However, metaphysics itself has presuppositions. In the order of explanation the governing presupposition of intelligible metaphysics is that the world itself is intelligible. By 'intelligible' I mean 'free from contradiction'. By 'the world' I mean the range of things that possess being of any kind, or, in other words, the realm of being. If the presupposition referred to is accepted metaphysics is possible; if not, it is not. The word 'presupposition' must be taken literally. The presupposition in question is, in (...) fact, a presupposition and cannot be proved. It is not possible to prove that the world--the aggregate of things--is intelligible. Any attempted proof is circular. It would, in essence, be obliged to say: the world is noncontradictory for, were it contradictory, this circumstance itself would involve a contradiction. But this is equivalent to the assumption that the contradictory is impossible; which in turn is nothing but the conclusion given as a premise. To say that the contradictory is impossible is simply to say, in other words, that nothing is or can be contradictory, which was the point to be proved. Hence, though the presupposition that the world is intelligible is necessary, it is, nevertheless, a presupposition and cannot be demonstrated. (shrink)

However, metaphysics itself has presuppositions. In the order of explanation the governing presupposition of intelligible metaphysics is that the world itself is intelligible. By 'intelligible' I mean 'free from contradiction'. By 'the world' I mean the range of things that possess being of any kind, or, in other words, the realm of being. If the presupposition referred to is accepted metaphysics is possible; if not, it is not. The word 'presupposition' must be taken literally. The presupposition in question is, in (...) fact, a presupposition and cannot be proved. It is not possible to prove that the world--the aggregate of things--is intelligible. Any attempted proof is circular. It would, in essence, be obliged to say: the world is noncontradictory for, were it contradictory, this circumstance itself would involve a contradiction. But this is equivalent to the assumption that the contradictory is impossible; which in turn is nothing but the conclusion given as a premise. To say that the contradictory is impossible is simply to say, in other words, that nothing is or can be contradictory, which was the point to be proved. Hence, though the presupposition that the world is intelligible is necessary, it is, nevertheless, a presupposition and cannot be demonstrated. (shrink)

PawPrints On Our Souls is dotted with belief facts, supported by quotes by prominent doctors, philosophers, writers, and celebrities, to build a strong case against vivisection, factory farming, and other animal abuses. Pawprints can be read in any order: Each fact and quote is separated by a double-space... So there's lots of white space for easy reading...

Research Ethics Boards (REBs) provide oversight for Canadians that research projects will comply with standards of ethics if the studies are carried out as described in the documents that have been approved. While REBs have traditionally been affiliated with institutions such as universities and hospitals, a number of factors - including the increased volume of research being conducted outside academic centres - have resulted in the establishment of some private or independent REBs. This, in turn, has raised concerns about the (...) credibility of REBs in the private sector and their capacity to handle issues around conflict of interest. This Breakout Session was an opportunity to hear the perspectives of people associated with institutional and private REBs and examine perceived problems with boards in the private sector, scrutinize theoretical and structural differences between types of REBs, and look at whether or not there is room for both institutional and private boards in the Canadian research review landscape. (shrink)

Research Ethics Boards (REBs) provide oversight for Canadians that research projects will comply with standards of ethics if the studies are carried out as described in the documents that have been approved. While REBs have traditionally been affiliated with institutions such as universities and hospitals, a number of factors - including the increased volume of research being conducted outside academic centres - have resulted in the establishment of some private or independent REBs. This, in turn, has raised concerns about the (...) credibility of REBs in the private sector and their capacity to handle issues around conflict of interest. This Breakout Session was an opportunity to hear the perspectives of people associated with institutional and private REBs and examine perceived problems with boards in the private sector, scrutinize theoretical and structural differences between types of REBs, and look at whether or not there is room for both institutional and private boards in the Canadian research review landscape. (shrink)

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants’ locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant’s real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by (...) a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas. (shrink)

There are good reasons for envisioning a global discourse about God, premised necessarily agreed upon perfections considered to be by definition proper to God, and for thinking through the implications of our understanding of God for morality. Philosophically, it makes sense to hold that claims about omnipotence, omniscience, and other superlative perfections are indeed maximal, and define “God” wherever the terminology of divine persons is taken up. Religiously too, it makes sense to assert that a deity possessed of perfections is (...) not just the deity of one’s own tribe or religion, but also the deity of the whole world, whether acknowledged as such or not. This essay delves into the larger set of rich complexities by three moves. First, I look into a single extended historical case of the extension of the discourse about God beyond the Christian West, the discourse on God proffered by Western Jesuit missionaries in India from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries. Second, I place next to that Jesuit learning the instance of a famed Hindu theologian’s discourse on God, God’s perfections, and their moral implications. Third, I briefly step back and assess the dangers and fruitful prospects inherent in thinking about God and morality in an interreligious context. (shrink)