Differences from Other Formal Theories

2012 ◽  
pp. 288-308
Author(s):  
Neil Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Formal Theories

Is Rationality Normative?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Wedgwood
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Rational Belief ◽  
False Beliefs ◽  
Ought Implies Can ◽  
Normative Concept ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Formal Theories

In its original meaning, the word ‘rational’ referred to the faculty of reason—the capacity for reasoning. It is undeniable that the word later came also to express a normative concept—the concept of the proper use of this faculty. Does it express a normative concept when it is used in formal theories of rational belief or rational choice? Reasons are given for concluding that it does express a normative concept in these contexts. But this conclusion seems to imply that we ought always to think rationally. Four objections can be raised. (1) What about cases where thinking rationally has disastrous consequences? (2) What about cases where we have rational false beliefs about what we ought to do? (3) ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’—but is it true that we can always think rationally? (4) Rationality requires nothing more than coherence—but why does coherence matter?

scholarly journals Scoping review assessing the evidence used to support the adoption of mobile health (mHealth) technologies for the education and training of community health workers (CHWs) in low-income and middle-income countries

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e019827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niall Winters ◽  
Laurenz Langer ◽  
Anne Geniets
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
And Training ◽  
Formal Theories

ObjectivesUndertake a systematic scoping review to determine how a research evidence base, in the form of existing systematic reviews in the field of mobile health (mHealth), constitutes education and training for community health workers (CHWs) who use mobile technologies in everyday work. The review was informed by the following research questions: does educational theory inform the design of the education and training component of mHealth interventions? How is education and training with mobile technology by CHWs in low-income and middle-income countries categorised by existing systematic reviews? What is the basis for this categorisation?SettingThe review explored the literature from 2000 to 2017 to investigate how mHealth interventions have been positioned within the available evidence base in relation to their use of formal theories of learning.ResultsThe scoping review found 24 primary studies that were categorised by 16 systematic reviews as supporting CHWs’ education and training using mobile technologies. However, when formal theories of learning from educational research were used to recategorise these 24 primary studies, only four could be coded as such. This identifies a problem with how CHWs’ education and training using mobile technologies is understood and categorised within the existing evidence base. This is because there is no agreed on, theoretically informed understanding of what counts as learning.ConclusionThe claims made by mHealth researchers and practitioners regarding the learning benefits of mobile technology are not based on research results that are underpinned by formal theories of learning. mHealth suffers from a reductionist view of learning that underestimates the complexities of the relationship between pedagogy and technology. This has resulted in miscategorisations of what constitutes CHWs’ education and training within the existing evidence base. This can be overcome by informed collaboration between the health and education communities.

scholarly journals Reliability profile of an information source: The most basic version

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-121
Author(s):  
Adam Nedeljkovic
Keyword(s):  
Information Sources ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interesting Connection ◽  
Explanatory Coherence ◽  
Information Set ◽  
The One ◽  
Basic Version ◽  
Formal Theories

The aim of this paper is an attempt at analyses and reconciliation of some prima facie confronted theories of reliability in the context of formal theories of coherence. Formal coherentists attempted to show that there is an epistemologically interesting connection between coherence of an information set and reliability of information sources. Amongst these authors there are divisions and differences concerning the nature of coherence, as well as the nature of reliability. On the one side, we have before us probabilistic coherentists who support a statistical understanding of reliability. On the other side we have supporters of explanatory coherence who see reliability as a dispostition. There are two goals that we shall attempt to achieve in this paper: to present and explain some ideas of reliability, without going into fine detailes and depths of theories in which they were formulated and to show that those ideas about reliability are not that irreconcilable as they might appear, but that they together can form something that we shall call ?reliability profile of an information source?, ?the most basic version?, or shorter: RPISbasic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document