Psychiatry has come up as one of the most dynamic branches of medicine in recent years. There are a lot of controversies regarding concepts, nosology, definitions and treatments in psychiatry, all of which are presently under a strict scanner. Differences are so many that even the meaning of psychiatry varies amongst individual psychiatrists. For us, it is an art to practice psychiatry and give the patient what he needs. Still, it should be practiced with great caution and utmost sincerity towards (...) the patient, based on scientific knowledge and not to be guided by individual conceptions alone. Ethics in psychiatry forms an integral part of its basic concept and meaning, and a tight balance should be maintained between professional advancement and patient benefit. In recent years, the scope of psychiatry has enlarged considerably, with wide ranging influences from Sociology, Anthropology and Philosophy on the one hand, and Neurology and Medicine on the other. (shrink)

To formally understand cyclicity in innovation and to tie to Schumpeter’s idea about waves of creative destruction, we elaborate upon Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) hypothesis that science evolves through a succession of paradigm life cycles by noting that entrepreneurs recognize the profitability of new scientific theories through a delay. The delay from innovation to entrepreneurship may be due to technological inertia, the time taken in recognizing the applications of basic research, or related to how quickly technological change evolves over time and (...) its returns are realized. In our model, a profit-maximizing entrepreneur uses the latest scientific knowledge to create innovative technologies, which generates cycles between science and innovation. The necessary conditions for the existence of cycles are that human capital employed in science creation and high valued innovations is high, and the interest rate is low. The findings also tie to the notion about the variability of innovation over the business cycle and can provide useful inputs into the formulation of more effective technology policies. (shrink)

Visual analogy is believed to be important in human problem solving. Yet, there are few computational models of visual analogy. In this paper, we present a preliminary computational model of visual analogy in problem solving. The model is instantiated in a computer program, called Galatea, which uses a language for representing and transferring visual information called Privlan. We describe how the computational model can account for a small slice of a cognitive-historical analysis of Maxwell’s reasoning about electromagnetism.

According to the Principle of Charity, we ought to interpret each other charitably. That is, we ought to adopt the interpretation that shows the interpreted person in the best light. The Principle of Charity is motivated by appealing to a harm asymmetry: it is worse (the thought goes) to mistakenly criticize someone than to fail to rightfully criticize them. This chapter argues that in oppressive contexts, charity is not enough. First, the Principle of Charity is myopic. Charitable interpretation only considers (...) harm to the person being interpreted and ignores third party harms. Second, under conditions of oppression, our conceptual resources and evidential standards will be systematically biased against marginalized perspectives. So charitable interpretations will overlook harm to marginalized persons. Finally, the chapter give a diagnosis of the Principle of Charity: It misunderstands the interpersonal interpretive aim. The interpersonal interpretive aim is to interpret one another in a way that accurately captures the normative features that are crucial to our interpersonal relationships. What we need is not a Principle of Charity, but an Aim of Justice. The chapter’s conclusion explains what an Aim of Justice would require of us, notably, empathetic engagement and intellectual humility. (shrink)

The central focus of this paper is to motivate and explore the question, when is it permissible to endorse a psychologizing explanation of a sincere interlocutor? I am interested in the moral question of when (if ever) we may permissibly dismiss the sincere reasons given to us by others, and instead endorse an alternative explanation of their beliefs and actions. I argue that there is a significant risk of wronging the other person, and so we should only psychologize when we (...) are in a position to know that they are in bad faith. (shrink)

Earp, Lewis, and Hart make a comprehensive and compelling argument for ending the “war on drugs,” highlighting the importance of both ending the criminalization of people who use drugs, and...

On moral philosophy in Śānti parva portion of Mahābhārata, Hindu classical epic.

Recent work has argued that there may be cases where no attitude – including withholding – is rationally permissible. In this paper, I consider two such epistemic dilemmas, John Turri’s Dilemma from Testimony and David Alexander’s Dilemma from Doubt. Turri presents a case where one’s only evidence rules out withholding (without warranting belief or disbelief). Alexander presents a case where higher order doubt means one must withhold judgment over whether withholding judgment is rational. In both cases, the authors conclude that (...) no doxastic attitude is warranted. In this paper, I argue against the possibility of these epistemic dilemmas. I argue that withholding cannot be irrational in either case. But meditating on the dilemmas gives us an important – and overlooked – insight into the nature of rational withholding. First, rational withholding is a function of evidence failing to sufficiently support belief or disbelief. As a result, withholding is not symmetrical to belief and disbelief. Second, there can be two distinct grounds for rational withholding. First, propositional withholding, which arises when our evidence does not support belief or disbelief in p. And second, doxastic withholding, which arises when we cannot determine whether our evidence supports belief or disbelief in p. Accepting two grounds of rational withholding licenses a kind of Weak Permissivism. But this Weak Permissivism should not be troubling to anyone. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue for a conditional parity thesis: if we are agents with respect to our intentions, we are agents with respect to our beliefs. In the final section, I motivate a categorical version of the parity thesis: we are agents with respect to belief and intention. My aim in this paper is to show that there is no unique challenge facing epistemic agency that is not also facing agency with respect to intention. My thesis is ambitious on (...) two fronts. First, the parity thesis is a substantive thesis about the nature of belief and intention. I argue that there is a structural parity of belief and intention; the status of whether they are agential stands and falls together. Second, the parity thesis illuminates the nature of agency. It constrains what counts as a satisfactory account of agency: either we must accept agency of both belief and intention, or we must reject both. In the final section, I argue that we have prima facie reason to accept agency of belief and intention. Finally, I diagnose why there has been such resistance to epistemic agency. Epistemic agency is problematic, but its problems are problems with agency, not problems with epistemic agency. (shrink)

Sometimes it is practically beneficial to believe what is epistemically unwarranted. Philosophers have taken these cases to raise the question are there practical reasons for belief? Evidentialists argue that there cannot be any such reasons. Putative practical reasons for belief are not reasons for belief, but reasons to manage our beliefs in a particular way. Pragmatists are not convinced. They accept that some reasons for belief are practical. The debate, it is widely thought, is at an impasse. But this debate (...) fails to address what is puzzling and interesting about the cases. By focusing on reasons for belief, the debate completely overlooks the role of action in relation to belief. We should be talking about the reasons for actions that shape our beliefs, which I will call belief management. I argue for three related theses: the interesting cases that motivate the debate are about belief management; Evidentialism is irrelevant to belief management; agents have practical reasons to manage their beliefs with the aim of forming true beliefs. These reasons are categorical in nature and result in the tension of conflict cases. (shrink)

Изложено понимание рассуждения как метода рационального познания, рассмотрены его разновидности: аргументативные, интерпретативные, прогностические, квалификационные и вычислительные. Для аспирантов и соискателей.

What kind of subject is Politics? Is it a science, an art, a religion or a philosophy? Is the study of politics an independent subject—a subject in its own right—or is it simply a branch of some other and, presumably, superior subject? These questions require to be answered because there is obvious uncertainty at the moment about the nature and status of the study of politics. The uncertainty is shown by the fact that Politics goes under different names and is (...) associated with different subjects in different universities. Politics is sometimes called Political Philosophy and sometimes Political Science. Some universities confine the study of politics to History. Others make it a branch of Ethics. The latest tendency is to associate Politics and Economics and regard the economic as the most important of the relations of politics. Among the objections to the independence of Politics, one deserves to be noted. Politics, it is said, is an aspect of a total social situation which it shares with Ethics and Economics. Thus it is a mistake to try to disentangle the political factor and view it in itself. (shrink)

This study elucidates the link and effect of ethical reinforcement in the post‐financial crisis era by taking two congruent directions to demonstrate that ethical reinforcement can be accomplished by either a continuous ethical training or a meticulous code of business ethics—which members of the mutual fund industry claim they adhere to—as both have a positive effect on the funds’ performance, including sizeable gains to investors. Furthermore, evidence divulges that ethical reinforcement moderates the performance of ethical or socially responsible investments (SRI) (...) funds more than nonethical investments, suggesting that a perspective of ethical or SRI classification of a fund alone is not sufficient, but it is necessary to have the institutional ethical environment and/or managers’ continuous ethical training. This result supports the notion of financial market discipline and reveals some factors behind SRI or ethical funds returns, notably during the period following the recent financial crisis. (shrink)