We Should Move on from Signalling-Based Analyses of Biological Deception
Krstić V.
February 2025Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
Erkenntnis
2025#90Issue 2545 - 565 pp.
This paper argues that extant signalling-based analyses cannot explain a range of cases of biological (and psychological) deception, such as those in which the deceiver does not send a signal at all, but that Artiga and Paternotte’s (Philos Stud 175:579–600, 2018) functional and my (Krstić in The analysis of self-deception: rehabilitating the traditionalist account. PhD Dissertation, University of Auckland, 2018: §3; Krstić and Saville in Australas J Philos 97:830–835, 2019) manipulativist analyses can. Therefore, the latter views should be given preference. And because we still do not have a satisfactory definition of manipulation, the functional analysis, according to which a state is deceptive iff its function is to mislead and it misleads, is currently our best theory of deception. This is not to argue that the signalling-based analyses have no value but only that they should not be used in general analyses of biological deception. We need to move on to some other interesting issues.
Text of the article Перейти на текст статьи
School of Sciences and Humanities, Nazarbayev University, Kabanbay Batyr 53, Block 1, Office, Astana, 1269, Kazakhstan
School of Sciences and Humanities
10 лет помогаем публиковать статьи Международный издатель
Книга Публикация научной статьи Волощук 2026 Book Publication of a scientific article 2026