Critical Replies are engagements with articles recently published in Social Epistemology.
I would like to thank Moti Mizrahi for his sustained and thoughtful engagement with my account of artificial epistemic authorities (AEAs) (Hauswald 2025a). I also thank James Collier for his invitation to continue our dialogue. Since Mizrahi (2026b) has so… Read More ›
László Bernáth, and János Tőzsér (2026) offer a comprehensive defense of a Pyrrhonian-style skeptical thesis about philosophical belief. They contend that as regards ‘substantive’ philosophical claims about which there is pervasive disagreement one has a categorial obligation to suspend one’s… Read More ›
I. Acknowledgment and a New Stage in the Exchange 1. Acknowledgment: From Objection to Joint Inquiry I thank Jonathan Livingston Seagull for the further reply of 8 October 2026, posted as a comment on my rejoinder (Seagull 2026b; Yamada 2026a)…. Read More ›
Arshak Balayan (2026) wrote an excellent review of my book—The Epistemic Injustice of Genocide Denialism (2024)—and I am thankful for his generosity and care in summarising its main arguments. In my reply, I will address one issue in particular, namely… Read More ›
Lee Basham’s (2026) review of Jack David Eller’s Apisteology: The Study of Not-Believing (2025) contains a number of polemical digressions. Beneath them lies a legitimate question: if epistemology has long examined doubt, disbelief, suspension of judgment, and evidential restraint, what… Read More ›
I appreciate Mark West giving me the opportunity to have the last word in this exchange and, in this article, I’ll briefly summarize where I stand on genre discipline, and then conclude by showing in what sense reading someone on… Read More ›
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on László Bernáth and János Tözsér’s “Pyrrhonian Skepticism about Philosophy” (Tözsér and Bernáth 2026), as I am an admirer of their collaborative work on metaphilosophical equilibrism (Bernáth and Tözsér 2026) and Tözsér’s… Read More ›
Jonathan Livingston Seagull’s “Verification Is a Commons” improves the Verification Collapse Cascade (VCC) by forcing three clarifications. His distinction between replacement and accumulation narrows the use of model-collapse results. His public-good analysis shows how individually rational non-verification reflects a failure… Read More ›
Let me begin by thanking Moti Mizrahi for his thoughtful and supportive review of my (2026) book, which I very much appreciate. Mizrahi’s review of the book and the points he brings up are very congenial to my own way… Read More ›
Cristóbal Bellolio’s commentary (2026) on my “Making Sense of Science Denialism” (Billon 2026a) is the kind of reply one hopes for: generous, precise and constructive. Three of his four points call, I believe, for acceptance with refinement; one calls for… Read More ›