Wouter Van Haaften; The Justification of Conceptual Development Claims, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 24, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 51–70, https.

The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is often carried out according to an argumentative strategy. Language users make an effort to present their strategic manoeuvres in a specific way and the analysis of the stylistic choices in actual argumentative discourse is the most important basis for identification and analysis of argumentative strategies. In this article, it is shown what requirements must be satisfied by a systematic stylistic (...) analysis of argumentative discourse, and the results of such an analysis are illustrated by means of a case study. (shrink)

I defend that the development of children may include foundational change, such that stages can be reconstructed representing different views of (the relevant aspect of) reality and involving different forms of judgement in that domain. This implies fundamental stage-relativism. Claims that such stages are better than their forerunners can be justified, if at all, only on stage-bound criteria. This does not preclude the possibility of justibing them, however, except to persons in lower stages. The development produces the possibility of its (...) justijcation. Education cannot, therefore, be conceived as commuunication between equals. Reality is different for children, not simply defective or wrong. (shrink)

Wouter Van Haaften; The Justification of Conceptual Development Claims, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 24, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 51–70, https.

Systematische inleiding in de wijsgerige pedagogiek.

We elaborate on Israel Scheffler's claim that principles of rationality can be rationally evaluated, focusing on foundational development, by which we mean the evolution of principles which are constitutive of our conceptualization of a certain domain of rationality. How can claims that some such principles are better than prior ones, be justified? We argue that Scheffler's metacriterion of overall systematic credibility is insufficient here. Two very different types of rational development are jointly involved, namely, development of general principles that are (...) strictly constitutive of rationality as such, and development of specific principles determinative of our conceptualization of particular domains. For the first type a transcendental argument applies. As to the second, we show how foundational development is itself a condition of the possibility of its justification. In both cases only principles that are typical of the later stage yield the second order criterion in terms of which the evaluative comparison with former stages can be made and defended. In a discussion of problems involved we indicate to what extent Scheffler's idea of rationally justifiable rational development may be realized here, avoiding pitfalls of both foundationalism and relativism. (shrink)

This paper makes a small point concerning the contraposition of relativism and absolutism. Relativism need not be vulnerable to the self‐refutation argument; as for internal consistency both positions can be equally right. They are asymmetric, however, in that according to the absolutist only one of the two positions can be right, whereas from the relativist's viewpoint they can both be right.

I defend that the development of children may include foundational change, such that stages can be reconstructed representing different views of (the relevant aspect of) reality and involving different forms of judgement in that domain. This implies fundamental stage-relativism. Claims that such stages are better than their forerunners can be justified, if at all, only on stage-bound criteria. This does not preclude the possibility of justibing them, however, except to persons in lower stages. The development produces the possibility of its (...) justijcation. Education cannot, therefore, be conceived as commuunication between equals. Reality is different for children, not simply defective or wrong. (shrink)

Philosophy of development is a fascinating area of research at the intersection of philosophy, psychology, and education. This book is unique in that it combines a broad sketch of contemporary developmental theory with detailed discussions of its central issues, in order to construct a general framework for understanding and analyzing theories of individual and collective development in various domains ranging from cognitive and moral development to developments in art. Special attention is also given to the rich relations between conceptual development (...) and education. (shrink)

In ‘The making of argumentation theory’ van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness – the crucial issue in argumentation theory – van Eemeren (...) and van Haaften explain the positions taken by representatives from the approaches discussed and indicate where they differ from the pragma-dialectical approach. It transpires that approaches focusing on dialectical reasonableness are, next to pragma-dialectics, formal dialectics and informal logic; approaches focusing on rhetorical effectiveness are, next to pragma-dialectics, rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, and the informal logician Tindale. When it comes to the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, some interest in it is shown in rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, but only in pragma-dialectics and in Tindale’s work is it a real focus. The main difference between Tindale’s view and the pragma-dialectical view is that in pragma-dialectics the decisive role in deciding about reasonableness is assigned to a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse and in Tindale’s approach this role is assigned to Tindale’s interpretation of the Perelmanian universal audience. (shrink)

There is an increasing call for preventive state interventions in so-called families at risk—that is, interventions before any overt harm has been done by parents to their children or by the children to a third party, in families that are statistically known to be liable to harm children. One of the basic principles of liberal morality, however, is the citizen’s right to be free from state intervention so long as no demonstrable harm has been done. On the other hand, Joel (...) Feinberg interprets the harm principle as a harm prevention principle, so that the risk of harm also might be a reason for interference. The question that needs to be asked, therefore, is whether enforced preventive intervention in the cases where families are judged to be at risk can be justified within the limits of liberalism. (shrink)

There is an increasing call for preventive state interventions in so-called families at risk—that is, interventions before any overt harm has been done by parents to their children or by the children to a third party, in families that are statistically known to be liable to harm children. One of the basic principles of liberal morality, however, is the citizen's right to be free from state intervention so long as no demonstrable harm has been done. On the other hand, Joel (...) Feinberg interprets the harm principle as a harm prevention principle, so that the risk of harm also might be a reason for interference. The question that needs to be asked, therefore, is whether enforced preventive intervention in the cases where families are judged to be at risk can be justified within the limits of liberalism. (shrink)

Within current debates about the future impact of Artificial Intelligence on human society, roughly three different perspectives can be recognised: the technology-centric perspective, claiming that AI will soon outperform humankind in all areas, and that the primary threat for humankind is superintelligence; the human-centric perspective, claiming that humans will always remain superior to AI when it comes to social and societal aspects, and that the main threat of AI is that humankind’s social nature is overlooked in technological designs; and the (...) collective intelligence-centric perspective, claiming that true intelligence lies in the collective of intelligent agents, both human and artificial, and that the main threat for humankind is that technological designs create problems at the collective, systemic level that are hard to oversee and control. The current paper offers the following contributions: a clear description for each of the three perspectives, along with their history and background; an analysis and interpretation of current applications of AI in human society according to each of the three perspectives, thereby disentangling miscommunication in the debate concerning threats of AI; and a new integrated and comprehensive research design framework that addresses all aspects of the above three perspectives, and includes principles that support developers to reflect and anticipate upon potential effects of AI in society. (shrink)

Wouter Van Haaften; The Justification of Conceptual Development Claims, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 24, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 51–70, https.

This paper attempts to formulate specific criteria for measuring competence and progress in philosophy, specifically in children. In detailing these criteria, previous evaluation criteria for philosophical thinking in children are described and three main tendencies of philosophical thinking are identified: those involving analytical and reasoning qualities, those dealing with ambiguities or borderline explorations, and those stressing contact with real life experience. Finally, the authors address problems relating to the recognition of these qualities and catalogue seven groups of indicators that help (...) to identify (or exclude) them. (shrink)

"Philosophy for Children" has preponderantly started from the assumption that there is no fundamental difference between the thinking of adults and the thinking of children: both make use of the same mental operations. Moreover, children seem to be interested in the same basic questions about life and its meaning as adults. So children and adults apparently perform the same activities when they join in philosophical discussions. It is also easily assumed that children are particularly apt to philosophical thinking, because they (...) are inquisitive, unconventional and - contrary to traditional educational opinion - rational, often even more so than adults. (shrink)

This article looks at the evidence for a turbulent episode in the life of the Jewish community at Elephantine. In the months leading up to the destruction of the Yaho temple, the summer of 410 BCE, Jews and Egyptians found themselves at loggerheads in a conflict about a precious stone. The stone had been stolen from the Egyptians and then turned up in the hands of Jewish traders. Six letters from the Elephantine archives document the affair. Their analysis leads to (...) the reconstruction of a crucial period in the relations between Persians, Jews, and Egyptians in the late Achaemenid era. (shrink)

For a period of two years I used the Dutch translation of Kio & Gus in the classroom. I will shortly report on a number of sessions, notably those on sense-knowledge, on substance and on killing animals. I will also relate some of the views of children on what doing philosophy is.Following this report, I will elucidate how the philosophical discussion is a subtle interplay between concrete themes or subjects on the one hand, abstract philosophical questions and notions on the (...) other hand. This interplay makes the course of a discussion unpredictable and every discussion about the same story or subject matter different from the foregoing ones.The variability of the philosophical discussion requires much flexibility and insight from the teacher, who should not force his or her point of view or interest on the discussion, but should at the same time guarantee progress in the discussion. I will lay stress on some of the particular difficulties which teachers meet when they do philosophy in the classroom for the first time and try to formulate some requirements for teacher training. At the same time I will try to indicate which kind of course material could be of maximum help to the teacher. (shrink)

Investigating Subjectivity examines the importance of a phenomenological account of the subject for the nature and the status of phenomenology, for different themes from practical philosophy and in relation to issues from the philosophy of mind.

Patterns of Sin in the Hebrew Bible: Metaphor, Culture, and the Making of a Religious Concept. By Joseph Lam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pp. xix + 308. $74.

The irreversibility effect implies that a decision maker who neglects the prospect of receiving more complete information at later stages of a sequential decision problem will in certain cases too easily take an irreversible decision, as he ignores the existence of a positive option value in favour of reversible decisions. This option value represents the decision maker's flexibility to adapt subsequent decisions to the obtained information. In this paper we show that the economic models dealing with irreversibility as used in (...) environmental and capital investment decision making can be extended to emergency response decisions that produce important irreversible effects. In particular, we concentrate on the decision whether or not to evacuate an industrial area threatened by a possible nuclear accident. We show in a simple two-period evacuation decision model that non-optimal conclusions may be drawn when evacuation is regarded as a `now or never decision'. The robustness of these results is verified by means of a sensitivity analysis of the various model parameters. The importance of `options thinking' in this decision context is illustrated in an example. (shrink)