Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This argument opposes epistemic transparency as an inadequate epistemology of algorithms, highlighting its flaws in justification.
Epistemic transparency is often proposed as a solution to algorithmic opacity, wherein revealing the inner logic of an algorithm provides reasons or supporting evidence for the justification of its outputs. I argue that transparency is defective in belief formation and thus inadequate as an epistemology of algorithms. Two objections are developed: transparency regress and bootstrapping , both rooted in transparency’s status as a time-sliced, ‘outsourced’ inferentialist epistemology. While weaker forms—such as contextual transparency—are briefly considered, the central argument remains that transparency fails to provide justification and should be abandoned as an epistemology of algorithms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juan M. Durán (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: