While many philosophers have agreed that evidence of disagreement is a kind of higher-order evidence, this has not yet resulted in formally precise higher-order approaches to the problem of disagreement. In this paper, we outline a simple formal framework for determining the epistemic significance of a body of higher-order evidence, and use this framework to motivate a novel interpretation of the popular “equal weight view” of peer disagreement—we call it the Variably Equal Weight View (VEW). We show that VEW differs (...) from the standard Split the Difference (SD) interpretation of the equal weight view in almost all cases of peer disagreement, and use our formal framework to explain why SD has seemed attractive but is in fact misguided. A desirable feature of VEW, we argue, is that it gives rise to plausible instances of synergy—an effect whereby the parties to a disagreement should become more (or less) confident in the disputed proposition than any of them were prior to disagreement. Lastly, we show how VEW may be generalized to cases of non-peer disagreement. (shrink)

Das Wort der "Genialität der Gerechtigkeit" stammt von Nietzsche selbst, der bekannte, dass er diese Form der Genialität mindestens ebenso hoch schätze wie alle übrigen. Gerade in den letzten Jahren seit Erscheinen der ersten Auflage ist die Problematik der Gerechtigkeit bei Nietzsche so stark in den Vordergrund gerückt wie lange nicht. Die Neuauflage unternimmt vor diesem Hintergrund den Versuch einer Neubewertung.

Wilhelm von Humboldts Rechtsphilosophie ist bei weitem nicht so bekannt wie seine Sprachphilosophie oder gar seine Rolle als Bildungsreformer. Der Autor untersucht zu diesem Zweck Humboldts "Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen".

Astonishingly, despite the vast amount of scholarship on Machiavelli, no study exists on his theory of legislation, which runs through his celebrated work The Prince, the three-volume Discourses on Livy, the History of Florence, and many of his shorter writings. Jens Petersen's work fills this gap and applies his insights to contemporary legislation.

The aim of this paper is to use a frame-based account to explain some empirical findings regarding the accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. Therefore, some results of empirical studies will be discussed with regard to the question of how much it matters whether the concept of the source domain in a synaesthetic metaphor is a scalar or a quality concept. Furthermore, typed frames are introduced, and it is explained how the notion of a minimal upper attribute can be used in the (...) analysis of adjective-noun compounds. Finally, frames are used to analyze synaesthetic metaphors; it turns out that they offer an adequate basis for the explanation of different accessibility rates found in empirical studies. (shrink)

Adam Smith was not just a pioneer of political economy; he was also a moral philosopher who aspired to write a systematic theory of law. Though he never completed the project - he asked the executors of his estate to burn his notes - his major published works contain a multitude of passages from which significant portions of his legal theory can be reconstructed. Many of Smith's views are of great relevance to present-day issues. He proposed financial regulation restricting the (...) freedom of individuals, which he likened to the necessity of equipping buildings with firewalls. In light of the global firestorm caused by the most recent banking crisis, Smith's ideas appear strikingly modern. (shrink)

Indem Montaigne die Jurisprudenz von Grund auf anzweifelte, hat er ihr zugleich die Grundlagen des Rechts in einer spezifisch neuzeitlichen Weise erschlossen. Obwohl er nichts weniger suchte, entdeckte Montaigne beiläufig die Grundlagen des Rechts in ihrer Gesamtheit.

Wahrend uber Max Webers Religionssoziologie ganze Bibliotheken geschrieben worden sind, gibt es zu seiner Rechtssoziologie - ungeachtet ihrer von Talcott Parsons herausgestellten Zentralitat in Webers Werk - vergleichsweise wenige Bande. Insbesondere ist sein Verhaltnis zur juristischen Methodenlehre nahezu unberucksichtigt geblieben, obwohl er als promovierter und habilitierter Jurist im weitesten Sinne von ihr ausgegangen ist. Max Webers Rechtssoziologie ist fur die Rechtsdogmatik nicht zuletzt deshalb so interessant, weil Weber das Recht und die juristische Methode inwendig kannte und von daher deutend verstehen (...) konnte. ". (shrink)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) gehort zu den grossten Geistern, die je auf Erden gelebt haben. Der vorliegende Band versucht eine Verbindungslinie zwischen seiner Rechtsphilosophie und seiner Religionsphilosophie herzustellen, indem er Pascals Gedanken uber die Gerechtigkeit zu seiner beruhmten Lehre von den drei Ordnungen ins Verhaltnis setzt. ".

Das Buch zeichnet Schopenhauers individualistisches Rechtsdenken nach und verteidigt seinen methodischen Individualismus namentlich gegen Carl Schmitt. Soweit ersichtlich erstmals wird Schopenhauers Idee der ewigen Gerechtigkeit der Kritik Friedrich Nietzsches gegenübergestellt.

Giambattista Vico gilt als Begründer der Kulturwissenschaft, obwohl er Jurist war und Rhetorik lehrte. Der Autor führt die juristische Provenienz mit Vicos kulturgeschichtlichen Entdeckungen zusammen und begründet diese in Verbindung mit jener. Durch diese Rückbesinnung auf Vicos Theorie kann womöglich auch die Rechtswissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft begriffen werden.

Drawing together the ideas, practices, and techniques associated with the subject, this book puts them in historical context and demonstrates their relevance to ...

Frames, i.e., recursive attribute-value structures, are a general format for the decomposition of lexical concepts. Attributes assign unique values to objects and thus describe functional relations. Concepts can be classified into four groups: sortal, individual, relational and functional concepts. The classification is reflected by different grammatical roles of the corresponding nouns. The paper aims at a cognitively adequate decomposition, particularly, of sortal concepts by means of frames. Using typed feature structures, an explicit formalism for the characterization of cognitive frames is (...) developed. The frame model can be extended to account for typicality effects. Applying the paradigm of object-related neural synchronization, furthermore, a biologically motivated model for the cortical implementation of frames is developed. Cortically distributed synchronization patterns may be regarded as the fingerprints of concepts. (shrink)

Inquiry is an aim-directed activity, and as such governed by instrumental normativity. If you have reason to figure out a question, you have reason to take means to figuring it out. Beliefs are governed by epistemic normativity. On a certain pervasive understanding, this means that you are permitted – maybe required – to believe what you have sufficient evidence for. The norms of inquiry and epistemic norms both govern us as agents in pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and, on the (...) surface, they do so in harmony. Recently, however, Jane Friedman (2020) has pointed out that they are in tension with each other. In this paper, I aim to resolve this tension by showing that reasons for acts of inquiry – zetetic reasons – and epistemic reasons for belief can both be understood as flowing from the same general normative principle: the transmission principle for instrumental reasons. The resulting account is a version of epistemic instrumentalism that offers an attractive unity between zetetic and epistemic normativity. (shrink)

Body checking, characterized by the repeated visual or physical inspection of particular parts of one’s own body (e.g. thighs, waist, or upper arms) is one of the most prominent behaviors associated with eating disorders, particularly Anorexia Nervosa (AN). In this paper, we explore the explanatory potential of the Recalcitrant Fear Model of AN (RFM) in relation to body checking. We argue that RFM, when combined with certain plausible auxiliary hypotheses about the cognitive and epistemic roles of emotions, is able to (...) explain key characteristics of body checking, including how body checking behavior becomes habitual and compulsive. (shrink)

In a recent paper in this journal, Carter and Peterson raise two distinctly epistemological puzzles that arise for anyone aspiring to defend the precautionary principle. The first puzzle trades on an application of epistemic contextualism to the precautionary principle; the second puzzle concerns the compatibility of the precautionary principle with the de minimis rule. In this note, I argue that neither puzzle should worry defenders of the precautionary principle. The first puzzle can be shown to be an instance of the (...) familiar but conceptually harmless challenge of adjudicating between relevant interests to reach assessments of threats when applying the precautionary principle. The second puzzle can be shown to rely on a subtle but crucial misrepresentation of the relevant probabilities at play when applying the precautionary principle. (shrink)

Standard epistemology takes it for granted that there is a special kind of value: epistemic value. This claim does not seem to sit well with act utilitarianism, however, since it holds that only welfare is of real value. I first develop a particularly utilitarian sense of “epistemic value”, according to which it is closely analogous to the nature of financial value. I then demonstrate the promise this approach has for two current puzzles in the intersection of epistemology and value theory: (...) first, the problem of why knowledge is better than mere true belief, and second, the relation between epistemic justification and responsibility. (shrink)

When one has both epistemic and practical reasons for or against some belief, how do these reasons combine into an all-things-considered reason for or against that belief? The question might seem to presuppose the existence of practical reasons for belief. But we can rid the question of this presupposition. Once we do, a highly general ‘Combinatorial Problem’ emerges. The problem has been thought to be intractable due to certain differences in the combinatorial properties of epistemic and practical reasons. Here we (...) bring good news: if we accept an independently motivated version of epistemic instrumentalism—the view that epistemic reasons are a species of instrumental reasons—we can reduce The Combinatorial Problem to the relatively benign problem of how to weigh different instrumental reasons against each other. As an added benefit, the instrumentalist account can explain the apparent intractability of The Combinatorial Problem in terms of a common tendency to think and talk about epistemic reasons in an elliptical manner. (shrink)

Many have found it plausible that practical circumstances can affect whether someone is in a position to know or rationally believe a proposition. For example, whether it is rational for a person to believe that the bank will be open tomorrow, can depend not only on the person’s evidence, but also on how practically important it is for the person not to be wrong about the bank being open tomorrow. This supposed phenomenon is known as “pragmatic encroachment” on knowledge and (...) rational belief. Assuming that the phenomenon is real, I ask what explains it. I argue that a variant of instrumentalism about epistemic reasons offers a natural explanation, that at the same time is able avoid commitment to a more radical form of pragmatism. (shrink)

Most of us want to have children. We want them to be healthy and have a good start in life. One way to achieve this goal is to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis . PGD enables people engaged in the process of in vitro fertilisation to acquire information about the genetic constitution of an early embryo. On the basis of this information, a decision can be made to transfer embryos without genetic defects to the uterus and terminate those with genetic defects.1However, (...) is it morally acceptable to use PGD to reduce the probability of children with severe genetic diseases being born? Is the current routine use of PGD in public healthcare services to select against severe genetic diseases like anencephaly, spina bifida, cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome morally acceptable?These are complex questions involving a range of difficult ethical issues—for instance, critical discussions about the morality of embryo research and embryo termination.2 They also involve awkward conceptual issues concerning such matters as the meaning of words such as “disability”3 and “severe” in “severe genetic diseases”,4 which will not be discussed here.In this paper I examine an argument which aims to show that efforts to prevent the birth of severely disabled children using PGD are morally unacceptable. Essentially, this argument appeals to our concern for disabled people and the belief that PGD, through a slippery slope process, will have bad consequences for them. I conclude that the argument is problematic for a number of reasons. But before I examine the argument itself, it will be helpful to separate two types of slippery slope argument since these involve different kinds of reasoning.TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTMany of the arguments against PGD point to the bad consequences it can be expected to have for disabled people. Central to all these …. (shrink)

Advanced AI systems are rapidly making their way into medical research and practice, and, arguably, it is only a matter of time before they will surpass human practitioners in terms of accuracy, reliability, and knowledge. If this is true, practitioners will have a prima facie epistemic and professional obligation to align their medical verdicts with those of advanced AI systems. However, in light of their complexity, these AI systems will often function as black boxes: the details of their contents, calculations, (...) and procedures cannot be meaningfully understood by human practitioners. When AI systems reach this level of complexity, we can also speak of black-box medicine. In this paper, we want to argue that black-box medicine conflicts with core ideals of patient-centered medicine. In particular, we claim, black-box medicine is not conducive for supporting informed decision-making based on shared information, shared deliberation, and shared mind between practitioner and patient. (shrink)