scholarly journals Some critical and ethical perspectives on the empirical turn of AI interpretability

2022 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 121209
Author(s):  
Jean-Marie John-Mathews
2008 ◽  
pp. 4-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Libman

The last decades witnessed the increasing importance of econometric methods and empirical research in economics. The success of the empirical turn in economics depends on the formats and problems of communication between theory and empirics. The paper considers potential difficulties in communication "from the theory to empirical research" and "from empirical research to theory". It analyzes the role of informal consensus as an instrument facilitating such communication and potential impact of this consensus on the direction of research.


Magnanimity is a virtue that has led many lives. Foregrounded early on by Plato as the philosophical virtue par excellence, it became one of the crown jewels in Aristotle’s account of human excellence and was accorded an equally salient place by other ancient thinkers. One of the most distinctive elements of the ancient tradition to filter into the medieval Islamic and Christian worlds, it sparked important intellectual engagements there and went on to carve deep tracks through several later philosophies that inherited from this tradition. Under changing names, under reworked forms, it continued to breathe in the thought of Descartes and Hume, Kant and Nietzsche, and their successors. Its many lives have been joined by important continuities. Yet they have also been fragmented by discontinuities—discontinuities reflecting larger shifts in ethical perspectives and competing answers to questions about the nature of the good life, the moral nature of human beings, and their relationship to the social and natural world they inhabit. They have also been punctuated by moments of controversy in which the greatness of this vision of human greatness has itself been called into doubt. This volume provides a window to the complex trajectory of a virtue whose glitter has at times been as heady as it has been divisive. By exploring the many lives it has lived, we will be in a better position to decide whether and why this is a virtue we might still want to make central to our own ethical lives.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S218-S219
Author(s):  
C. Alcayaga ◽  
V. Loor-Sánchez ◽  
N. Oyarce-Hormazábal ◽  
M.P. Riveros-Riveros ◽  
K. Reynaldos-Grandón

Bioethics ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
PASCAL BORRY ◽  
PAUL SCHOTSMANS ◽  
KRIS DIERICKX
Keyword(s):  

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 165-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erhard Scholz

Hermann Weyl (1885–1955) was one of the early contributors to the mathematics of general relativity. This article argues that in 1929, for the formulation of a general relativistic framework of the Dirac equation, he both abolished and preserved in modified form the conceptual perspective that he had developed earlier in his “analysis of the problem of space.” The ideas of infinitesimal congruence from the early 1920s were aufgehoben (in all senses of the German word) in the general relativistic framework for the Dirac equation. He preserved the central idea of gauge as a “purely infinitesimal” aspect of (internal) symmetries in a group extension schema. With respect to methodology, however, Weyl gave up his earlier preferences for relatively a-priori arguments and tried to incorporate as much empiricism as he could. This signified a clearly expressed empirical turn for him. Moreover, in this step he emphasized that the mathematical objects used for the representation of matter structures stood at the center of the construction, rather than interaction fields which, in the early 1920s, he had considered as more or less derivable from geometrico-philosophical considerations.


1978 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard S. Adelman

Presented are (1) a brief synthesis of several key conceptual and methodological concerns and some ethical perspectives related to identification of psycho-educational problems and (2) conclusions regarding the current state of the art. The conceptual discussion focuses on differentiating prediction from identification and screening from diagnosis; three models used in developing assessment procedures also are presented. Methodologically, the minimal requirements for satisfactory research are described and current problems are highlighted. Three ethical perspectives are discussed; cost-benefit for the individual, models-motives-goals underlying practices, and cost-benefit for the culture. The current state of the art is seen as not supporting the efficacy of the widespread use of currently available procedures for mass screening. Given this point and the methodological and ethical concerns discussed, it is suggested that policy makers reallocate limited resources away from mass identification and toward health maintenance and other approaches to prevention and early-age intervention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document