A Defence of the Epistemic Nature of Episodic Memory

According to a traditional view, memory capacities are epistemic in nature: they function to afford knowledge of the past. In the case of episodic memory (henceforth “EM”), the relevant knowledge is of particular events in the personal past. 

Recently, however, the philosophy of EM has witnessed a “non-epistemic” turn: critics of the traditional view claim that while EM has epistemic features, it isn’t essentially in the business of affording knowledge of particular events from the personal past (see e.g., a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l,). 

Against episodic memory as epistemic

Our paper considers three empirically motivated arguments against the traditional view: (1) “the argument from construction” appeals to evidence that the contents of EM are constructed rather than stored; (2) “the argument from error” appeals to evidence that EM is highly error-prone; and, finally, (3) “the argument from animals” appeals to evidence that some nonhuman animals can episodically remember. 

Responses

Against (1), we argue that EM’s constructive nature is consistent with its functioning to afford knowledge. Indeed, it’s doing so provides a plausible, straightforward basis for functions ascribed to it by critics in light of its being constructive (e.g., contributing to planning and future action, social cohesion, and/or an enduring sense of self over time). 

Against (2), we argue that studies of memory error (e.g., m, n, o) fail to show that EM lacks an essentially epistemic function. In fact, such studies identify errors as failures to afford non-accidental knowledge of particular events from the personal past. 

Against (3), we question whether ascriptions of EM to nonhuman animals in cognitive ethology (e.g., p, q, r, s) should be accepted at face value. But even if nonhuman animals possess a species of EM, we argue that humans plausibly possess a distinct species of EM. 

Finally, our paper responds to the concern that if EM has an essentially epistemic function, “disjunctivism”—the view that nonveridical memories aren’t really memories at all—follows, where disjunctivism is thought to be inconsistent with empirical practice. We show that disjunctivism (so understood) does not in fact follow from a view that understands EM as an epistemic capacity. 

Avoiding epistemic injustice

We develop our positive account of EM as an epistemic capacity in other work and use it to respond to  “analytic” arguments against the traditional views, i.e., arguments which rest on thought experiments rather than interpretations of empirical findings. 

One of the advantages of our account of EM is that it adopts a “social critical” approach to EM. Where rejecting the essentially epistemic nature of EM risks giving up the explanatory resources required to illuminate certain forms of gaslighting (or so our in-progress essay argues), our view is designed to illuminate ways in which episodic memory is implicated in gaslighting and other forms of epistemic injustice. 

For instance, by recognizing that epistemic capacities have diverse “modes of manifesting,” our view helps diagnose a key error in what we call the “Traumatic Untrustworthiness Argument” or “TUA.” According to the TUA, experiencing trauma negatively impacts the formation, consolidation, and recall of episodic memories of a traumatic event to such an extent that it is best not to trust testimony based on such memories. 

Among the TUA’s various weaknesses, we argue, is that it hastily infers the absence of a victim’s capacity to reliably episodically remember her trauma. This inference isn’t licensed, for, as we argue, a better hypothesis is that traumatic experience simply modifies a victim’s mode of manifesting her capacity to episodically remember her trauma.

Professor Alison Springle is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Miami (FL). She works on topics in the metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science of memory, perception, and action. She’s currently working on a monograph which develops a novel account of mental representation.

Dr. Seth Goldwasser is a lecturer at the University of Miami. Seth’s research focuses primarily on skillful mental action with an emphasis on skillful remembering and imagining. He has also written on the ascription of normal-proper functions in cancer biology and on the epistemic status of traumatic memories.