Morgenbesser’s Coin

Before a fair, indeterministic coin is tossed, Lucky, who is causally isolated from the coin-tossing mechanism, declines to bet on heads. The coin lands heads. The consensus is that the following counterfactual is true:(M:) If Lucky had bet heads, he would have won the bet.It is also widely believed that to rule (M) true, any plausible semantics for counterfactuals must invoke causal independence. But if that’s so, the hope of giving a reductive analysis of causation in terms of counterfactuals is undermined. Here I argue that there is compelling reason to question the assumption that (M) is true.

24. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is used where a purported defence can be shown to have no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial. The procedure for entering summary judgment is not limited to use by claimants against defendants. Defendants may apply for summary judgment to attack weak claims brought by claimants. This chapter discusses time for applying for summary judgment; defendant’s application for summary judgment; excluded proceedings; orders available; amendment at hearing; other compelling reasons for a trial; directions on summary judgment hearing; and specific performance, rescission, and forfeiture in property cases.

Hypocrisy and Moral Justification: Do Consequences and Reasons Make a Difference?

In this experiment, we examined if an act of hypocrisy would be judged as more morally justified if it (a) led to a lenient consequence versus a harsh consequence for another person and (b) was done for an other-focused versus self-focused reason. The experiment was implemented via an online study that used a 3 x 3 between-groups factorial design that manipulated the consequences of, and reasons for, an act of hypocrisy. We found that hypocrisy that led to a harsh consequence for another person was viewed as less morally justified than the same harsh act that occurred in the absence of hypocrisy, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.56, or when hypocrisy led to a lenient consequence for another person, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = -.87. The reason given for the hypocritical act did not impact perceptions of moral justification, p = .67, η2 < .01, nor was there an interaction between consequences and reason, p = .49, η2 = .03. These results support the hypothesis that hypocrisy was judged negatively because it led to harsh consequences for others; however, our research leaves open the question of whether hypocrisy can be explained away with a compelling reason or not.

The Interplay between Theory and Practice in HRD

While few would argue that a tension exists between HRD theoreticians and practitioners, few models explain why such tension exists. Leveraging Gosney's Model of Modern Era Theory & Practice Generation in HRD (Gosney, 2014; Gosney & Hughes, 2015), a careful evaluation of current HRD context and informing philosophy reveals compelling reason for the theory-practice gap. In reviewing both the current historical context, capitalism, and the predominant informing philosophy, pragmatism, both theoreticians and practitioners are better equipped to understand and ameliorate the divide. The chapter concludes with specific recommendations to the discipline, including a more robust exploration by theoreticians of pragmatism as an informing philosophy in HRD and the adoption of critical thinking as a core competency in practitioners.

24. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is used where a purported defence can be shown to have no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial. The procedure for entering summary judgment is not limited to use by claimants against defendants. Defendants may apply for summary judgment to attack weak claims brought by claimants. This chapter discusses time for applying for summary judgment; defendant’s application for summary judgment; excluded proceedings; orders available; amendment at hearing; other compelling reasons for a trial; directions on summary judgment hearing; and specific performance, rescission, and forfeiture in property cases.

Is Josephus Among The Qumranites? Unraveling A Textual Conundrum In 1 Samuel 10:27b

Although Josephus’s biblical works typically reflect a dependence on the LXX, his text of Samuel presents a curious case to Hebrew Bible textual critics. One conundrum is found in 1Sam 10:27b, which includes material not found in the LXX or the MT. The presence of the same plus in 4QSama complicates the textual discussion. Some scholars take its presence in Josephus and 4QSama as evidence that the plus was omitted accidentally by the LXX and MT. While I broadly agree with their conclusions, this paper complicates their arguments and provides a more compelling reason for the omission of this material in the LXX and MT. The paper concludes by recognizing the value that the biblical text preserved in Josephus’s works brings to Hebrew Bible textual criticism.

Validation of the Interpretative Narrations of the Alternative Tribe (verse 54 sura Ma'edah) with Emphasis on Fakhr-Razi's Perspective

One of the most challenging verses of the Quran is the verse 54 of Sura Ma’edah. This verse is about coming of an alternative nation of apostates. Fakhr-Razi, introducing Abu Bakr as the only example of the verse, considers this verse to be the most compelling reason to prove his righteousness and tries to consolidate his view by other narrations. This descriptive-analytic study, focusing on the Fakhr-Razi’s view, first presents the five general views and arguments of each group regarding alternative tribe, then by validating documents of the traditions based on ‘Ammeh ( Sunni ) sources, proves that their narrational reasons are not authentic. Eventually, it will be proved that the first instance of the verse is Imam Ali (as) and his true companions, and the final example of the verse is Imam Zaman (AS) – may God hasten his reappearance- and his companions.

Substances, Agents and Processes

This paper defends a substance-based metaphysics for organisms against three arguments for thinking that we should replace a substantial understanding of living things with a processual one, which are offered by Dan Nicholson and John Dupré in their edited collection, Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Dupré and Nicholson consider three main empirical motivations for the adoption of a process ontology in biology. These motivations are alleged to stem from facts concerning (i) metabolism; (ii) the life cycles of organisms; and (iii) ecological interdependence. The paper discusses each of the three arguments in turn and concludes that none gives us any compelling reason to abandon the metaphysics of things. At best, they are arguments against a kind of caricature substance metaphysics that ought never to have been in the running in any case. Then, at the end of the paper, it is suggested that there may be more positive arguments for insisting on retaining things in our metaphysics, arguments which, perhaps ironically (given the opposed standpoint of Everything Flows) get their main impetus from the phenomenon of life.

Did Alexander Fleming Deserve the Nobel Prize?

Penicillin is a serendipitous discovery par excellence. But, what does this say about Alexander Fleming’s praiseworthiness? Clearly, Fleming would not have received the Nobel Prize, had not a mould accidently entered his laboratory. This seems paradoxical, since it was beyond his control. The present article will first discuss Fleming’s discovery of Penicillin as an example of moral luck in science and technology and critically assess some common responses to this problem. Second, the Control Principle that says that people are not responsible for things beyond their control will be defended. An implication of this principle is that Alexander Fleming’s desert, which is based on his epistemic skills, remains untouched by luck. Third, by distinguishing different notions of praiseworthiness, a way to resolve the paradox of moral luck will be elaborated. Desert provides only a pro tanto reason to determine whether someone is an appropriate addressee of reward. Here, luck can make a difference. Forth, it will be argued that stimulating the quest for socially beneficial science provides a compelling reason to treat scientists with equal desert differently. Penicillin provides striking evidence for the importance of this quest and showcasing it incentivizes the making of socially beneficial science. Ultimately, it will be justified why Fleming deserved the Nobel Prize in at least one sense of the concept.