Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 923–955 | Cite as

A Defense of Temperate Epistemic Transparency

  • Eleonora Cresto


Epistemic transparency tells us that, if an agent S knows a given proposition p, then S knows that she knows that p. This idea is usually encoded in the so-called KK principle of epistemic logic. The paper develops an argument in favor of a moderate version of KK, which I dub quasi-transparency, as a normative rather than a descriptive principle. In the second Section I put forward the suggestion that epistemic transparency is not a demand of ideal rationality, but of ideal epistemic responsibility, and hence that ideally responsible agents verify transparency principles of some sort; I also contend that their satisfaction should not be tied to an internalist epistemology. The central argument in favor of transparency is then addressed in Sections 3 to 8, through the development of a formal system. I show that, in a well-behaved formal setting, a moderate version of transparency is imposed upon us as a result of a number of independent decisions on the structure of higher-order probabilities, as long as we request that our probability and knowledge attributions cohere with each other. Thus I give a rationale to build a model for a hierarchy of languages with different levels of knowledge and probability operators; we obtain an analogous to KK for successive knowledge operators without actually demanding transitivity. The formal argument reinforces the philosophical intuition that epistemic transparency is an important desideratum we should not be too ready to dismiss.


Transparency Responsibility Self-knowledge Higher-order probabilities Epistemic logic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bilgrami, A. (1999). Why is self-knowledge different from other kinds of knowledge? In L. E. Hahn (Ed.), The philosophy of Donald Davidson, library of living philosophers (pp. 211–224). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilgrami, A. (2006). Self-knowledge and resentment. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonnay, D., & Egré, P. (2009). Inexact knowledge with introspection. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 179–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, D. (2004). Putting logic in its place: Formal constraints on rational belief. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dokic, J., & Egré, P. (2009). Margin for error and the transparency of knowledge. Synthese, 166, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egré, P. (2008). Reliability, margin for error, and self-knowledge. In V. Hendricks & D. Pritchard (Eds.), New waves in epistemology (pp. 215–250). New York: Pagrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Engel, P. (2009). Epistemic responsibility without epistemic agency. Philosophical Explorations, 12(2), 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitch, F. (1963). A logical analysis of some value concepts. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 28, 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foley, R. (2001). Intellectual trust in oneself and others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaifman, H. (1986). A theory of higher-order probabilities. In B. Skyrms & W. Harper (Eds.), Causation, chance, and credence (pp. 191–219). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hieronymi, P. (2005). The wrong kind of reason. Journal of Philosophy, 102(9), 427–457.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leitgeb, H. (2002). Critical study of knowledge and its limits. Grazer Philosophischen Studien, 65, 195–205.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levi, I. (1997). The covenant of reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linsky, B. (2009). Logical types in some arguments about knowability and belief. In J. Salerno (Ed.), New essays on the knowability paradox (pp. 163–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical investigations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owens, D. (2000). Reason without freedom: The problem of epistemic normativity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paseau, A. (2008). Fitch’s argument and typing knowledge. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 49(2), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Samet, D. (1997). On the triviality of high-order probabilistic beliefs. Game Theory and Information 9705001, EconWPA.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skyrms, B. (1980). Higher order degrees of belief. In Prospects for pragmatism. Essays in honor of F. P. Ramsey (Vol. 1, pp. 109–137). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sosa, E. (2007). A virtue epistemology: Apt beliefs and reflective knowledge (Vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Fraassen, B. (1984). Belief and the will. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Fraassen, B. (1995). Belief and the problem of Ulyses and the Sirens. Philosophical Studies, 77, 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams, M. (2001). Problems of knowledge: A critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williamson, T. Very improbable knowing. Erkenntnis, forthcoming. Draft available at:
  28. 28.
    Williamson, T. (1995). Is knowing a state of mind? Mind, 104, 533–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Williamson, T. (2011). Improbable knowing. In T. Dougherty (Ed.), Evidentialism and its discontents (pp. 147–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de FilosofíaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations