PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 17, 20260 citationsOpen Access

The Duck and the Philosopher: Epistemic Maintenance, Generativity, and Responsibility in Distributed Knowledge Systems

View Full Paper
PKPeter Kahl

Key Points

  • The research explores the distinction between epistemic maintenance systems and generative epistemic agents in knowledge frameworks.
  • Develops a theoretical framework for understanding epistemic systems
  • Distinguishes between three forms of generativity
  • Classifies epistemic systems along two structural axes
  • Identifies four configurations of epistemic systems with unique governance implications
  • Critiques generative AI as primarily procedural, lacking true epistemic generativity
  • Proposes a criterion for evaluating governance in distributed knowledge infrastructures

Abstract

A philosopher observing a duck grooming its feathers confronts a deceptively simple question: does the behaviour express agency or merely biological maintenance? The vignette illustrates a structural problem that recurs across biological, institutional, and computational systems. Many systems display learning and optimisation, yet these capacities alone do not constitute agency. This article develops a distinction between epistemic maintenance systems, which stabilise behaviour within inherited normative standards, and generative epistemic agents, which possess the capacity to reconstruct those standards when epistemic frameworks become unstable. Drawing on Kantian accounts of normative authorship and debates in the philosophy of technology, the article argues that epistemic responsibility arises only where agents participate in determining the standards governing their cognition. Three forms of generativity—procedural, epistemic, and institutional—are distinguished, and epistemic systems are classified along two structural axes that yield four configurations with distinct governance implications. The analysis extends to distributed epistemic infrastructures in which authority may become embedded in systems whose governing standards lack identifiable authorship. Contemporary “generative AI” systems exemplify procedural rather than epistemic generativity. The article concludes by proposing a generativity criterion for evaluating the governance of epistemic infrastructures in algorithmically mediated knowledge environments.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Peter Kahl (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b8f162deb47d591b8c655fhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19030057
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper