Law and Logic: E. Bulygin’s Deductive Pattern of Judicial Reasoning

In the twentieth century, the debate over the possibilities and limits of logic in law became particularly acute with the emergence of judicial realism, a philosophical and legal trend that denied the deductive nature of judicial decision-making. This compromised the theory of the judicial syllogism, assuming that a judicial decision could be deduced as a logical consequence from the premises - norms and facts, and generally provoked a sceptical attitude towards logic in law. The subject of the article is the deductive model of the justification of judicial decisions proposed by the outstanding legal philosopher Eugenio Bulygin. The aim of the article is to show Bulygin’s contribution to the improvement of the deductive model of judicial reasoning. The main innovations Bulygin brought to the deductive model of judicial reasoning are: 1) justifying, based on logical analysis and open texture of language theory, the analytical character of the court interpretative sentences; 2) distinguishing the individual and the generic subsumptions, etc. At the same time, the authors conclude that Bulygin’s improved deductive theory is not free from criticism, as the Argentine jurist does not succeed in complete eliminating doubts about the logical deducibility of at least some categories of decisions from general rules.

Implementation Barriers: A TASKS Framework

Implementation is ubiquitous. The identification of barriers to implementation is critical for achieving implementation success. This paper introduces and discusses a deductive theory-based framework, TASKS, to guide the identification of implementation barriers. The TASKS framework deals with the relationships between a Task and the task implementer’s Affect, Skills, and Knowledge, based on the inversed U-shaped mental Stress-mental effort relation. The TASKS framework classifies implementation barriers into four categories: 1) emotion barriers, 2) logic barriers, 3) knowledge barriers, and 4) resources barriers. The TASKS framework detects barriers to implementation following three steps, 1) identifying the ideal TASKS components, 2) modelling the implementer’s mental capability, and 3) detecting barriers to implementation. The TASKS framework can be applied to a wide range of disciplines for effective and efficient task implementation.

A Realistic Libertarianism

«Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be —and indeed most liber-tarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular— and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.» [my emphasis, HHH] Murray Rothbard, «Big-Government Libertarians,» in: L. Rockwell, ed., The Irrepressible Rothbard, Auburn, Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000, p. 101 Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory. If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing. Because of such conflicts —and because we are able to com - municate and argue with each other— we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be sense-less. We would simply fight and struggle.

Logical Methods In Construction Calculations: N. M. Gersevanov's Experience

In the article, the author refers to the example of using the methods of formal logic in the field of technical justification of calculations used in the sphere of construction and design of hydraulic structures. An example of the use of logic and mathematical techniques by the outstanding domestic engineer N. M. Gersevanov, when substantiating the stability of the foundations of port facilities and embankments, is given. These methods are reflected in one little-known work of the scientist, included in his collected works. Gersevanov's calculations are offered as an example of one of the first applications of the formalized apparatus of the algebra of logic in construction mechanics. The static conditional calculation of a Russian hydraulic engineer is the first case of a technical application of formal logic - the deductive theory that has existed for centuries in some way apart from the applied knowledge. But this separation was observed until science developed its specialized mathematical language. This language was used by Gersevanov. In the final part of the article, the author identified the motives for referring to the apparatus of mathematical logic. A distinction is made between the concepts of "algebra of logic" and "mathematical logic". The tasks that a scientist could set for himself, involving the formulas of the algebra of logic in construction calculations, are defined, the prospects of applying logic in construction are outlined. Logic can become a tool for making such decisions that will facilitate the structure, make the project more simple when constructing facilities.

Perspectives of a Practitioner-Scientist on Organizational Psychology/Organizational Behavior

In this article I comment on areas where I agree/disagree with the five previous perspectives on organizational psychology/organizational behavior (OP/OB). This is followed by a dire prediction of the future for OP doctoral programs, criticisms of the journal editorial processes and the overemphasis on deductive theory building, the value of qualitative analyses and enumerative reviews, the importance of mentors for advancing one's career, and the strengths and weaknesses of our scholarly societies. The article ends with a call for improving the balance currently in favor of scientists at the expense of practitioners.

Rationalism and Security

In 1969, the game theorist John Harsanyi wrote an article criticizing the two main postulates of the general theory of social behavior prevalent at the time: the functionalist approach to the explanation of social institutions and the conformist approach to the explanation of individual behavior. According to Harsanyi, functionalist and conformist theories overstated the degree of consensus in societies, could not account for change, and described observed behavior without explaining it. Harsanyi proposed an alternative approach provided by theories based on the concept of rational choice (rational behavior, or rational decision-making). His goal was to develop a hypothetico-deductive theory explaining (and possibly predicting) a large number of empirical facts from a few relatively simple theoretical assumptions or axioms. Among students of international politics, Harsanyi’s approach sparked a controversy about rationalism. However, some critics of rationalism do not distinguish clearly between the interest-based theories Harsanyi criticized and the rational choice methods he advocated, and some even confuse both with neoclassical economics. In order to understand the issues raised in the controversy about rationalism, it is helpful to look at interest-based theories of politics and their relation to neoclassical economics. Game theory has provided a useful framework for the intellectual agenda outlined by Harsanyi, especially in the area of international security.

Empirical Evidence for Empirical International Relations Theorizing: Tests of Epistemological Assumptions With Data

Balancing theory with evidence, in which we form and adjust our theories at least in part based on their performance, might seem to be a part of any social scientific enterprise. However, there are powerful epistemological tendencies, particularly in the field of international relations (IR), which lead many researchers in other directions. One is somewhat unique to IR—the role played historically by paradigms in the field. At their worst, paradigms put theory before evidence. They offer a set of core assumptions about the nature of international politics and lead their adherents to cherry pick evidence to support them. The other we find in many other social sciences besides political science and international relations—a commitment to deductive theorizing, particularly by practitioners of rational choice. Based on an instrumentalist epistemological position, deductive theory derives hypotheses from a set of assumptions that remain untested, and aims at uncovering general patterns of human behavior that are as generalizable as possible. This type of research, which rests on an instrumentalist epistemological approach, finds itself unable to follow the evidence because it is uninterested in testing its own assumptions with empirical data. When these assumptions prove faulty, it generates bad theory because its foundation is rotten. International relations theorists have squabbled for decades over basic epistemological positions, with each side favoring a particular school in the philosophy of science that justifies their preferred approach to research. As Monteiro and Ruby have nicely argued in 2009, these disagreements cannot be resolved through argument, as each epistemological approach rests on its own set of assumptions that cannot be tested. While they are correct to argue that IR pick and choose their epistemology based on the kind of research they like to do, the viability of epistemological choices is to some degree subject to empirical testing.

Perioperative thirst: an analysis from the perspective of the Symptom Management Theory

A theoretical study aimed to analyze the existing knowledge in the literature on the perioperative thirst symptom from the perspective of Symptom Management Theory, and supplemented with the experience of the study group and thirst research. Thirst is described as a very intense symptom occurring in the perioperative period, and for this reason it cannot be ignored. The Symptom Management Theory is adequate for understanding the thirst symptom and is a deductive theory, focused on the domains of the Person, Environment and Health / Illness Status, as well as on the dimensions of Experience, Management Strategies and Symptom Outcomes. Using the theory leads us to consider perioperative thirst in its multifactorial aspects, analyzing the interrelation of its domains and dimensions in order to draw attention to this symptom that has been insufficiently valued, recorded and treated in clinical practice.