Revisionism Gone Awry: Since When Hasn't Hume Been a Sceptic?

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-155
Author(s):  
Adam Andreotta ◽  
Michael Levine

In this paper, we argue that revisionary theories about the nature and extent of Hume's scepticism are mistaken. We claim that the source of Hume's pervasive scepticism is his empiricism. As earlier readings of Hume's Treatise claim, Hume was a sceptic – and a radical one. Our position faces one enormous problem. How is it possible to square Hume's claims about normative reasoning with his radical scepticism? Despite the fact that Hume thinks that causal (inductive) reasoning is irrational, he explicitly claims that one can and should make normative claims about beliefs being ‘reasonable’. We show that even though Hume thinks that our causal (inductive) beliefs are rationally unjustified, there is nonetheless a ‘relative’ sense of justification available to Hume and that he relies on this ‘relative’ sense in those places where he makes normative claims about what we ought to believe.

Author(s):  
Wim De Neys ◽  
Niki Verschueren

Abstract. The Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD) is an intriguing example of the discrepancy between people’s intuitions and normative reasoning. This study examines whether the notorious difficulty of the MHD is associated with limitations in working memory resources. Experiment 1 and 2 examined the link between MHD reasoning and working memory capacity. Experiment 3 tested the role of working memory experimentally by burdening the executive resources with a secondary task. Results showed that participants who solved the MHD correctly had a significantly higher working memory capacity than erroneous responders. Correct responding also decreased under secondary task load. Findings indicate that working memory capacity plays a key role in overcoming salient intuitions and selecting the correct switching response during MHD reasoning.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annie Guillemette ◽  
Isabelle Blanchette
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Els de Koning ◽  
Klaas Sijtsma ◽  
Jo H. M. Hamers
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
Nadiia Maksimentseva

Laws and regulations backing and governing public administration in subsoil use and protection in Ukraine is gradually gaining priority and importance given incoming energy security and resource self-sufficiency risks alerts for the State as one of the warrants for political and economic independence and guarantees for the people of Ukraine to enjoy and plenipotentiary implement its propitiatory rights set forth in the Constitution of Ukraine with regard to natural resources and benefits that constitute the genuine wealth of the nation. The article is written with the application of inductive reasoning and performance of various research methods, such as case studies, phenomenological study with some focus on nature and source of laws and administrative functions, grounded theory study; also a deep comparative analysis of domestic and overseas legal patterns is carried out. The article is devoted to the research of problems with regard to public administration in the field of subsoil use and protection in Ukraine. The author emphasizes that determination of public administration in the field of subsoil use and protection is a form of public managerial activities of public administration authorities (state authorities, local self-government bodies, self-governing public organizations with the respective competence). It is suggested that these activities are aimed at implementation of the policies in the field of geological exploration of mineral resources, mineral extraction, construction of underground and terrestrial facilities not related to the extraction of minerals, subsoil and environmental protection and they are based on the principles of interaction between subject and object of public administration, discretion, mutual responsibility, self-governance and decentralization when public services are provided. Also, the article presents many judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights and Citizen, the Supreme Court in the field of public administration in the field of subsoil use and protection. In concluding notes amendments to Subsoil Code of Ukraine, methodology for calculating the initial selling price for the sale of special permit, selection procedures for open special permit tender bid winners and responsibility for subsoil use abandonment costs are suggested by the author.


2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 1148-1155
Author(s):  
Ya-Fei CUI ◽  
Hong LI ◽  
Fu-Hong LI
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-228
Author(s):  
Steffen Mickenautsch

Background: Inductive reasoning relies on an infinite regress without sufficient factual basis and verification is at any time vulnerable to single contrary observation. Thus, appraisal based on inductive verification, as applied in current clinical trial appraisal scales, checklists or grading systems, cannot prove or justify trial validity. Discussion: Trial appraisal based on deductive falsification can identify invalid trials and give evidence for the recommendation to exclude these from clinical decision-making. Such appraisal remains agnostic towards corroborated trials that pass all appraisal criteria. The results of corroborated trials cannot be considered more robust than falsified trials since nothing within a particular set of complied trial criteria can give certainty for trial compliance with any other appraisal criterion in future. A corroborated trial may or may not reflect therapeutic truth and may thus be the basis for clinical guidance, pending results of any future trial re-appraisal. Conclusion: Trial grading following appraisal based on deductive falsification should be binary (0 = Invalid or 1 = Unclear) and single component scores should be multiplied. Appraisal criteria for the judgment of trial characteristics require a clear rationale, quantification of such rationale and empirical evidence concerning the effect of trial characteristics on trial results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document