The availability of medical and health information on the world wide web has led to a long discussion about the reliability of that information. Various medical, political, and independent organizations have created user-friendly tools for finding reliable medical/health information on the web and have been faced with the challenge of defining what it means for information to be reliable. Little attention has been given to the work of reviewing web-based information and applying selection criteria to individual sites. In this (...) article, the authors examine how guidelines are applied in practice and discuss how the selection criteria and the practices of applying them reinforce distinctions that current medical sociology and informatics literature suggests have been broken down by internet technologies and the availability of web-based medical information. (shrink)

The documented low levels of reliability of the peer review process present a serious challenge to editors who must often base their publication decisions on conflicting referee recommendations. The purpose of this article is to discuss this process and examine ways to produce a more reliable and useful peer review system.

In the past few years, machine learning (ML) tools have been implemented with success in the medical context. However, several practitioners have raised concerns about the lack of transparency—at the algorithmic level—of many of these tools; and solutions from the field of explainable AI (XAI) have been seen as a way to open the ‘black box’ and make the tools more trustworthy. Recently, Alex London has argued that in the medical context we do not need machine learning tools to be (...) interpretable at the algorithmic level to make them trustworthy, as long as they meet some strict empirical desiderata. In this paper, we analyse and develop London’s position. In particular, we make two claims. First, we claim that London’s solution to the problem of trust can potentially address another problem, which is how to evaluate the reliability of ML tools in medicine for regulatory purposes. Second, we claim that to deal with this problem, we need to develop London’s views by shifting the focus from the opacity of algorithmic details to the opacity of the way in which ML tools are trained and built. We claim that to regulate AI tools and evaluate their reliability, agencies need an explanation of how ML tools have been built, which requires documenting and justifying the technical choices that practitioners have made in designing such tools. This is because different algorithmic designs may lead to different outcomes, and to the realization of different purposes. However, given that technical choices underlying algorithmic design are shaped by value-laden considerations, opening the black box of the design process means also making transparent and motivating (technical and ethical) values and preferences behind such choices. Using tools from philosophy of technology and philosophy of science, we elaborate a framework showing how an explanation of the training processes of ML tools in medicine should look like. (shrink)

Mathematics seems to have a special status when compared to other areas of human knowledge. This special status is linked with the role of proof. Mathematicians often believe that this type of argumentation leaves no room for errors and unclarity. Philosophers of mathematics have differentiated between absolutist and fallibilist views on mathematical knowledge, and argued that these views are related to whether one looks at mathematics-in-the-making or finished mathematics. In this paper we take a closer look at mathematical practice, more (...) precisely at the publication process in mathematics. We argue that the apparent view that mathematical literature, given the special status of mathematics, is highly reliable is too naive. We will discuss several problems in the publication process that threaten this view, and give several suggestions on how this could be countered.Las matemáticas parecen tener un estatuto especial cuando se las compara con otras áreas del conocimiento humano. Este estatuto especial está conectado con el papel de la demostración. Los matemáticos creen con frecuencia que este tipo de argumentos no deja margen para el error o la falta de claridad. Los filósofos de la matemática han distinguido entre una concepción absolutista y una falibilista del conocimiento matemático, argumentando que estas concepciones están relacionadas con una consideración de las matemáticas-en-proceso o en tanto que matemáticas ya hechas. En este artículo examinamos más de cerca la práctica matemática, más en concreto el proceso de publicación en matemáticas. Argumentaremos que la idea preconcebida de que la literatura matemática, dado el estatuto especial de las matemáticas, es altamente fiable, es demasiado ingenua. Discutiremos algunos problemas del proceso de edición que amenazan esta visión y haremos algunas sugerencias sobre cómo enfrentarlos. (shrink)

BackgroundMany medical emergency practices are regulated by written procedures that normally provide reliable guidelines for action. In some cases, however, the consequences of following rule-based instructions can have unintended negative consequences. The article discusses a case - described on a type level - where the consequences of following a rule formulation could have been fatal.Case presentationA weak and elderly patient has cardiac arrest, and a Do Not Resuscitate clause is written in the patient’s medical record. Paramedics at the scene cannot (...) see that the patient’s general appearance match conditions which would indicate the DNR clause, so they start cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the patient survives. This turns out to be a crucial decision. The DNR clause is from an earlier bout with serious disease from which the patient has recovered, against all odds, and someone has forgotten to remove the clause from the medical record.AnalysisIn order to be able to interpret the validity of written guidelines, paramedics and other health workers need to develop personal skills that transcend the ability simply to follow written instructions. Within traditional virtue ethics, personal judgment is conceived of as crucial for being able to make ‘good’ autonomous decisions. Virtue ethical analyses, decision-making abilities and non-technical communication skills are important as conceptual tools when health workers need to make difficult clinical decisions.ConclusionThe case study accentuates the significance of prudent judgment in medical practice. In the case described, the consequence of trusting the written advance directive could have been fatal, but the point is general: for the purpose of achieving excellent organizational performance, it is insufficient for health workers to rely uncritically on rules and procedures. Even the clearest rule formulations must be interpreted contextually in order to determine ethically correct behavior and avoid potential negative consequences that are not in the patient’s best interests. (shrink)

This comprehensive review explores the evolving epistemological foundations of Human Reliability Analysis (HRA), tracing its transition from a practical, applied field to a scientific discipline. The paper critically examines the philosophical assumptions that underlie prominent HRA models, emphasizing their impact on both scientific validity and practical application. Organized into five sections, the paper begins by articulating its primary aim in Section 1: to uncover and scrutinize the philosophical assumptions within HRA models. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 delve into (...) reductionist and holistic paradigms. Section 2.4 focuses on the shift toward holistic theories, emphasizing the integration of human, technical, and organizational elements in modern socio-technical systems. Section 3 concludes by examining systemic approaches, capturing the paradigm shift from reductionism to a broader, interdependent view of accidents and reliability. Section 4 sheds light on the contemporary HRA models, emphasizing the prevalence of systemism in recent research. Notable models, such as SoTeRiA and FRAM, undergo scrutiny for their systemic approach, revealing interrelationships crucial for understanding accidents in complex operations. In Section 5, the paper explores the practical implications of the epistemological insights gained, emphasizing their potential impact on the development and enhancement of HRA models. The conclusion advocates for a paradigm shift in HRA that involves rethinking the epistemological bases of models. It underscores the need for ongoing philosophical scrutiny to drive the discipline's progress, ultimately enhancing our understanding, prediction, and improvement of human performance and system safety. (shrink)

Of all the demands that mathematics imposes on its practitioners, one of the most fundamental is that proofs ought to be correct. It has been common since the turn of the twentieth century to take correctness to be underwritten by the existence of formal derivations in a suitable axiomatic foundation, but then it is hard to see how this normative standard can be met, given the differences between informal proofs and formal derivations, and given the inherent fragility and complexity of (...) the latter. This essay describes some of the ways that mathematical practice makes it possible to reliably and robustly meet the formal standard, preserving the standard normative account while doing justice to epistemically important features of informal mathematical justification. (shrink)

The article aims to determine whether it is possible to build the reliably practiced classical philosophy, understood as a metaphysical research, directed towards the nature of objective reality. The purpose of this kind of philosophizing is knowledge and truth. Moreover, the practice of such philosophizing and its results should meet some of the characteristics of science. The paper establishes a set of conditions that have been imposed on the science of metaphysics by Kazimierz Twardowski. Among the conditions of such philosophizing (...) are anti-dogmatism, criticism, inter-subjectivity of philosophizing and its results, proper epistemic justification of philosophical beliefs, application of the analysis method, rigorous language and reasoning, the use of experience and scientific knowledge. The paper considers these conditions to be correct in most cases and argues that metaphysics can meet them. The existing cases of analytical metaphysics show that metaphysics is possible as a science. Next, the article argues that the late Twardowski failed to substantiate his claim that metaphysical positions which he classified as a world-view philosophy could not be scientifically justified, which could have been possibly done with differentiating ways of understanding what such a scientific justification should be. The article argues that he did not take into account a reductive conception of the metaphysical philosophy, which even though it allows the plurality of metaphysical explanations and does not force anyone to accept one position as the only possible and correct explanation, would have an objective value, if such metaphysics were elaborated indeed. (shrink)

Experimental data are often acclaimed on the grounds that they can be consistently generated. They are, it is said, reproducible. In this paper I describe how this feature of experimental-data (their pragmatic reliability) leads to their epistemic worth (their epistemic reliability). An important part of my description is the supposition that experimental procedures are to certain extent fixed and stable. Various illustrations from the actual practice of science are introduced, the most important coming at the end of the (...) paper with a discussion of Ray Davis' 1967 solar-neutrino detection experiment (as it is portrayed in Pinch, 1980). (shrink)

A recent study of moral intuitions, performed by Joshua Greene and a group of researchers at Princeton University, has recently received a lot of attention. Greene and his collaborators designed a set of experiments in which subjects were undergoing brain scanning as they were asked to respond to various practical dilemmas. They found that contemplation of some of these cases (cases where the subjects had to imagine that they must use some direct form of violence) elicited greater activity in (...) certain areas of the brain associated with emotions compared with the other cases. It has been argued (e.g., by Peter Singer) that these results undermine the reliability of our moral intuitions, and therefore provide an objection to methods of moral reasoning that presuppose that they carry an evidential weight (such as the idea of reflective equilibrium). I distinguish between two ways in which Greene's findings lend support for a sceptical attitude towards intuitions. I argue that, given the first version of the challenge, the method of reflective equilibrium can easily accommodate the findings. As for the second version of the challenge, I argue that it does not so much pose a threat specifically to the method of reflective equilibrium but to the idea that moral claims can be justified through rational argumentation in general. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to shed light on and critically evaluate the potential impact of evidential pluralism in the realm of pharmaceutical regulation. In the complex landscape of drug evaluation and approval, the role of evidence is pivotal. Firstly, we delve into the role of evidence of mechanisms within drug regulation, with a particular focus on the Accelerated Approval pathway administered by the US Food and Drug Administration. Our analysis reveals that this program, in practice, closely resembles a (...) pluralistic approach to evidence. Secondly, we undertake a thorough examination of the reliability of evidential pluralism within the context of drug regulation. We dissect and discuss the open-cases approach recently put forth by Sung and Holman. While acknowledging its potential merits, we also identify and articulate significant limitations inherent in this approach. Finally, we propose an alternative empirical approach that centres on the real-world outcomes of regulatory programs. (shrink)

Are we entitled or justified in taking the word of others at face value? An affirmative answer to this question is associated with the views of Thomas Reid. Recently, C. A. J. Coady has defended a Reidian view in his impressive and influential book. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. His central and most Oliginal argument for his positions involves reflection upon the practice of giving and accepting reports, of making assertions and relying on the word of others. His argument purports to (...) show that testimony is, by its very nature, a “reliable form of evidence about the way the world is.” The argument moves from what we do to why we are justified in doing it. Although I am sympathetic with both the Reidian view and Coady’s attempt to connect why we rely on others with why we are entitled to rely on others, I find Coady’s argument ineffective. (shrink)

Citizen science has been one of the main forms of public participation in scientific research. The inclusion of non-professional scientists in this context has, however, generated concerns about the reliability of its results, and a great part of the literature has been investigating it. In this paper, we aim to provide a more comprehensive epistemic evaluation of citizen science by discussing standards other than reliability. To do this, we refer to Alvin Goldman’s social veristic epistemology and its fivestandards (...) for epistemically evaluating social practices or institutions: reliability (the ratio of results to total number of results and errors fostered by a practice), power (the practice’s ability to help cognizers find results that answer the questions that interest them), fecundity (the practice’s ability to lead to large numbers of results for many practitioners), speed (how quickly a practice leads to results), and efficiency (how well a practice limits the cost of getting results). By applying it to the citizen science literature and by relying upon its contributions, this framework enables the integration of various theoretical reflections on citizen science, encompassing trade-offs among these standards and addressing ethical concerns. Furthermore, it also allows one to respond to common criticism about citizen science and to draw some important implications. In particular, we show how citizen science's fecundity is crucial for mitigating the challenges associated with unseen science, i.e., research whose results are never shared outside an institution boundary, thus highlighting its significance in the growing landscape of public participation in scientific research. (shrink)

Practical wisdom (hereafter simply “wisdom”) is the intellectual virtue that enables a person to make reliably good decisions about how, all-things-considered, to live and conduct herself. Because wisdom is such an important and high-level achievement, we should wonder: what is the nature of wisdom? What kinds of skills, habits and capacities does it involve? Can real people actually develop it? If so, how? I argue that we can answer these questions by modeling wisdom on expert decision-making skill in complex (...) areas like firefighting. I develop this expert skill model of wisdom using philosophical argument informed by relevant empirical research. I begin in Chapter 1 by examining the historical roots of analogies between wisdom and practical skills in order to motivate the expert skill model. In Chapter 2, I provide the core argument for the expert skill model. I then use the remaining chapters to pull out the implications of the expert skill model. In Chapter 3, I show that the expert skill model yields practical guidance about how to develop wisdom. In Chapter 4, I address the objection, due to Daniel Jacobson, that wisdom is not a skill that humans could actually develop, since skill development requires a kind of feedback in practice that is not available for all-things-considered decisions about how to live. Finally, in Chapter 5, I apply the expert skill model to the question, much discussed by virtue ethicists, of whether a wise person deliberates using a comprehensive and systematic conception of the good life. (shrink)

Recently, certain philosophers of mathematics (Fallis [1997]; Womack and Farach [(1997]) have argued that there are no epistemic considerations that should stop mathematicians from using probabilistic methods to establish that mathematical propositions are true. However, mathematicians clearly should not use methods that are unreliable. Unfortunately, due to the fact that randomized algorithms are not really random in practice, there is reason to doubt their reliability. In this paper, I analyze the prospects for establishing that randomized algorithms are reliable. I (...) end by arguing that it would be inconsistent for mathematicians to suspend judgement on the truth of mathematical propositions on the basis of worries about the reliability of randomized algorithms. (shrink)

Although there exist today a variety of non-deductive reliable processes able to determine the truth of certain mathematical propositions, proof remains the only form of justification accepted in mathematical practice. Some philosophers and mathematicians have contested this commonly accepted epistemic superiority of proof on the ground that mathematicians are fallible: when the deductive method is carried out by a fallible agent, then it comes with its own level of reliability, and so might happen to be equally or even less (...) reliable than existing non-deductive reliable processes—I will refer to this as the reliability argument. The aim of this article is to examine whether the reliability argument forces us to reconsider the commonly accepted epistemic superiority of the deductive method over non-deductive reliable processes. I will argue that the reliability argument is fundamentally correct, but that there is another epistemic property differentiating the deductive method from non-deductive reliable processes. This property is based on the observation that although mathematicians are fallible agents, they are also self-correcting agents. This means that when a proof is produced that only contains repairable mistakes, given enough time and energy, a mathematician or a group thereof should be able to converge towards a correct proof through a finite number of verification and correction rounds, thus providing a guarantee that the considered proposition is true, something that non-deductive reliable processes will never be able to produce. From this perspective, the standard of justification adopted in mathematical practice should be read in a diachronic way: the demand is not that any proof that is ever produced be correct—which would amount to requiring that mathematicians are infallible—but rather that, over time, proofs that contain repairable mistakes be corrected, and proofs that cannot be repaired be rejected. (shrink)

Citizen science has been one of the main forms of public participation in scientific research. The inclusion of non-professional scientists in this context has, however, generated concerns about the reliability of its results, and a great part of the literature has been investigating it. In this paper, we aim to provide a more comprehensive epistemic evaluation of citizen science by discussing standards other than reliability. To do this, we refer to Alvin Goldman’s social veristic epistemology and its fivestandards (...) for epistemically evaluating social practices or institutions: reliability (the ratio of results to total number of results and errors fostered by a practice), power (the practice’s ability to help cognizers find results that answer the questions that interest them), fecundity (the practice’s ability to lead to large numbers of results for many practitioners), speed (how quickly a practice leads to results), and efficiency (how well a practice limits the cost of getting results). By applying it to the citizen science literature and by relying upon its contributions, this framework enables the integration of various theoretical reflections on citizen science, encompassing trade-offs among these standards and addressing ethical concerns. Furthermore, it also allows one to respond to common criticism about citizen science and to draw some important implications. In particular, we show how citizen science's fecundity is crucial for mitigating the challenges associated with unseen science, i.e., research whose results are never shared outside an institution boundary, thus highlighting its significance in the growing landscape of public participation in scientific research. (shrink)

A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already (...) published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated. (shrink)

This paper explores what constitutes reliability in persons, particularly intellectual reliability. It considers global reliability, the overall reliability of persons, encompassing both the theoretical and practical realms; sectorial reliability, that of a person in a subject-matter (or behavioral) domain; and focal reliability, that of a particular element, such as a belief. The paper compares reliability with predictability of the kind most akin to it and distinguishes reliability as an intellectual virtue from (...) reliability as an intellectual power. The paper also connects reliability with insight, reasoning, knowledge, and trust. It is argued that insofar as reliability is an intellectual virtue, it must meet both external standards of correctitude and internal standards of justification. (shrink)

This paper explores how the purpose of the concept of knowledge affects knowledge ascriptions in natural language. I appeal to the idea that the role of the concept of knowledge is to flag reliable informants, and I use this idea to illuminate and support contextualism about ‘knows’. I argue that practical pressures that arise in an epistemic state of nature provide an explanatory basis for a brand of contextualism that I call ‘practical interests contextualism’. I also answer some (...) questions that contextualism leaves open, particularly why the concept of knowledge is valuable, why the word ‘knows’ exhibits context-variability, and why this term enjoys such widespread use. Finally, I show how my contextualist framework accommodates plausible ideas from two rival views: subject-sensitive invariantism and insensitive invariantism. This provides new support for contextualism and develops this view in a way that improves our understanding of the concept of knowledge. (shrink)

Armchair philosophers have questioned the significance of recent work in experimental philosophy by pointing out that experiments have been conducted on laypeople and undergraduate students. To challenge a practice that relies on expert intuitions, so the armchair objection goes, one needs to demonstrate that expert intuitions rather than those of ordinary people are sensitive to contingent facts such as cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, or educational background. This article does exactly that. Based on two empirical studies on populations of 573 and 203 (...) trained philosophers, respectively, it demonstrates that expert intuitions vary dramatically according to at least one contingent factor, namely, the linguistic background of the expert: philosophers make different intuitive judgments if their native language is English rather than Dutch, German, or Swedish. These findings cast doubt on the common armchair assumption that philosophical theories based on armchair intuitions are valid beyond the linguistic background against which they were developed. (shrink)

Philosophers of logic are particularly interested in understanding the aims, epistemology, and methodology of logic. This raises the question of how the philosophy of logic should go about these enquires. According to the practice-based approach, the most reliable method we have to investigate the methodology and epistemology of a research field is by considering in detail the activities of its practitioners. This holds just as true for logic as it does for the recognised empirical and abstract sciences. If we wish (...) to systematically understand the aims and epistemology of logic, we are best placed achieving this by looking at what logicians do, rather than reflecting upon the nature of logic itself. In this entry, we outline the motivations for a practice-based approach towards the philosophy of logic and highlight its advantages over more “top-down” approaches, which attempt to infer conclusions about the nature of logic and its methodology on the basis of traditional assumptions about knowledge, metaphysics, or logic itself. We end by addressing several prominent concerns raised against the practice-based approach. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: This reliability generalization study aimed to estimate the mean and variance of the interrater reliability coefficients (ryy) of supervisory ratings of overall, task, contextual, and positive job performance. The moderating effect of the appraisal purpose and the scale type was examined. It was hypothesized that the ratings collected for research purposes and multi-item scales have higher ryy. It was also examined whether ryy was similar for the four performance dimensions. METHOD: A database consisting of 224 independent samples (...) was created and hierarchical sub-grouping meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The appraisal purpose was a moderator of ryy for the four performance dimensions. Scale type was a moderator of ryy for overall and task performance collected for research purposes. The findings also suggest that supervisors seem to have less difficulty evaluating overall job performance than task, contextual, and positive performance. The best estimates of the observed ryy for overall job performance are.61 for research-collected ratings and.45 for administrative-collected ratings. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: (1) Appraisal purpose moderates ryy and researchers and practitioners should be aware of its effects before collecting ratings or using empirically-derived interrater reliability distributions, (2) Scale type seems to moderate ryy in the case of the ratings collected for research purposes, only, (3) overall job performance is more reliably rated than task, contextual, and positive performance. Implications for research and practice are discussed. (shrink)

It is sometimes argued that autonomous decision-making requires that the decision-maker’s desires are authentic, i.e., “genuine,” “truly her own,” “not out of character,” or similar. In this article, it is argued that a method to reliably determine the authenticity (or inauthenticity) of a desire cannot be developed. A taxonomy of characteristics displayed by different theories of authenticity is introduced and applied to evaluate such theories categorically, in contrast to the prior approach of treating them individually. The conclusion is drawn that, (...) in practice, the authenticity of desires cannot be reliably determined. It is suggested that authenticity should therefore not be employed in informed consent practices in healthcare. (shrink)

The use of multiple means of determination to “triangulate” on the existence and character of a common phenomenon, object, or result has had a long tradition in science but has seldom been a matter of primary focus. As with many traditions, it is traceable to Aristotle, who valued having multiple explanations of a phenomenon, and it may also be involved in his distinction between special objects of sense and common sensibles. It is implicit though not emphasized in the distinction between (...) primary and secondary qualities from Galileo onward. It is arguably one of several conceptions involved in Whewell’s method of the “consilience of inductions” (Laudan 1971) and is to be found in several places in Peirce. (From M. Brewer and B. Collins, eds., (1981); Scientific Inquiry in the Social Sciences (a festschrift for Donald T. Campbell), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 123–162.). (shrink)

As pressure to publish increases in the academic nursing world, journal submission numbers and rejection rates are soaring. The review process is crucial to journals in publishing high quality, cutting‐edge knowledge development, and to authors in preparing their papers to a high quality to enable the nursing world to benefit from developments in knowledge that affect nursing practice and patient outcomes and the development of the discipline. This paper does not intend to contribute to the debate regarding the ethics of (...) reviewing, but rather seeks to explore notions of how the quality of the reviewing process can be enhanced to benefit authors, the reviewers, and the state of nursing knowledge. Furthermore, a call is made to editors to devise strategies for aiding reviewers to attain higher validity and reliability within the reviewing process by establishing clear standards and expectations and to ensure published work is judged against industry norms for quality. (shrink)

One persistent challenge in scientific practice is that the structure of the world can be unstable: changes in the broader context can alter which model of a phenomenon is preferred, all without any overt signal. Scientific discovery becomes much harder when we have a moving target, and the resulting incorrect understandings of relationships in the world can have significant real-world and practical consequences. In this paper, we argue that it is common (in certain sciences) to have changes of context (...) that lead to changes in the relationships under study, but that standard normative accounts of scientific inquiry have assumed away this problem. At the same time, we show that inference and discovery methods can “protect” themselves in various ways against this possibility by using methods with the novel methodological virtue of “diligence.” Unfortunately, this desirable virtue provably is incompatible with other desirable methodological virtues that are central to reliable inquiry. No scientific method can provide every virtue that we might want. (shrink)

This paper develops a rigorous philosophical–scientific framework for what esoteric traditions call “magic,” redefining it as signature practice: structured protocols that reliably transform a practitioner when the protocol matches the practitioner’s diagnostic state. Instead of treating such effects as either supernatural exceptions or generic placebo, the paper proposes a third option—informational engineering in a coupled agent–environment system. -/- Its uniqueness is methodological. It introduces a portable five-operator kernel (symbolic mediation, calibrated correspondence, attentional stabilization, stage invariants, and independent fixpoint audit) that (...) makes falsifiable predictions about when transformation should occur, when it should fail, and how different traditions can be compared on one formal template. The model is tied to a preregistered three-arm experimental program (congruent protocol vs diagnosis-mismatch protocol with identical carriers/context vs context-only control), plus a measurable lineage-authenticity index. If the predictions hold, “magic” becomes an empirically decidable claim about lawful informational state change, not a metaphysical or anti-scientific leftover. (shrink)

Background/purpose – This study analyzed the contribution of three mentorship practices relatively and cumulatively to the research productivity of early-career academics in the field of educational psychology in universities. The study was conducted in the South- South region of Nigeria. -/- Materials/methods – The research method adopted was the quantitative approach, following the ex-post facto research design. The study’s population covered 723 early-career researchers (ECRs) in educational psychology distributed across 19 universities located in South-South Nigeria. The “Mentorship Practices and Research (...) Productivity Questionnaire” (MPRPQ) was the instrument used for data collection. The questionnaire was designed by the researchers and then validated by three experts. Reliability analysis was performed using the Cronbach approach with estimates of .80, .79, .87, and .91 obtained for the four clusters. Primary data were collected from the field after copies of the instrument had been administered to respondents. -/- Results – Mentorship practices were generally revealed to significantly contribute to the research productivity of ECRs in educational psychology in universities. Specifically, the adoption of cloning and apprenticeship approaches to mentorship contributed substantially to the ECRs’ research productivity. However, the study highlighted that nurturing contributed only negligibly to the ECRs’ research productivity. -/- Conclusion – Mentorship practices are important determinants to the research productivity of early-career educational psychologists. In order to boost the productive research capacities of ECRs, there is a need for institutions to strengthen their mentorship practices. (shrink)

Moral bioenhancement presents the possibility of enhancing morally desirable emotions and dispositions. While some scholars have proposed that moral bioenhancement can produce virtue, we argue that within a virtue ethics framework moral bioenhancement cannot reliably produce virtue. Moreover, on a virtue ethics framework, the pursuit of moral bioenhancement carries moral risks. To make this argument, we consider three aspects of virtue—its motivational, rational, and behavioral components. In order to be virtuous, we argue, a person must (i) take pleasure in doing (...) the right thing and have the correct motivational attitudes; (ii) reason correctly about what is called for in a particular ethical dilemma; and (iii) intentionally and continuously practice and cultivate virtues. These dimensions of morality—in short: precisely those emphasized in a virtue ethics framework—cannot be consistently or reliably met using existing moral bioenhancement technology. (shrink)

Elon Musk famously predicted that an artificial intelligence superior to the smartest individual human would arrive by the year 2025. In response, Gary Marcus offered Musk a $1 million bet to the effect that he would be proved wrong. In specifying the conditions of this bet (which Musk did not take) Marcus lists the following ‘tasks that ordinary people can perform’ which, he claimed, AI will not be able to perform by the end of 2025. • Reliably drive a car (...) in a novel location that they haven’t previously encountered, even in the face of unusual circumstances like hand lettered signs, without the assistance of other humans. • Learn to ride a mountain bike off-road through forest trails. • Babysit children in an unfamiliar home and keep them safe. • Tend to the physical and psychological needs of an elderly or infirm person. Each of these tasks involves the application of practical or tacit knowledge, or what is also called ‘knowing how’, which is to say knowledge of a sort that is captured not by means of sentences or propositions or explicit rules, but rather through the expertise demonstrated in human actions. The talk addresses the puzzle that nowhere in the AI literature do we find a discussion of knowing how as a feature of human intelligence. (shrink)

The thesis of this book is that whether or not someone knows a proposition at a given time is in part determined by his or her practical interests, i.e., by how much is at stake for that person at that time. Thus, whether a true belief is knowledge is not merely a matter of supporting beliefs or reliability; in the case of knowledge, practical rationality and theoretical rationality are intertwined. This thesis, called Interest-Relative Invariantism about knowledge, is (...) defended against alternative accounts of the phenomena that motivate it, such as the claim that knowledge attributions are linguistically context-sensitive and the claim that the truth of a knowledge claim is somehow relative to the person making the claim. The strategies available for resolving skepticism to the strategies available for resolving other philosophical paradoxes are compared. For example, contextualist solutions to the sorites paradox and the liar paradox, as well as interest-relative accounts of the sorites paradox are considered. It is shown that the argument for the interest-relative character of epistemic notions is not the result of an application of a general strategy for resolving philosophical quandaries, but arises from the distinctive nature of epistemic properties. (shrink)

This study aims to develop and defend an account of practical rationality and intention that explains how weakness of the will is conceptually possible. I first present two sceptical arguments against the possibility of weakness and then distinguish two different responses to scepticism that defends its possibility. Both sceptical arguments are motivated by what many have believed is an analogy between theoretical and practical reasoning. This analogy holds that the conclusion of practical reasoning is an intention just (...) as the conclusion of theoretical reasoning is a belief. The particular version held by what I call the Socratic theorists claims, in addition, that the value of desirability is transferred from premisses to conclusion in practical reasoning, just as probability is transferred from premisses to conclusion in theoretical reasoning. One example of an author who takes the analogy as a basic premise and seek to explain how weakness of the will still may be possible, is Donald Davidson. Critics of Davidson object that the the kinds of difficulties that his account runs into shows that the Socratic version of the analogy must be false; not only is this account phenomenologically implausible, it also exaggerates the degree of irrationality of the weak agent. In this study I suggest the possibility of a weaker version of the Davidsonian account. The main source of difficulty for the Davidsonian account, I argue, may not be its reliance on the Socratic version of the analogy between practical and theoretical reasoning, but rather its particular understanding of this analogy in terms of an analogy between practical and inductive-statistical reasoning. This understanding may lead one to accept too “rationalistic” a picture of the reasoning processes behind weakness of the will which, in effect, may make the account vulnerable to objections that it is phenomenologically implausible and exaggerates the irrationality of the weak agent. The weaker version of the Davidsonian account that I propose, ties in the account of weakness with the notions of “satisficing” and “default reasoning”. Although it preserves the central idea of the stronger version that intentions are unconditional evaluative judgements, it proposes a different view of the contents of these judgements, as well as of the reasoning process that lie behind them. It is not difficult to motivate this weaker view: given our human finitary predicament, both satisficing and default reasoning seem to be likely results of an optimal trade-off between the speed and reliability of our computational processes. The question is how these notions may shape the concepts we use to understand weakness of the will. I argue that if we modify the account usually ascribed to Davidson in the light of these notions, the result is a less rationalistic picture of weakness of the will. The gains are more phenomenological credibility as well as a less extreme view of the degree of irrationality involved. (shrink)

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that evaluates moral decisions based on their consequences, emphasizing the maximisation of overall well-being/outcomes for the greatest number. It serves as an important framework in clinical settings, where ethical dilemmas frequently arise. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS) among obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs). A total of 194 obstetricians and gynecologists participated in this online study and completed the OUS alongside a (...) brief sociodemographic questionnaire. Construct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was evaluated via internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) and corrected item–total correlations. Additionally, measurement invariance analyses by sex were performed. CFA confirmed a two-dimensional structure— impartial beneficence and instrumental harm—with good fit indices. High reliability was indicated by both internal consistency coefficients and corrected item-total correlations. The results of the measurement invariance analyses showed similar measurement properties across genders. The Turkish OUS demonstrated adequate construct validity and acceptable internal consistency in this OB/GYN sample. It can be used as a reliable and valid tool to support research, ethics education, and structured ethical reflection in obstetric practice. (shrink)

This response to “Morality or Moralism?” by Emilie Hache and Bruno Latour takes issue with their distinction between two kinds of morality. Hache and Latour see a difference between morality as sensitivity and morality as principled claims regarding moral considerability. They then argue for form-content contradiction/harmony between these purportedly opposing senses. In responding, Zamir argues that these operations can be construed as distinct kinds of sensitivity. Arguments that advocate bringing nonhuman animals into moral consideration can be abstract and general. But (...) this does not mean that such arguments or those who make them are insensitive. Some kinds of sensitivity are attuned to general facts rather than to particulars. Hache and Latour thus err by reducing moral sensitivity to a response to particulars, which leads them to perceive form-content tensions where these do not exist. Zamir's response also argues against a tendency in posthumanist animal ethics—a tendency shared by Hache and Latour's article—to refuse descending to discuss the actual practical questions regarding animals that Anglo-American animal ethics explores. Zamir examines (and rejects) some possible posthumanist arguments that might support remaining philosophically uninvolved in these discussions. (shrink)

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect and use of distributed practice in the context of self-regulated mathematical learning in high school. With distributed practice, a fixed learning duration is spread over several sessions, whereas with massed practice, the same time is spent learning in one session. Distributed practice has been proven to be an effective tool for improving long-term retention of verbal material and simple procedural knowledge in mathematics, at least when the practice schedule is (...) externally guided. In the present study, distributed practice was investigated in a context that required a higher degree of self-regulation. In total, 158 secondary school students were invited to participate. After motivational and cognitive characteristics of the students were assessed, the students were introduced to basic statistics, a topic of their regular curriculum. At the end of the introduction, the students could sign up for the study to further practice this content. Eighty-seven students did so and were randomly assigned either to the distributed or to the massed practice condition. In the distributed practice condition, they received three practice sets on three different days. In the massed practice condition, they received the same three sets, but all on one day. All exercises were worked in the context of self-regulated learning at home. Performance was tested two weeks after the last practice set. Only 44 students finished the study, which hampered the analysis of the effect of distributed practice. The characteristics of the students who completed the exercises were analyzed exploratory: The proportion of students who finished all exercises was significantly higher in the massed than in the distributed practice condition. Within the distributed practice condition, a significantly larger proportion of female students completed the exercises compared to male students. Additionally, among these female students, a larger proportion showed lower concentration difficulty. No such differential effects were revealed in the massed practice condition. Our results suggest that the use of distributed practice in the context of self-regulated learning might depend on learner characteristics. Accordingly, distributed practice might obtain more reliable effects in more externally guided learning contexts. (shrink)

Cancellability is an essential feature of implicatures. However, its reliability has been challenged by several cases and examples in which conversational implicatures seem to be hard or even impossible to cancel. Should it then be concluded that not all implicatures are cancellable, and therefore Grice's cancellability test should be weakened or abandoned? The present paper addresses this problem by drawing a distinction between theoretical and practical cancellability, where the latter concept captures the (un)reasonableness of explicit or contextual cancellation. (...) By analyzing three legal cases of misleading advertising, I show how the indefensibility of an interpretation can account for the practical uncancellability of an implicature. To explain and account for the reasonableness of an interpretation, the presumptive inferences involved must be reconstructed and evaluated considering different dimensions, such as the conversational context and the associated presumptions. (shrink)

This volume represents a contribution to the philosophy of economics with a distinctive point of view -- the contributors have selected particular areas of economics and have probed these areas for the philosophical and methodological issues that they raise. The primary essays are written by philosophers concentrating on philosophical issues that arise at the level of the everyday theoretical practice of working economists. Commentary essays are provided by working economists responding to the philosophical arguments from the standpoint of their own (...) disciplines. The volume thus represents something of an `experiment' in the philosophy of science, striving as it does to explore methodological issues across two research communities. The purpose of the volume is very specific: to stimulate a discussion of the epistemology and methodology of economics that works at the level of detail of existing `best practice' in economics today. The contributors have designed their contributions to stimulate productive conversation between philosophers and economists on topics in the methodology of economics. (shrink)

“Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship, which grinds you stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you get out depends upon what you put in; and as the grandest mill in the world will not extract wheat-flour from peascod, so pages of formulae will not get a definite result out of loose date” (Thomas Huxley (1869) Geological Reform, Presidential Address to the Geological Society). Reasoning in science is a rich and complex phenomenon. On one (...) hand, we find detailed, sophisticated and rigorous calculations. But on the other, we encounter a multiplicity of models and approximations whose status has been the subject of extensive debate (See [6] How the Laws of Physics Lie (Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press) and [7] The Dappled World (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)). Detailed and demanding calculations give the appearance of mathematical rigour, and from a practical perspective, inferences and calculations based on successful models have proven to be reliable guides to our world, predicting the results of many measurements and suggesting interventions in the world that produce startling and impressive novel phenomena ranging from laser light to transistors to monoclonal antibodies and new types of sub-atomic particles. But the logical incompatibility of different models, each making different assumptions and approximations, together with the application of distinct, conflicting models in the course of deriving important results, raise serious questions about the nature and status of the both the premises and the conclusions of scientific reasoning. (shrink)

Suppose that there are objective normative facts and our beliefs about such facts are by-and-large true. How did this come to happen? This is the reliability challenge to normative realism. As has been recently noted, the challenge also applies to expressivist “quasi-realism”. I argue that expressivism is useful in the face of this challenge, in a way that has not been yet properly articulated. In dealing with epistemological issues, quasi-realists typically invoke the desire-like nature of normative judgments. However, this (...) is not enough to prevent the reliability challenge from arising, given that quasi-realists also hold that normative judgments are truth-apt beliefs. To defuse this challenge, we need to isolate a deeper sense in which normative thought is not representational. I propose that we rely on the negative functional thesis of expressivism: normative thought does not have the function of tracking normative facts, or any other kind of facts. This thesis supports an argument to the effect that it is misguided to expect an explanation of our access to normative facts akin to the explanations available in regions of thought that have a tracking function. We should be content with explanations of our reliability that take for granted certain connections between our psychology and the normative truths. (shrink)

Attentional bias has been suggested to contribute to the persistence of substance use behavior. However, the empirical evidence for its proposed role in addiction is inconsistent. This might be due to the inability of commonly used measures to differentiate between attentional engagement and attentional disengagement. Attesting to the importance of differentiating between both components of AB, a recent study using the odd-one-out task showed that substance use was differentially related to engagement and disengagement bias. However, the AB measures derived from (...) the OOOT showed insufficient reliability to be used as a solid measure of individual differences. Therefore, the current study aimed to improve the reliability of the AB measures derived from the OOOT by using more distinct contrast stimuli, adding practice trials, increasing the number of trials, and by having participants perform the task in an alcohol-relevant context. We contrasted the original OOOT with the adapted OOOT and assessed AB in low- and high-drinking individuals. Participants were 245 undergraduate students who typically tend to drink either low or high amounts of alcohol. In one condition, AB was measured with the original OOOT in a typical laboratory context, whereas in the other condition, AB was measured with the OOOT-adapt in a bar context. The OOOT-adapt showed superior internal consistency, especially for the high-drinking group. Further, specifically the OOOT-adapt differentiated between low- and high-drinking participants showing that high drinkers engaged faster with alcohol cues than did low drinkers. Thus, the OOOT-adapt was found to be a promising candidate to reliably index AB in the context of alcohol use. The OOOT-adapt further showed superior criterion validity as it could differentiate between low- and high-drinking individuals, thereby adding to the evidence that AB might be involved in substance use behavior. (shrink)