Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines the epistemological nature of secrecy in social contexts, suggesting implications for knowledge flow.
Although the ethical and political implications of secrecy are significant, I argue here that its fundamental nature is epistemological and that any account of its nature must be based on its epistemological profile. In particular, I propose examining secrecy within the framework of social and political epistemology, considering secrets as intentional disruptions to the social flow of knowledge. This requires us to postulate a crucial distinction between mysteries and secrets. A mystery is something that is difficult to know, thereby frustrating an individual's epistemic interests. By contrast, a secret is a specific kind of mystery that meets the following three conditions: (1) it is known by someone (the knower); (2) it is unknown to someone else (the unknower); and (3) it is intentionally concealed by someone else (the keeper) in a way that frustrates the unknower's epistemic interests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
J Sevil Navarro (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: