Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View.

Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.

Academia's Big Five: a normative taxonomy for the epistemic responsibilities of universities.

This paper proposes a normative taxonomy by which universities can express the extent to which they meet five core epistemic responsibilities. Epistemic responsibilities are responsibilities that have to do with the attainment of knowledge and understanding. The core epistemic responsibilities, which we call the Big Five, are to (1) foster research integrity, (2) teach for intellectual virtue, (3) address the big questions of life, (4) give humanistic inquiry and education a proper place, and (5) serve society. The paper characterizes the Big Five in some detail and explains why they are core epistemic responsibilities of universities. The paper concludes by describing the steps that should be taken in order to test, amend, and implement the taxonomy.

Presuppositions of (human movement) science

This paper argues that science, human movement science included, proceeds from many presuppositions. First, it explains what sorts of things presuppositions are. Next, it argues that science proceeds from metaphysical, epistemic, and normative presuppositions. The argument entails that neither scientism nor Naturalism is a presupposition of science.

Este artigo argumenta que a ciência, incluindo a ciência do movimento humano, procede a partir de muitas pressuposições. Em primeiro lugar, explica que classe de coisa são as pressuposições. Em seguida, alega que a ciência procede a partir de pressuposições metafísicas, epistêmicas e normativas. O argumento implica que o cientificismo e o naturalismo não são pressuposições da ciência.

Esta ponencia argumenta que la ciencia, incluyendo la ciencia del movimiento humano, procede a partir de muchas presuposiciones. Primero explica qué clase de cosa son las presuposiciones. Luego arguye que la ciencia procede a partir de presuposiciones metafísicas, epistémicas y normativas. Este argumento implica que ni el cientificismo ni el naturalismo son una presuposición de la ciencia.