. Introduction: The Philosophical Necessity of Disciplined Uncertainty

At the philosophical locus of Amianism rests the fundamental interrogative: “Am I an ism?”1. This question initiates a rigorous, playful discipline designed to resist brittle identity formation, the uncritical absorption of dogma, and joyless seriousness1. However, the outward presentation of this philosophy—characterized by an ethos of perpetual curiosity, the frequent deployment of the "Amian pause," and the assertion that the phrase "I do not know yet" functions as a launch sequence rather than a confession of failure—renders the system highly susceptible to external misinterpretation1. The most pervasive risk is that observers, lacking a firm grasp of the underlying epistemology, will mistake Amianism for a doctrine of generalized, paralyzing doubt. To prevent this critical misapprehension, the epistemological boundaries of Amianism must be explicitly defined. The philosophy does not endorse an intellectual void, nor does it view confusion as a state of grace. The central proposition of the Amian epistemic model is unequivocal: Uncertainty is not ignorance celebrated. It is confidence disciplined by evidence. This paradigm treats the world as an expansive archive—a "library with snacks" and a "mystery with footnotes"2. Within this architecture, uncertainty is constructed spatially as "room" rather than atmospherically as "fog"1. It leverages a specific, highly structured interrogative framework to safeguard the process of inquiry against the multifaceted vulnerabilities of human cognition, structural power dynamics, and the seduction of absolute finality. Amianism recognizes that the human drive for definitive answers frequently short-circuits the rigor of the investigative process. Consequently, this report delineates the theoretical foundations of Amian uncertainty, catalogues the specific epistemic failure modes the philosophy neutralizes, elaborates upon the eleven-question Amian framework for disciplined inquiry, and ultimately demonstrates how this framework logically necessitates the formulation of actionable conclusions.

2. Distinguishing Amianism from Classical Skepticism and Fallibilism

To grasp the specific texture of Amian uncertainty, it is necessary to contrast it with historical epistemological movements, particularly classical skepticism and early pragmatism. Amianism fundamentally rejects the teleology of classical Pyrrhonism. Ancient Pyrrhonists, following the tradition of Pyrrho of Elis, practiced epoche—the permanent suspension of judgment regarding all non-evident propositions—to achieve ataraxia, defined as psychological tranquility and freedom from disturbance3. For the Pyrrhonist, the realization that arguments for and against a proposition possess equal weight (isostheneia) leads to a deliberate speechlessness (aphasia) and a total retreat from truth claims3. Amianism, conversely, does not seek speechlessness; it seeks better questions2. The Amian posture of "I do not know yet" operates as an active, forward-looking mechanism—an expeditionary launch sequence—rather than a mechanism for achieving quietistic detachment1. In its structural mechanics, Amianism is far more closely aligned with the American pragmatist tradition, specifically the epistemologies advanced by Charles Sanders Peirce and John Dewey. Peirce conceptualized belief as a habit of mind that guides practical action, characterizing doubt as the irritating deprivation of that habit, which in turn stimulates the struggle of inquiry7. In his seminal work on the fixation of belief, Peirce catalogued four distinct methods by which humans attempt to settle opinion: the method of tenacity (clinging to a belief to avoid the discomfort of doubt), the method of authority (submitting to institutional dictates), the a priori method (adopting beliefs that are agreeable to reason or personal taste), and the method of science (testing beliefs against an external reality)7. Amianism is systematically engineered to target and dismantle the vulnerabilities inherent in the first three methods, adopting a posture analogous to Peirce's scientific method, wherein propositions must survive continuous friction with evidence. Furthermore, Amianism integrates John Dewey’s concept of "warranted assertibility"11. Dewey argued that the goal of inquiry is not to uncover eternal, immutable truths—a pursuit that often results in dogmatic rigidity—but rather to transform an indeterminate, problematic situation into a settled, unified whole11. The resulting assertions are warranted by the rigors of the investigative process, yet remain inherently provisional12. The "Open Margin" of Amianism—the core principle that all canonical texts, histories, and conclusions remain perpetually commentable and correctable—is the institutionalization of Deweyan warranted assertibility1.

3. The Epistemic Failure Modes

Amianism diagnoses the human psychological requirement for absolute certainty as a fundamental vulnerability. The philosophy identifies several distinct cognitive, technological, and structural traps wherein the rigorous process of inquiry is prematurely terminated. These are designated as epistemic failure modes. Recognizing, auditing, and neutralizing these modes is the primary function of Amian disciplined uncertainty.

3.1 Premature Certainty

Premature certainty occurs when an inquirer reaches closure before the evidence warrants it. This failure mode is rooted in what social psychologists term the "Need for Cognitive Closure" (NFCC), a construct developed by Arie Kruglanski18. NFCC describes an individual's intense desire for a firm, unambiguous answer to a question and a deep-seated aversion to uncertainty18. Individuals exhibiting a high need for cognitive closure are prone to "seizing" on early, simplistic information and "freezing" their judgments, rendering them highly resistant to subsequent persuasion or contradictory data19. In high-stakes empirical environments, such as medical diagnostics, premature certainty leads to diagnostic deskilling, where practitioners fail to ask necessary screening questions because they have prematurely seized upon a satisfying, but incomplete, narrative21. Historically, premature certainty has derailed even the most rigorous scientific minds. Lord Kelvin's calculations regarding the age of the Earth serve as a canonical historical example22. In the nineteenth century, Kelvin calculated the Earth's age to be between 24 and 400 million years based on thermodynamic cooling rates22. His certainty was absolute, yet it was premature because it lacked a crucial piece of missing information: the discovery of radioactivity and the internal heat generated by radioactive decay, as well as mantle convection. Kelvin's epistemological error was not a failure of mathematics, but a failure to maintain uncertainty regarding the completeness of his underlying physical assumptions. Amianism combats premature certainty by institutionalizing the "Amian pause," demanding that the inquirer tolerate the discomfort of the indeterminate situation until sufficient evidence has been marshaled and vetted1.

3.2 Inherited Certainty

Inherited certainty involves accepting an answer simply because an authority, institution, family, movement, tradition, or culture supplied it. This failure mode directly maps to Peirce's "method of authority," wherein belief is fixed by aligning one's views with the dictates of a centralized institution to avoid the social friction of dissent7. Social epistemology acknowledges that "epistemic dependence"—relying on the testimony, education, and expertise of others—is an inescapable and necessary feature of human knowledge gathering, as extensively articulated by philosophers such as John Hardwig and Sanford Goldberg24. However, inherited certainty occurs when healthy epistemic dependence degrades into uncritical deference. Healthy epistemic reliance requires "epistemic vigilance," a concept developed by Dan Sperber and colleagues, which posits that humans possess cognitive mechanisms to filter out misinformation by evaluating both the reliability of the source and the plausibility of the communicated content28. Inherited certainty bypasses this vigilance entirely. It accepts a claim merely because of its provenance within a specific ingroup, failing to subject it to the friction of independent examination. Amianism counters inherited certainty by mandating that "No borrowed prophecy" and "No single clock rules the living"31, demanding that practitioners evaluate the underlying structure and history of inherited claims rather than accepting them as axiomatic defaults.

3.3 Motivated Certainty

Motivated certainty manifests when an individual accepts an answer because believing it serves a psychological, emotional, or material need. It aligns closely with Peirce's a priori method, where individuals adopt beliefs that are "agreeable to reason" or align with their deepest prejudices and desires, rather than beliefs that correspond to empirical reality7. This failure mode is frequently sustained and exacerbated by systemic power dynamics, operating through the mechanisms of "credibility excess" and "credibility deficit," which are core components of Miranda Fricker's framework of epistemic injustice32. When a dominant group benefits materially or emotionally from a specific societal narrative, they exhibit motivated certainty by granting unearned credibility (excess) to voices that confirm the narrative, while systematically dismissing (deficit) the testimony of marginalized groups that challenges it33. Motivated certainty shields hidden power structures. By accepting a claim because it reduces anxiety or preserves social standing, the inquirer sacrifices epistemic integrity for psychological comfort.

3.4 Automated Certainty

In the contemporary digital ecology, automated certainty has emerged as one of the most perilous epistemic failure modes. It is defined as treating computational output as epistemically superior merely because a machine generated it. This failure is driven by "automation bias," the well-documented psychological tendency of human operators to over-rely on automated decision aids, often deferring to machine outputs even when presented with contradictory, correct human reasoning or contextual nuance36. This failure mode generates "algorithmic epistemic injustice," wherein human users displace their own evaluative judgment onto large language models (LLMs) or predictive algorithms, assuming the machine possesses an objective, infallible view of reality35. The catastrophic Horizon IT scandal in the United Kingdom perfectly illustrates the danger of automated certainty. The Post Office and the legal system exhibited near-total epistemic deference to the Horizon accounting software, prosecuting hundreds of sub-postmasters for financial shortfalls based solely on automated outputs, ignoring the testimony of the human operators and the absence of material evidence of theft38. Similarly, the COMPAS recidivism algorithm demonstrates how automated certainty encodes and obscures normative choices and racial biases behind a veneer of mathematical objectivity, substituting linguistic plausibility or statistical scoring for genuine epistemic warrant43. Amianism confronts automated certainty by insisting that algorithms be treated as instruments requiring rigorous "epistemic auditing" rather than as infallible oracles46.

3.5 Retrospective Certainty

Retrospective certainty involves rewriting ambiguous historical situations as though their outcomes had always been obvious. This failure mode is known in cognitive psychology as "hindsight bias" or "creeping determinism," terms coined by researcher Baruch Fischhoff48. Once an outcome is known, human memory and analytical faculties spontaneously restructure the narrative of the past to make the outcome appear inevitable and highly predictable. This failure mode flattens the complexity of historical contingency. It erases the genuine uncertainty, alternative possibilities, and chaotic variables that existed in the moment of decision-making. By applying retrospective certainty, observers unjustly condemn past actors for failing to foresee the "obvious," and critically, they generate a false sense of security regarding their own ability to predict the future. The Amian framework resists creeping determinism by maintaining a "Deep History" lens, forcing the inquirer to reconstruct the past with its original ambiguities intact, recognizing that the current state of affairs is the result of branching choices rather than a single, inevitable timeline31.

4. The Amian Diagnostic Framework: Eleven Questions for Epistemic Integrity

To navigate an informational environment fraught with these five epistemic failure modes, Amianism utilizes a strict, disciplined interrogative framework. Because the philosophy dictates that "the question comes before the answer," the quality of the resulting epistemology is entirely dependent on the structural integrity of the questions asked2. The following eleven questions constitute the Amian diagnostic instrument for evaluating claims. They are designed not to destroy knowledge, but to clarify its boundaries, its provenance, and its inherent limits.

4.1 What do I know?

This is the foundational evidentiary inventory. It requires the inquirer to separate established empirical facts from conjecture, inference, and narrative46. In the context of defeasible reasoning, this question establishes the prima facie evidence—the baseline data that appears true at first glance52. The inquirer must strip away rhetorical flourishes, emotional resonance, and assumed context to identify the core propositions that are actually in their possession. It actively combats premature certainty by forcing a stark, often uncomfortable admission of the limits of one's current dataset, ensuring that the foundation of the inquiry is not built on assumed premises.

4.2 How do I know it?

This question demands an analysis of the chain of transmission and the methodology of acquisition. Did the knowledge arrive via direct empirical observation, rigorous scientific testing, or through the testimony of others? If it arrived via testimony, the inquirer must apply epistemic vigilance29. Is the source an established institution of epistemic reliability, a cultural tradition, or a generative AI model? This question directly targets inherited certainty and automated certainty by forcing the inquirer to trace the provenance of the claim. If the answer is "I read it on a feed generated by a machine," the epistemic weight of the claim must be radically adjusted to account for algorithmic bias, hallucination, and the lack of grounding in lived reality35.

4.3 How confident should I be?

Confidence in Amianism is not a binary state (absolute belief versus absolute doubt); it is a carefully calibrated probability. This question borrows heavily from the statistical concept of the Brier score, a strictly proper scoring rule used to measure the accuracy of probabilistic predictions in fields like meteorology and machine learning56. The mathematical decomposition of the Brier score reveals that accurate forecasting requires three components: reliability (calibration—does a predicted 70% confidence actually correspond to a 70% occurrence rate?), resolution (sharpness—the ability to decisively distinguish between high and low probability events rather than defaulting to the base rate), and uncertainty (the irreducible variance inherent in the event itself)57. The Amian must ask if their internal confidence is properly calibrated to the available evidence. Overconfidence in the face of sparse data is a hallmark of premature certainty. Conversely, under-confidence in the face of overwhelming data represents a descent into Pyrrhonian paralysis. Disciplined uncertainty requires aligning subjective conviction precisely with the objective strength of the warrant, optimizing for both reliability and resolution.

4.4 What evidence would change my conclusion?

This is the principle of falsifiability and epistemic defeasibility. In epistemological terms, a defeater is a reason that removes, diminishes, or neutralizes the justification for a previously held belief52. The Amian must explicitly define what an undercutting defeater (evidence that severs the logical link between the premise and the conclusion, showing the evidence is unreliable) or a rebutting defeater (evidence that directly contradicts the conclusion itself) would look like for their current belief53. If an inquirer cannot articulate any hypothetical evidence that would change their mind, they have abandoned inquiry and entered the realm of dogmatism. They have ceased to be a seeker and have become trapped inside an "ism." Establishing the exact conditions for one's own refutation is the ultimate proof of epistemic integrity and the primary defense against motivated certainty.

4.5 Who benefits if I accept this claim?

4.6 Who benefits if I reject it?

These twin questions constitute the Power-Knowledge audit63. They are designed to expose motivated certainty and structural epistemic injustice32. Claims do not exist in a socio-political vacuum; they are deeply embedded in economies of power, influence, and capital. By asking cui bono (who benefits?), the Amian examines the material, social, and emotional incentives attached to a belief. Does accepting this claim reinforce the dominance of a particular institution? Does rejecting it preserve an individual's self-image or protect them from cognitive dissonance? While identifying a beneficiary does not automatically render a claim false—doing so would constitute an ad hominem or genetic fallacy—it highlights the vectors of motivated reasoning that may be artificially inflating the claim's credibility. It forces the inquirer to recognize when a claim is being sustained by "credibility excess" rather than empirical rigor32.

4.7 What assumptions are hidden inside the category?

Language and categorization are not neutral; they carry profound ontological and epistemological commitments66. This question guards against "category mistakes," a concept defined by philosopher Gilbert Ryle, wherein things belonging to one logical or structural category are mistakenly treated as if they belonged to another (e.g., treating a process as a physical entity)68. Furthermore, categories often encode hidden historical and cultural biases. Within the context of epistemic auditing frameworks like GoldBerry, categorization can result in "nominalised evasion"—the conversion of an action into a static noun, thereby obscuring who is performing the action and who is responsible46. Categorizing a systemic social inequity merely as a "current statistical disparity" applies a "temporal flatness" that hides the deep historical processes that generated the condition46. By unpacking the category, the Amian prevents the uncritical absorption of assumptions that have been grammatically or structurally concealed within the premise of the argument.

4.8 What relevant information might be missing?

This question specifically addresses the phenomenon of hermeneutical injustice33. Miranda Fricker defines hermeneutical injustice as a gap in collective interpretive resources that puts marginalized groups at a severe disadvantage when trying to make sense of, or communicate, their experiences34. The Amian recognizes that the available evidence is frequently curated by dominant power structures, and that absence of evidence is often a highly engineered state. Therefore, they must actively search for structural absences. Whose embodied, relational knowledge is missing from this picture? Which cultural perspectives have been flattened, translated away, or ignored by algorithmic datasets? By asking what is missing, the Amian actively constructs a more epistemically complete picture, resisting the urge to achieve closure based solely on the most easily accessible or hegemonically approved data46.

4.9 Has the evidence changed over time?

This question explicitly combats retrospective certainty (creeping determinism) and grounds the inquiry in historical reality. By tracking the evolution of evidence, the Amian acknowledges that scientific, historical, and cultural consensus is a dynamic process, not a static monument. It forces the recognition that earlier actors operated under drastically different evidentiary constraints, thereby fostering epistemic humility regarding our own current evidentiary blind spots. It prevents the inquirer from judging the past exclusively by the informational standards of the present.

4.10 Can the claim be independently examined?

This addresses the structural transparency of the knowledge claim. A claim that relies entirely on proprietary algorithms, closed datasets, secret institutional archives, or unreplicable personal revelation fails the test of independent examination44. If a claim cannot be subjected to distributed, multi-agent peer scrutiny, its epistemic status is inherently limited. Amianism demands that the architecture of a claim be inspectable; the framework must be an open text, not an impenetrable "black box"46.

4.11 Can the speaker be contradicted?

This final question assesses the social and structural environment in which the claim is made. If the speaker possesses such immense social, economic, or authoritarian power that contradiction results in severe punishment, professional ruin, or excommunication, the epistemic environment is severely compromised. Truth claims generated in highly coercive environments are deeply suspect because the normal mechanisms of peer scrutiny, debate, and defeater-generation have been artificially suppressed. Amianism's commitment to the "Open Margin" and its explicit rejection of purity tests ensure that within its own practice, the speaker can always be contradicted, and the hierarchy of knowledge remains flat and accessible1.

5. The Teleology of Inquiry: Permitting Conclusions

Given the exhaustive rigor of the eleven-question framework and the constant vigilance required against the five failure modes, a casual observer might conclude that Amianism is a recipe for perpetual agnosticism. If every claim must be audited, historicized, power-mapped, and subjected to falsification criteria, how can one ever confidently act in the world? This is the critical juncture where Amianism distinguishes itself most forcefully from generalized doubt. Most importantly, Amianism permits conclusions. The philosophy does not require endless indecision.

5.1 The Question Comes Before the Answer, But Does Not Forbid It

The core Amian tenet "Question Everything" is explicitly framed as a "lantern," not a weapon of nihilistic destruction2. The purpose of questioning is not to prove that everything is inherently false, but to reveal structure, motive, comedy, and history2. The question precedes the answer to ensure that the answer is earned through rigor, not inherited through laziness or automated through technology. Once the Amian framework has been rigorously applied—once the evidence has been weighed, the missing voices considered, the power dynamics audited, and the calibration of confidence accurately adjusted—the inquirer is fully permitted, and indeed expected, to formulate a conclusion. Action in the world requires decision, and Amianism is, at its heart, a practical philosophy of curious living2.

5.2 Warranted Assertibility over Immutable Truth

Amianism adopts the pragmatist view that conclusions are "warranted assertions"11. An Amian conclusion is not an assertion of absolute, god-like infallibility. It is a highly resilient statement that communicates: Given the rigorous application of disciplined uncertainty to the currently available evidence, this is the most reliable, defensible, and actionable model of reality. This framework allows the Amian to hold deep commitments—whether political, scientific, ethical, or relational. As the foundational texts state, "The point is not to have no commitments. The point is to keep commitments porous enough for learning, repair, laughter, and correction"1. A porous commitment is still a commitment. It can bear weight, it can drive complex action, and it can sustain communities. It simply possesses the structural integrity to absorb new evidence without shattering into a crisis of faith.

5.3 The Launch Sequence and the Open Margin

When an Amian utilizes the phrase "I do not know yet," it is categorized strictly as a launch sequence1. A launch sequence implies a specific destination and a trajectory. The destination is a better, more nuanced understanding of reality. The process of inquiry (the launch) naturally culminates in reaching an orbit (the conclusion). However, because Amianism recognizes the universe as fundamentally expansive and mysterious, it acknowledges that no single conclusion is the final word. The Amian Seal features a spiral, representing "rabbit holes, recursive thought, and returning to familiar ideas at a higher level of understanding"2. A conclusion reached today becomes the baseline premise for the inquiries of tomorrow. The principle of the "Open Margin"—the mandate that canon remains eternally commentable—ensures that the process never fully calcifies16. Disciplined uncertainty is the precise mechanism by which true confidence is earned. By systematically stripping away premature, inherited, motivated, automated, and retrospective certainties, the Amian clears the epistemological ground for robust, actionable knowledge. It is a confidence disciplined by evidence, tempered by structural humility, and maintained through the joyful, perpetual practice of asking better questions.

Works cited

1. What Is Amianism?, https\://amianism.com/what-is-amianism/

2. Amianism.com, https\://amianism.com/

3. Roots of SN, Part 12: Were the Skeptics Naturalistic?, https\://www\.snsociety.org/roots-of-sn-part-12-were-the-skeptics-naturalistic/

4. (PDF) The Regress Problem \- ResearchGate, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/318162337\_The\_Regress\_Problem

5. Buddhism and Scepticism \- Numata Zentrum für Buddhismuskunde, https\://www\.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/4-publikationen/hamburg-buddhist-studies/hanner.pdf

6. (PDF) The history of skepticism: In search of consistency, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/321545939\_The\_history\_of\_skepticism\_In\_search\_of\_consistency

7. “The Fixation of Belief” (1877), https\://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/05-PeirceClifford.pdf

8. Teaching Peirce's philosophy on belief and ideas \- Facebook, https\://www\.facebook.com/groups/SAAPhilosophy/posts/10164349966942299/

9. Peirce's Logic in The Fixation of Belief | PDF | Reason \- Scribd, https\://www\.scribd.com/document/376826821/Chalres-Pierce-the-Fixation-of-Belief

10. Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief, https\://faculty.fiu.edu/\~hauptli/Peirce%27sTheFixationOfBelief.htm

11. Framed and Framing Inquiry \- University of Cambridge, https\://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/0e5d8ef6-9898-4172-ad0a-1996816aa807/content

12. Pragmatism as a Basis for Grounded Theory \- PDXScholar, https\://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118\&context=soc\_fac

13. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth \- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https\://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/truth-pragmatic/

14. concept of reflection in the work of John Dewey \- Oxford Academic, https\://academic.oup.com/jope/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jopedu/qhaf073/8267025

15. Dewey's theory of judgment \- Revistas UPR, https\://revistas.upr.edu/index.php/educacion/article/download/16936/14470/17328

16. Amianism Lore Index, https\://amianism.com/lore/

17. Canonical Texts and Parables \- Amianism.com, https\://amianism.com/canon/

18. Need for Cognitive Closure And Lifelong Learning Among Young, https\://www\.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/3/20653.pdf

19. Closure (psychology) \- Wikipedia, https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure\_(psychology)

20. Examination of Psychometric Properties of the Need for Closure, https\://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5491669/

21. Need to know: the need for cognitive closure impacts the clinical, https\://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4297425/

22. Objections to evolution \- Wikipedia, https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections\_to\_evolution

23. Wizards of Climate Science: Ancient Magicians in the Court of Big, https\://www\.zygonjournal.org/article/id/11699/

24. (PDF) Automating epistemology: how AI reconfigures truth, authority, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/394456563\_Automating\_epistemology\_how\_AI\_reconfigures\_truth\_authority\_and\_verification

25. Epistemic Authority, Autonomy, and Humility \- eScholarship.org, https\://escholarship.org/uc/item/99d4t6zq

26. The Epistemic and Moral Dimensions of Testimony in Scientific, https\://repo.uni-hannover.de/bitstreams/9be159f3-b16a-4fef-aaad-56ebf99383e1/download

27. (PDF) What Is Social Epistemic Dependence? \- ResearchGate, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/362165850\_What\_Is\_Social\_Epistemic\_Dependence

28. Bias and Belief | The Truth About Denial \- Oxford Academic, https\://academic.oup.com/book/37361/chapter/331334064

29. Artificial Intelligence and the Psychology of Human Connection \- PMC, https\://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12960742/

30. The Pragmatics of Commitment \- OAPEN Library, https\://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/08165d4b-969d-4c2e-ad18-d14fdd94502b/9783034346733.pdf

31. The Recurrence Atlas \- Ghrisx, https\://ghrisx.com/en/recurrence-atlas/

32. MODELING EPISTEMIC FAIRNESS IN NETWORKED OPINION, https\://www\.politesi.polimi.it/retrieve/20c3a3ac-7594-4e0a-8ec2-5f98a5476354/Quaresmini\_Thesis.pdf

33. Understanding Epistemic Injustice | PDF | Epistemology \- Scribd, https\://www\.scribd.com/document/827842365/Book-Review

34. Carving at the Joints: Distinguishing Epistemic Wrongs from, https\://www\.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/carving-at-the-joints-distinguishing-epistemic-wrongs-from-epistemic-harms-in-epistemic-injustice-contexts/4354ACAA6A4083510F6E769EB9A3E2F5

35. Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI \- arXiv, https\://arxiv.org/html/2408.11441v1

36. AI Epistemic Disengagement and Consumer Dependence: An ... \- DOI, https\://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70136?urlappend=%3Futm\_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm\_medium%3Darticle

37. A Theory of Information, Variation, and Artificial Intelligence \- arXiv, https\://arxiv.org/html/2508.19264v1

38. The role of legal professionals in large-scale miscarriages of justice, https\://www\.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1460728x.2025.2590858

39. Epistemic Harms of Linguistic Homogenization in AI-Asisted Writing, https\://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000\&context=lib\_awards\_2026\_docs

40. How AI Destroys Institutions, https\://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5146\&context=faculty\_scholarship

41. Rights-Based AI in Cyber–Physical Systems: A ... \- Semantic Scholar, https\://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8899/2152efc62d45c940cee1a1628f1a8e67d521.pdf

42. Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective, https\://www\.csl.sri.com/\~rushby/papers/aisafety24.pdf

43. The Epistemic Impropriety of Artificial Intelligence, https\://saudijournals.com/media/articles/JAEP\_109\_466-475.pdf

44. Code is law: how COMPAS affects the way the judiciary handles the, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/378105785\_Code\_is\_law\_how\_COMPAS\_affects\_the\_way\_the\_judiciary\_handles\_the\_risk\_of\_recidivism\_Code\_is\_law\_how\_COMPAS\_affects\_the\_way\_the\_judiciaryC\_Engels\_et\_al

45. The COMPAS case´s impact on the EU´s AI Act \- Lov & Data, https\://lod.lovdata.no/article/2025/12/The%20COMPAS%20case%C2%B4s%20impact%20on%20the%20EU%C2%B4s%20AI%20Act

46. GoldBerry — Structured Epistemic Auditing for AI Outputs, https\://goldberry-here.co.uk/

47. Ethical LLM-Assisted Research: A Framework for Responsible, https\://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.23644

48. Hindsight bias at work: why you always think you saw it coming, https\://www\.suebehaviouraldesign.com/en/blog/hindsight-bias-at-work/

49. Hindsight Bias in Course Evaluation \- Koji for Education, https\://edu.koji.so/docs/hindsight-bias-course-evaluation-committees-interpreting-outcomes

50. Hindsight bias \- Wikipedia, https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight\_bias

51. Trust Judgments and the Hindsight Bias Effect \- ODU Digital Commons, https\://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117\&context=psychology\_etds

52. Luck and Reasons | Episteme | Cambridge Core, https\://www\.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/luck-and-reasons/214723EC06CDEF3D6EAC7630AFA7358A

53. Defeasible Reasoning \- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https\://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/reasoning-defeasible/

54. Institutions of Epistemic Vigilance: The Case of the Newspaper Press, https\://www\.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2022.2109532

55. How AI Irons Out Epistemic Friction and Smooths Over Diversity, https\://atlantisjournal.ca/atlantis/en/article/download/5791/4847/9413

56. Brier score \- Wikipedia, https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brier\_score

57. The Brier Score for Probability Forecasts | MetricGate, https\://metricgate.com/blogs/brier-score-explained/

58. How does the Brier Score break down to (Reliability \- Cross Validated, https\://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/597679/how-does-the-brier-score-break-down-to-reliability-resolution-uncertainty

59. Brier Score vs Log Loss vs Calibration \- MetricGate, https\://metricgate.com/blogs/brier-score-vs-log-loss-vs-calibration/

60. Conee | Higher-Order Defeat and Withholding Judgment, https\://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/1117/print/

61. Defeaters in Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https\://iep.utm.edu/defeaters-in-epistemology/

62. Critical thinking: stress-testing competing reasons in the practical, https\://academic.oup.com/jope/article/60/1-2/72/8042550

63. GoldBerry is an open-source framework for structured ... \- GitHub, https\://github.com/PhamBit/goldberry

64. Citizen knowledge | RUG, https\://www\.rug.nl/staff/l.m.herzog/citizen-knowledge.pdf

65. Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory, https\://www\.cambridge.org/core/elements/ideal-and-nonideal-theory/11F53FA6A5B9950442C29C4CE6AA33F7

66. The Inevitability of Epistemology in Historiography: Theory, History, https\://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-inevitability-of-epistemology-in-historiography-theory-history-and-zombie-mormon-history

67. Category Errors and Meaningless Propositions: Why Bricks Can't Be, https\://www\.answers-in-reason.com/philosophy/epistemology/logic/fallacies/category-error/category-errors-and-meaningless-propositions-why-bricks-cant-be-happy/

68. Gilbert Ryle: The Concept of Mind and the Ghost in the Machine, https\://www\.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/gilbert-ryle/

69. Gilbert Ryle \- Descartes' Myth \- The Information Philosopher, https\://www\.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ryle/descartes\_myth.html

70. Full article: The Gendered, Epistemic Injustices of Generative AI, https\://www\.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08164649.2025.2480927

71. The Overstated Cost of AI Fairness in Criminal Justice \- arXiv, https\://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.01299