We provide a 'verisimilitudinarian' analysis of the well-known Linda paradox or conjunction fallacy, i.e., the fact that most people judge the probability of the conjunctive statement "Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement" (B & F) as more probable than the isolated statement "Linda is a bank teller" (B), contrary to an uncontroversial principle of probability theory. The basic idea is that experimental participants may judge B & F a better hypothesis about Linda as compared (...) to B because they evaluate B & F as more verisimilar than B. In fact, the hypothesis "feminist bank teller", while less likely to be true than "bank teller", may well be a better approximation to the truth about Linda. (shrink)

The so-called Preface Paradox seems to show that one can rationally believe two logically incompatible propositions. We address this puzzle, relying on the notions of truthlikeness and approximate truth as studied within the post-Popperian research programme on verisimilitude. In particular, we show that adequately combining probability, approximate truth, and truthlikeness leads to an explanation of how rational belief is possible in the face of the Preface Paradox. We argue that our account is superior to other solutions of the paradox, including (...) a recent one advanced by Hannes Leitgeb (Analysis 74.1). (shrink)

The Preface Paradox apparently shows that it is sometimes rational to believe logically incompatible propositions. In this paper, I propose a way out of the paradox based on the ideas of fallibilism and verisimilitude. More precisely, I defend the view that a rational inquirer can fallibly believe or accept a proposition which is false, or likely false, but verisimilar; and I argue that this view makes the Preface Paradox disappear. Some possible objections to my proposal, and an alternative view of (...) fallible belief, are briefly discussed in the final part of the paper. (shrink)

Archai 30 introduces a new editorial phase for Archai Journal. Learne more...

O presente artigo tem como objetivo analisar a cooperação militar entre Brasil e Suriname. Nas últimas décadas a América do Sul tornou-se plataforma estratégica de inserção internacional, modernização da defesa nacional e amadurecimento das relações regionais nos temas de segurança e defesa. Nosso recorte temporal é entre o ano de 1975, ano de independência do Suriname e de inicio de suas relações diplomáticas com o Brasil, até o ano de 2014, final do primeiro mandato da presidente Dilma Rousseff. A metodologia (...) consistiu em análise bibliográfica, levantamento e análise dos acordos de cooperação militar entre o Brasil e Suriname, análise documental e de declarações oficiais, discursos e posicionamentos dos atores sociais e políticos da região sobrea cooperação militar. Nossa análise demonstra que mesmo o Suriname apresentando uma baixa interação diplomática com o Brasil, o país ocupa posição de destaque na cooperação militar. (shrink)

La distinción propuesta por Ernst Mayr y François Jacob entre biología funcionaly biología evolutiva es una clave fundamental para un tratamiento claro y concluyente de dos problemas que, recurrentemente, se colocan en el ámbito de la Filosofía de la Biología: aquel que atañe al posible carácter teleológico de las explicaciones biológicas y aquel relativo a la autonomía de la Biología en relación a la Física y a la Química. Sin sostener una alternativa de solución para ninguno de estos problemas, presentamos (...) esa oposición mostrando su relevancia para el tratamiento de tales cuestiones. Nuestra idea es que las mismas no deberían plantearse sin especificar a cual de los dos dominios de la ciencias de la vida nos estamos refiriendo.Mayr’s and Jacob’s distinction between functional biology and evolutionary biology is a fundamental key for a clearer and more conclusive treatment of two problems that, currently, are discussed in Philosophy of Biology: that which matter to the teleological character of biological explanations and that which matter to the autonomy of Biology from Physic and Chemistry. Without hold any alternative solution for none of these problems, we present that opposition showing its relevance for the treatment of both questions. Our idea is that these problems shouldn’t be posed without a specification of the domain of Biology that is being considered. (shrink)

Introduzione di Pietro Rossi - Bobbio e il diritto di Gustavo Zagrebelsky - Bobbio e la politica di Massimo L. Salvadori - La teoria generale del diritto di Riccardo Guastini - La teoria generale della politica. Per la ricostruzione del "modello bobbiano" di Michelangelo Bovero - Realismo politico e dottrina dello Stato di Pier Paolo Portinaro - Le relazioni tra gli Stati di Luigi Bonanate - Gli autori - Indice dei nomi.

In a recent paper in this journal, entitled ‘Scientific Progress: Why Getting Closer to Truth is Not Enough’ (2017), Moti Mizrahi argues that the view of progress as approximation to the truth or increasing verisimilitude is plainly false. The key premise of his argument is that on such a view of progress, in order to get closer to the truth one only needs to arbitrarily add a true disjunct to a hypothesis or theory. Since quite clearly scientific progress is not (...) a matter of adding true disjuncts to theories, the argument goes, the view of progress as approximation to the truth is untenable. We show that the key premise of Mizrahi’s argument is false: according to verisimilitude-based accounts of progress, adding arbitrary true disjuncts to existing theories is just not enough to get closer to the truth. (shrink)

Dung’s argumentation frameworks have been applied for over twenty years to the analysis of argument justification. This representation focuses on arguments and the attacks among them, abstracting away from other features like the internal structure of arguments, the nature of utterers, the specifics of the attack relation, etc. The model is highly attractive because it reduces most of the complexities involved in argumentation processes. It can be applied to different settings, like the argument evaluation of an individual agent or the (...) case of dialectic disputes between two agents (pro and con), or even in multi-agent collective argumentation. The latter case involves agents with possibly different arguments and/or opinions on how to evaluate them, leading to the possibility of considering multiple sets of arguments and attack relations. Two basic questions can be asked here, namely ‘what to aggregate’ and ‘how to aggregate’. The former concerns what kinds of entities do the agents intend to choose (arguments, attacks, assessments, etc.), while the second one focuses on which aggregation mechanisms yield rational choices (voting on arguments, merging procedures to obtain a common argumentation framework, deliberation processes, etc.). In particular, the question about the rationality of a collective argument choice relates this topic to Social Choice and Judgment Aggregation theories, while its associated strategic issues relate it to Game Theory. The research efforts on the disparate problems elicited by collective argumentation have generated a considerable corpus of literature that deserves an orderly evaluation. This survey is intended as a contribution to that end. (shrink)

In a recent paper entitled “Truth does not explain predictive success” , Carsten Held argues that the so-called “No-Miracles Argument” for scientific realism is easily refuted when the consequences of the underdetermination of theories by the evidence are taken into account. We contend that the No-Miracles Argument, when it is deployed within the context of sophisticated versions of realism, based on the notion of truthlikeness , survives Held’s criticism unscathed.

The Oxford Handbook of Parenting and Moral Development provides a collection of state-of-the-art theories and research on the role that parents play in moral development. Contributors who are leaders in their fields take a comprehensive, yet nuanced approach to considering the complex links between parenting and moral development.

Este artigo debate a crítica elaborada por Edgard Morin sobre o Discurso do Método de René Descartes e suas consequências, que se estendem desde a modernidade, até os dias atuais, o texto vislumbra ainda novas possibilidades para uma epistemologia contemporânea com o matiz da complexidade.

We examine the relationship between scientific knowledge and the legal system with a focus on the exclusion of expert testimony from trial as ruled by the Daubert standard in the US.We introduce a simple framework to understand and assess the role of judges as “gatekeepers”, monitoring the admission of science in the courtroom. We show how judges face a crucial choice, namely, whether to limit Daubert assessment to the abstract reliability of the methods used by the expert witness or also (...) to check whether the application of those methods was correct. Undesirable outcomes result from both choices, thereby giving rise to the “gatekeeper’s dilemma.” We illustrate the dilemma by analyzing in some detail two well-known cases of Daubert challenges to economic experts. Finally, we present reasons for the absence of straightforward solutions to the dilemma and for its likely endurance. (shrink)

In _Sociocybernetics and Political Theory in a Complex World_, Roberto Mancilla offers new takes on known ideas of political and constitutional theory; the advent of information technology and globalization puts them in crisis, as many stem from centuries past.

The distinction between evolutionary and functional biology is a fundamental clue to a conclusive approach of one of the most controversial issues in the philosophy of biology: the possibility of reducing biology to physics and chemistry. The questions that defines the cognitive targets of functio..

La presencia del orden se nos impone con singular insistencia. La reflexión sobre el orden, las posibilidades de su emergencia y las condiciones de su articulación y de su crítica, al igual que de su transgresión o transformación, ha constituido un eje central en el pensamiento filosófico y social continental a lo largo del siglo XX. Los trabajos que aparecen en este libro proceden de pensadores provenientes de Alemania, Francia y México y se proponen contribuir a una reflexión amplia, sistemática (...) y a la vez interdisciplinaria sobre este problema a la vez inquietante e inescapable. (shrink)

We reported a series of experiments carried out to confront the underlying intuitions of value-based argumentation frameworks (VAFs) with the intuitions of ordinary people. Our goal was twofold. On the one hand, we intended to test VAF as a descriptive theory of human argument evaluations. On the other, we aimed to gain new insights from empirical data that could serve to improve VAF as a normative model. The experiments showed that people’s acceptance of arguments deviates from VAF’s semantics and is (...) rather correlated with the importance given to the promoted values, independently of the perceptions of argument interactions through attacks and defeats. Furthermore, arguments were often perceived as promoting more than one value with different relative strengths. Individuals’ analyses of scenarios were also affected by external factors such as biases and arguments not explicit in the framework. Finally, we confirmed that objective acceptance, that is, the acceptance of arguments under any order of the values, was not a frequent behavior. Instead, participants tended to accept only the arguments that promoted the values they subscribe. (shrink)