Es handelt sich um eine sozialpsychologische Untersuchung, die unter der Leitung von Franz Boas, dem Vorstand des Department of Anthropology an der Columbia University, New York, unternommen worden ist.Die Hauptmerkmale des Gebärdenspiels zweier verschiedener sogenannter rassischer Gruppen (Italiener und Juden) sind unter verschiedenen und ähnlichen Umgebungsbedingungen mit Hilfe von Filmaufnahmen untersucht worden. Das Ziel der Untersuchung war, festzustellen :a) ob es hinsichtlich des Gebärdenspiels irgendwelche durchgängigen Gruppenunterschiede zwischen noch nicht amerikanisierten jüdischen und italienischen Schichten gibt, und, falls ja,b) welches Schicksal (...) solche Merkmale unter dem Einfluss der sozialen Anpassung erfahren. — Die Ergebnisse geben auf die erste Frage eine bejahende Antwort : Das Gebärdenspiel beim Gespräch der nicht-assimilierten Italiener und Juden ist recht verschieden, und zwar sowohl hinsichtlich der räumlichen und zeitlichen als auch der sprachtechnischen Gestaltung ihrer Gebärden. Für die zweite Frage zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die Unterschiede, die bei den noch traditionell gebundenen Gruppen angetroffen wurden, bei ihren amerikanisierten Nachkommen zu verschwinden trachten, deren Gesten untereinander und den angelsächsischen Gruppen angenähert werden. Ferner hat sich herausgestellt, dass der Prozess der Angleichung des Gebärdenspiels entsprechend der sozialen Situation verläuft, in welcher sich der Nachkomme der noch nicht assimilierten Familie befindet.L'article traite d’une enquête de psychologie sociale, entreprise sous la direction de M. Franz Boas, président du Department of Anthropology à l’université de Columbia, New York.Les caractères propres à la mimique de deux groupes, considérés vulgairement comme racialement différents, juifs et italiens, ont été étudiés par le procédé de prises de vue cinématographiques, dans des milieux tantôt semblables, tantôt différents. Le but de l’enquête était : *1° d’établir s’il existait, dans la mimique, des différences spécifiques entre italiens et juifs non encore américanisés ; et, dans le cas d’une réponse affirmative :2° d’étudier ce que devenaient ces différences sous l’action de l’adaptation sociale. Les résultats donnent à la première question une réponse affirmative : la mimique des juifs et des italiens non encore américanisés, dans la conversation, est très différente — différences qui s’expriment aussi bien dans la figuration spaciale et temporelle des gestes que dans la technique du langage. Pour la deuxième question, les résultats montrent que les différences observées sur des groupes cohérents, encore soumis à la tradition, tendent à disparaître dans les générations américanisées ; les gestes s’uniformisent et se rapprochent de ceux des anglo-saxons. D’autre part, il s’est révélé que l’adaptation de la mimique se déroule d’une manière qui varie avec la situation sociale dans laquelle se trouve le descendant d’une famille non encore américanisée. (shrink)

Ethics involves an organized, reasoned approach to gathering and processing data in order to arrive at decisions about what to do, what to value, and/or what virtues to cultivate. A model is proposed for conceptualizing this complex dynamic, which incorporates elements of both rule-and-principle ethics and the ethic of care. The model suggested here has two levels. The first level identifies the components that comprise philosophical reasoning; the second contextualizes and operationalizes the model in relation to the processor’s philosophical stance (...) on the nature of knowing. Three philosophical stances are identified and described: science-dominant, person-dominant, and science-person equilibrium. Physicians tend to process patients from first perspectives, nurses from second. Hence, health team collaboration in moral problem solving is critically important. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 40-41, July 2012.

Although undergraduate students are exposed to ethical issues through class assignments, discussions, and readings, they typically do not have first hand experience with business dilemmas. Student opinions on ethical standards and behavior in American business have received scant attention in the literature. The purpose of the study is to provide additional information to both educators and organizations about the ethical perceptions of students. Furthermore, the study contrasts student responses to business and community leaders' responses obtained in a prior study conducted (...) by Touche Ross (1988). The findings from this study are based on an opinion survey about ethics in American business, completed by 476 liberal arts and business students attending a private, religiously affiliated college in New York State. The data indicate numerous differences in perceptions between students and business and community leaders. Differences were also found when students were classified by school (Arts & Science versus Business) and by gender. Overall, students appear to place a strong value on education. Students are the source of new entrants to the business world and the foundation for ethical structures being built by organizations. The findings from this study should assist both educators and employers in the development of necessary programs to maximize the ethical potential of their constituents. (shrink)

This paper introduces a new argument against Richard Foley’s threshold view of belief. His view is based on the Lockean Thesis (LT) and the Rational Threshold Thesis (RTT). The argument introduced here shows that the views derived from the LT and the RTT violate the safety condition on knowledge in way that threatens the LT and/or the RTT.

In this paper, I’ll look at the implications of Richard Foley’s epistemology for two different kinds of religious disagreement. First, there are those occasions onwhich a stranger testifies to me that she holds disagreeing religious beliefs. Typically, I’m dismissive of such religious disagreement, and I bet you are too. Richard Foley gives reasons to think that we need not be at all conciliatory in the face of stranger disagreement, but I’ll explain why his reasons are insufficient. After that, (...) I’ll look at those types of religious disagreement that occur between epistemic peers. Foley has argued for a conciliatory position. I worry that his position leads to what some in the literature have called “spinelessness.” I also worry that his view is self-defeating, and vulnerable to some apparent counterexamples. I’ll end the paper by sketching my own, non-Foleyan, solution to those problems. (shrink)

Le 14 novembre 1868, dans un des procès les plus remarqués du Second Empire, le jeune avocat Léon Gambetta prononce une plaidoirie « sensationnelle » contre le régime. Dans l’auditoire, une jeune femme du demi-monde, Léonie Léon, est tellement impressionnée qu’elle se lance à sa poursuite, sans succès d’ailleurs. Gambetta – bientôt célèbre pour son rôle pendant le siège de Paris, élu député de Belleville en juin 1871, futur président du Conseil – n’accorde un rendez-vous à son admiratrice que...

In this paper, we argue that Richard Foley’s account of rational belief faces an as yet undefeated objection, then try to repair one of Foley’s two failed replies to that objection. In §§I-III, we explain Foley’s accounts of all-things-considered rational belief and responsible belief, along with his replies to two pressing objections to those accounts—what we call the Irrelevance Objection(to Foley’s account of rational belief) and the Insufficiency Objection (to his account of responsible belief). In §IV, (...) we argue that both of Foley’s replies to the Irrelevance Objection fail as currently developed, and raise the question whether either of his replies can be salvaged. In §V, we invoke cases involving religious beliefs (broadly construed) to show that one of Foley’s failed replies to the Irrelevance Objection conflicts with his reply to the Insufficiency Objection; and we provide reason to think Foley should resolve this conflict in the latter’s favor. We conclude in §VI by suggesting a way to repair Foley’s other failed reply to the Irrelevance Objection, yielding an improved overall defense of Foley’s accounts of rational and responsible belief. We look forward to discussing the important question to what extent this improved overall defense succeeds. (shrink)

Descartes’ demon is a crafty little devil. Despite centuries of effort by exceedingly clever thinkers, he continues to elude our clutches. Skepticism endures. The reason, Richard Foley thinks, is not hard to discover. It is simply impossible to break through the Cartesian circle. Our only means of vindicating a claim to knowledge or rational belief is to show that it is produced or sustained by our best epistemic methods, that it satisfies the best standards we can devise for rational (...) belief. That it does so is clearly better than the alternative. But the standards and methods themselves are vulnerable. How do we know that they are reliable? The point, as we all realized in Philosophy 101, is that there is no ironclad guarantee. Even if Descartes had managed to generate an unexceptionable proof that God exists and is not a deceiver, the question would arise: What insures that what we consider an unexceptionable proof actually demonstrates the truth of the conclusion? Raising our standards or improving our methods of proof will not get us out of our predicament. For no matter how high we raise our standards, the question recurs. We cannot prove that our perceptions, memories, inferences or opinions are reliable. The Cartesian circle is the epistemic circle. (shrink)

In his previous books, The Theory of Epistemic Rationality (1987) and Working Without a Net (1993), Richard Foley presented a highly influential account of what it means for one’s beliefs and belief-forming practices to be rational. Developing a positive new account of epistemic rationality, however, has never been Foley’s sole concern. His project is metaepistemological in character as much as it is epistemological. Put crudely, questions such as ‘What makes some beliefs knowledge?’ are of equal importance to (...) class='Hi'>Foley as such questions as ‘How is scepticism possible?’. Indeed, given the way in which philosophical debates tend to be shaped, it may be the more fruitful way of tackling a philosophical problem to start from questions of the latter type and work one’s way backward to the fundamental questions that gave rise to the debate in the first place. Such an approach need not be strictly historical; rather, it will be meta-epistemological in that it probes deeply into the possibility of an epistemological theory, its prospective subject matter as well as its limitations. Given the difficulty of constructing a coherent epistemological theory and defending it against the various objections that are standardly run against such theories, it should often prove more viable to illustrate the general meta-epistemological ‘lessons’ by way of referring to previous epistemological theories and the long-standing debates that surround them. Hence, a metaepistemological approach naturally gives rise to an historically informed outlook. (shrink)

Descartes’ demon is a crafty little devil. Despite centuries of effort by exceedingly clever thinkers, he continues to elude our clutches. Skepticism endures. The reason, Richard Foley thinks, is not hard to discover. It is simply impossible to break through the Cartesian circle. Our only means of vindicating a claim to knowledge or rational belief is to show that it is produced or sustained by our best epistemic methods, that it satisfies the best standards we can devise for rational (...) belief. That it does so is clearly better than the alternative. But the standards and methods themselves are vulnerable. How do we know that they are reliable? The point, as we all realized in Philosophy 101, is that there is no ironclad guarantee. Even if Descartes had managed to generate an unexceptionable proof that God exists and is not a deceiver, the question would arise: What insures that what we consider an unexceptionable proof actually demonstrates the truth of the conclusion? Raising our standards or improving our methods of proof will not get us out of our predicament. For no matter how high we raise our standards, the question recurs. We cannot prove that our perceptions, memories, inferences or opinions are reliable. The Cartesian circle is the epistemic circle. (shrink)

I am grateful to both Richards, Foley and Fumerton, for the time and attention that they have given to my work. I have certainly learned from their excellent comments, just as I expected. Given the constraints, however, I must be selective in my response. First of all, I will aim to present my view of human knowledge in a broader context. Against this background I will then respond to several of the points they have made.

There is a phenomenon which has from of old and in a peculiar degree attracted the attention of social philosophers and practical economists, the fact of certain commodities (these being in advanced civilizations coined pieces of gold and silver, together subsequently with documents representing those coins) becoming universally acceptable media of exchange. It is obvious even to the most ordinary intelligence, that a commodity should be given up by its owner in exchange for another more useful to him. But that (...) every economic unit in a nation should be ready to exchange his goods for little metal disks apparently useless as such, or for documents representing the latter, is a procedure so opposed to the ordinary course of things, that we cannot well wonder if even a distinguished thinker like Savigny finds it downright 'mysterious.' It must not be supposed that the form of coin, or document, employed as current money, constitutes the enigma in this phenomenon. We may look away from these forms and go back to earlier stages of economic development, or indeed to what still obtains in countries here and there, where we find the precious metals in a uncoined state serving as the medium of exchange, and even certain other commodities, cattle, skins, cubes of tea, slabs of salt, cowrie shells, etc.; still we are confronted by this phenomenon, still we have to explain why it is that the economic man is ready to accept a certain kind of commodity, even if he does not need it, or if his need of it is already supplied, in exchange for all the goods he has brought to market, while it is none the less what he needs that he consults in the first instance, with respect to the goods he intends to acquire in the course of his transactions. And hence there runs, from the first essays of reflective contemplation of a social phenomena down to our own times, an uninterrupted chain of disquisitions upon the nature and specific qualities of money in its relation to all that constitutes traffic.. (shrink)