Background As more people are living longer, they become frail and are affected by multi-morbidity, resulting in increased demands from the ambulance service. Being vulnerable, older patients may have reduced decision-making capacity, despite still wanting to be involved in decision-making about their care. Their needs may be complex and difficult to assess, and do not always correspond with ambulance assessment protocols. When needing an ambulance, older patients encounter ambulance clinicians who are under high workloads and primarily consider themselves as emergency (...) medical care providers. This situates them in the struggle between differing expectations, and ethical conflicts may arise. To resolve these, providing ethical care, focussing on interpersonal relationships and using ethical competence is needed. However, it is not known whether ambulance clinicians possess the ethical competence required to provide ethical care. Thus, the aim of this study was to deductively explore their ethical competence when caring for older patients with reduced decision-making ability. Methods A qualitative deductive and exploratory design was used to analyse dyadic interviews with ambulance clinicians. A literature review, defining ethical competence as comprising ethical sensitivity, ethical knowledge, ethical reflection, ethical decision-making, ethical action and ethical behaviour, was used as a structured categorization matrix for the analysis. Results Ambulance clinicians possess ethical competence in terms of their ethical knowledge, highlighting the need for establishing an interpersonal relationship with the older patients. To establish this, they use ethical sensitivity to interpret the patients’ needs. Doing this, they are aware of their ethical behaviour, signifying how they must act respectfully and provide the necessary time for listening and interacting. Conclusions Ambulance clinicians fail to see their gut feeling as a professional ethical competence, which might hinder them from reacting to unethical ways of working. Further, they lack ethical reflection regarding the benefits and disadvantages of paternalism, which reduces their ability to perform ethical decision-making. Moreover, their ethical knowledge is hampered by an ageist approach to older patients, which also has consequences for their ethical action. Finally, ambulance clinicians show deficiencies regarding their ethical reflections, as they reflect merely on their own actions, rather than on their values. (shrink)

This paper defends the view that the classification of an argument as being deductive ought to rest exclusively upon psychological considerations; specifically, upon whether the argument's author holds certain beliefs. This account is justified on theoretical and pedagogical grounds, and situated within a general taxonomy of competing proposals. Epistemological difficulties involved in the application of psychological definitions are recognized but claimed to be ineliminable from the praetice of argumentation. The paper concludes by discussing embryonic arguments where the author's relevant beliefs (...) are not sufficiently fine-grained so as to accord the argument deductive or inductive status. (shrink)

How do people make deductions? The orthodox view in psychology is that they use formal rules of inference like those of a “natural deduction” system.Deductionargues that their logical competence depends, not on formal rules, but on mental models. They construct models of the situation described by the premises, using their linguistic knowledge and their general knowledge. They try to formulate a conclusion based on these models that maintains semantic information, that expresses it parsimoniously, and that makes explicit something not (...) directly stated by any premise. They then test the validity of the conclusion by searching for alternative models that might refute the conclusion. The theory also resolves long-standing puzzles about reasoning, including how nonmonotonic reasoning occurs in daily life. The book reports experiments on all the main domains of deduction, including inferences based on prepositional connectives such as “if” and “or,” inferences based on relations such as “in the same place as,” inferences based on quantifiers such as “none,” “any,” and “only,” and metalogical inferences based on assertions about the true and the false. Where the two theories make opposite predictions, the results confirm the model theory and run counter to the formal rule theories. Without exception, all of the experiments corroborate the two main predictions of the model theory: inferences requiring only one model are easier than those requiring multiple models, and erroneous conclusions are usually the result of constructing only one of the possible models of the premises. (shrink)

A number of single- and dual-process theories provide competing explanations as to how reasoners evaluate conditional arguments. Some of these theories are typically linked to different instructions—namely deductive and inductive instructions. To assess whether responses under both instructions can be explained by a single process, or if they reflect two modes of conditional reasoning, we re-analysed four experiments that used both deductive and inductive instructions for conditional inference tasks. Our re-analysis provided evidence consistent with a single process. In two new (...) experiments we established a double dissociation of deductive and inductive instructions when validity and plausibility of conditional problems were pitted against each other. This indicates that at least two processes contribute to conditional reasoning. We conclude that single-process theories of conditional reasoning cannot explain the observed results. Theories that postulate at least two processes are needed to account for our findings. (shrink)

_Deductive Irrationality_ examines and critiques economic rationalism from the perspective of political philosophy. The essays in this collection analyze not only the work of founders of the discipline of economics, but also political philosophers influential in this founding and select contributors of seminal theories in modern economic thought—namely, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, Gunnar Myrdal, Robert E. Lucas Jr., and John F. Muth. The main theme linking all of the essays together is (...) that economics is a product of modern rationalism and shares with that rationalism the belief that the only real knowledge is scientific knowledge. Derived from a scientific method modeled on mathematics, this method gives both modern political science and modern economics their abstract character. Adam Smith's contribution to Western thought was more than mere economics; his innovations and his variance from previous thinkers follows Machiavelli in finding human nature in the realistic conception of examining men as how they are, rather than the classical view that we should look to the idea of man's formal excellence. To Smith, humanity emerges from a desire for self-preservation, where every worker competes to exchange the fruits of their labor with that of others. The result is a gap between the world of "common sense" and the world of theory that practitioners in both fields no longer truly understand. By adopting the perspective of political philosophy, the contributors take an approach that is alien to most economists, and in doing so address many of the currents and tensions that underlie modern economic theory and, by implication, the rational choice theory in political science. (shrink)

Background: Ethics play an important role in activating the manpower and achieving the organizational goals. The nurse leaders’ ethical behavior can promote the care quality by affecting the nurses’ performance and bringing up several positive consequences for the organization. Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify and describe the ethical competency of nurse leaders in cultural domains and the working conditions of the Iranian healthcare setting to arrive at a more comprehensive and specific perspective. Methods: This was a (...) qualitative conventional content analysis study conducted with the participation of 14 nurse leaders at various levels. The participants were selected using the purposive sampling method, and the required data were collected using deep interview and also semi-structured interview. A deductive method of content analysis was applied in data analysis. Ethical considerations: This study was conducted in accord with the principles of research ethics and national rules and regulations relating to informed consent and confidentiality. Findings: Data analysis resulted in 17 subcategories that were subsequently grouped into three major categories including empathetic interactions, ethical behavior, and exalted manners. Discussion: Our findings are consistent with previous ones, yet presenting a more complete knowledge about aspects of ethical competency of nurse leaders. The nurse leaders can provide a proper behavioral model for the work environment through the use of new information. Conclusion: The nurse leaders introduced various aspects of ethical competency, so the leaders’ ethical competency could be promoted via planning and managing some ethical development programs. More future research is needed regarding the experiences of the subordinates and other related parties. (shrink)

Originally published in 1982, this was an extensive and up-to-date review of research into the psychology of deductive reasoning, Jonathan Evans presents an alternative theoretical framework to the rationalist approach which had dominated much of the published work in this field at the time. The review falls into three sections. The first is concerned with elementary reasoning tasks, in which response latency is the prime measure of interest. The second and third sections are concerned with syllogistic and propositional reasoning respectively, (...) in which interest has focused on the explanation of frequently observed logical errors. In an extended discussion it is argued that reasoning processes are content specific, and give little indication of the operation of any underlying system of logical competence. Finally, a dual process theory of reasoning, with broad implications and connections with other fields of psychology, is elaborated and assessed in the light of recent evidence. (shrink)

Background: Nurses are expected to provide comprehensive, holistic and ethically accepted care according to their code of ethics and practice. However, in Malawi, this is not always the case. This article analyses moral competence concept using the Walker and Avant's strategy of concept analysis. Objective: The aim of this article is to analyse moral competence concept in relation to nursing practice and determine defining attributes, antecedents and consequences of moral competence in nursing practice. Method: Analysis of moral competence concept was (...) done using Walker and Avant's strategy of concept analysis. Results: Deductive analysis was used to find the defining attributes of moral competence, which were kindness, compassion, caring, critical thinking, ethical decision making ability, problem solving, responsibility, discipline, accountability, communication, solidarity, honesty, and respect for human values, dignity and rights. The identified antecedents were personal, cultural and religious values; nursing ethics training, environment and guidance. The consequences of moral competence are team work spirit, effective communication, improved performance and positive attitudes in providing nursing care. Conclusion: Moral competence can therefore be used as a tool to improve care in nursing practice to meet patients' problems and needs and consequently increase public's satisfaction in Malawi. (shrink)

This is a discussion of L. Jonathan Cohen’s argument against the possibility that empirical psychological research might show that lay deductive competence is inconsistent. I argue that, within the framework Cohen provides, the consistency of lay deductive practice is indeterminate.

Preface and Lottery paradoxes have shown that competently deducing a novel conclusion from multiple justified premises does not necessarily result in a justified belief. However, those paradoxes do not arise if only a single premise is used. Yet, in recent years, justification closure for single premise deduction has also been challenged. Schechter has presented a case that, according to him, thwarts any attempt to formulate a general principle that links competent single premise deduction to justification. This paper (...) develops a justification closure principle for single premise deduction that accommodates Schechter’s case, thus showing that his pessimism regarding the possibility of such principles is mistaken. I also argue that an alternative reply to Schechter’s case fails and that safeguarding justification closure constitutes progress for establishing knowledge closure for single premise deduction. (shrink)

Summary Between 1911 and 1914, Owen Richardson formulated a theory of photoelectricity based on thermodynamics and statistical reasoning. Although this theory succeeded in accounting for most of the relevant phenomena and despite the lack of competing causal or descriptive accounts of the phenomena, it failed to attract other physicists. This paper seeks the reasons for the neglect of this theory in contemporary cultures of photoelectric research. Four main causes of neglect are identified: the relatively high number and the nature of (...) the theory's assumptions, the contradiction of one of these assumptions with contemporary views, the failure to suggest new predictions or to account for hitherto unexplained regularities, and the view shared by many scientists that the problem of electromagnetic radiation required a radical solution that a descriptive theory could not provide. The expectation for a radical solution defines the revolutionary character of a research field. In the case of photoelectricity, it originated in a web of evidence to which other fields contributed. The very possibility of Richardson's theory shows that, taken separately, this phenomenon could receive an account which, unlike Einstein's light quantum, did not require deep changes in the conception of nature. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question of which normative standards apply in the psychology of reasoning. In a first strand, the present paper contributes to a debate concerning whether the New Paradigm in the psychology of reasoning really constitutes a paradigm shift by presenting an argument concerning the deductive competence presupposed by ideal Bayesian agents. On the construal of the New Paradigm as the replacement of deductive logic by probability theory, no such shift was possible: the standard probabilistic frameworks used in (...) the psychology of reasoning were never independent of logical principles to begin with. It is possible, however, to replace the treatment of a fragment of natural language (e.g., conditionals, quantifiers) in classical logic with probabilistic alternatives, as the paper discusses. Thus construed, the probabilistic turn was a major step forward in the psychology of reasoning but one that is better pruned of some of the misleading characterizations that surround it. When multiple norms apply to experimental tasks, a further practical problem presents itself: how should researchers arbitrate between them? In a second strand, an experimental research program is outlined which confronts this problem of arbitrating between competing rationality norms by presenting a way of making rationality assessments of participants based on verbal arguments. In this part, a recent attempt by Dewey (2022) to dissolve problems of arbitration in psychology is critically discussed. (shrink)

El artículo tiene como objetivo describir las competencias informacionales a desarrollar durante la formación profesional. Se presenta los referentes teóricos a partir del empleo de un enfoque de sistema que supone el análisis y la síntesis, la inducción y la deducción como métodos de investigación, con el propósito de dar conocer los hitos en las universidades y organizaciones internacionales relacionadas. La modelación fue empleada para la construcción de un nuevo proyecto de desarrollo de competencias informacionales desde la perspectiva de la (...) formación profesional universitaria ajustada a las necesidades de la educación superior en Cuba. El nuevo proyecto se configura en tres unidades básicas, con sus respectivos elementos de competencia, saberes esenciales e indicadores para la evaluación del desempeño. El artículo fundamenta la tesis de que el desarrollo de competencias informacionales debe ser sistemáticamente estructurado, planificado y ejecutado como parte integral de la formación curricular en interacción con los contenidos de las disciplinas docentes, bajo la dirección del profesor y la participación protagónica de los profesionales en formación. The article aims at describing the competence to be developed during professional training. It presents the theoretical referents by means of an approach system that includes synthesis and analysis, induction and deduction as research methods in order to reveal the milestones of information skills development in universities and related international organizations. Modeling was used for the construction of a new skills development project from the perspective of university professional training according to the needs of Higher Education in Cuba. The new project is composed of three basic units, with their respective competence elements, essential knowledge and indicators for the evaluation of the performance. The article supports the theory that information development skills must be systematically structured, planned and implemented as an integral part of the curricular training in interaction with the contents of subjects, under the teacher´s guidance and the active participation of profesionals in training. (shrink)

It seems beyond doubt that a thinker can come to know a conclusion by deducing it from premisses that he knows already, but philosophers have found it puzzling how a thinker could acquire knowledge in this way. Assuming a broadly externalist conception of knowledge, I explain why judgements competently deduced from known premisses are themselves knowledgeable. Assuming an exclusionary conception of judgeable content, I further explain how such judgements can be informative. (According to the exclusionary conception, which I develop from (...) some remarks in Ramsey, a judgement's content is given by the hitherto live possibilities that it excludes or rules out.) I propose that the value of logic lies in its allowing us to combine different sources of knowledge, so that we can learn things that we could not learn from those sources individually. I conclude by arguing that while single-conclusion logics possess that value, multiple-conclusion logics do not. (shrink)

Closure for justification is the claim that thinkers are justified in believing the logical consequences of their justified beliefs, at least when those consequences are competently deduced. Many have found this principle to be very plausible. Even more attractive is the special case of Closure known as Single-Premise Closure. In this paper, I present a challenge to Single-Premise Closure. The challenge is based on the phenomenon of rational self-doubt – it can be rational to be less than fully confident in (...) one's beliefs and patterns of reasoning. In rough outline, the argument is as follows: Consider a thinker who deduces a conclusion from a justified initial premise via an incredibly long sequence of small competent deductions. Surely, such a thinker should suspect that he has made a mistake somewhere. And surely, given this, he should not believe the conclusion of the deduction even though he has a justified belief in the initial premise. (shrink)

This paper focuses on abduction as explicit or readily formulatable inference to possible explanatory hypotheses--as contrasted with inference to conceptual innovations or abductive logic as a cycle of hypotheses, deduction of consequences and inductive testing. Inference to an explanation is often a matter of projection or extrapolation of elements of accepted theory for the solution of outstanding problems in particular domains of inquiry. I say "projections or extrapolation" of accepted theory, but I mean to point to something broader and (...) suggest how elements of accepted theory constrain emergent models and plausible inferences to explanations--in a quasi-rationalist fashion. I draw on illustrations from quantum gravity below just because there is so little direct evidence available in the field. It is in such cases that Peirce's discussions of abductive inference provide the most plausible support for the idea of a logic of abduction--as inference to readily formulatable explanatory hypotheses. The possible need for conceptual innovation points to the limits on the possibility of a logic of abduction of a more rationalistic character--selecting uniquely superior explanations. Abduction conceived as a repeated cycle of inquiry also points to limits on our expectations for an abductive logic. My chief point is that the character of inference to an explanation, viewed below as embedded within arguments from analogy, is so little compelling, as a matter of logical form alone, that there will always be a pluralism of plausible alternatives among untested hypotheses and inferences to them--calling for some comparative evaluation. This point leads on to some consideration of the virtues of hypotheses--as a description of the range of this pluralism. (shrink)

Groups do better at reasoning tasks than individuals, and, in some cases, do even better than any of their individual members. Here is an illustration. In the standard version of Wason selection task (Wason, 1966), the most commonly studied problem in the psychology of reasoning, only about 10% of participants give the correct solution, even though it can be arrived at by elementary deductive reasoning.1 Such poor performance begs for an explanation, and a great many have been offered. What makes (...) the selection task relevant here is that the difference between individual and group performance is striking. Moshman & Geil for instance (1998, see also Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2007) had participants try and resolve the task either individually or in groups of five or six participants. While, unsurprisingly, only 9% of the participants working on their own found the correct solution, an astonishing 70% of the groups did. Moreover, when groups were formed with participants who had first tried to solve the task individually, 80% of the groups succeeded, including 30% of the groups in which none of the members had succeeded on his or her own. How are such differences between individual and group performance to be explained? (shrink)

Due to the variety of research ethics and integrity training formats it may be challenging to use a common instrument to monitor and evaluate the development of competencies and learning progress as well as determine the effectiveness of the training. The present study scrutinises the use of learning diaries as one possible measure to evaluate the development of ethics competencies. The aim of the study was to increase understanding about how learning diaries capture development of research ethics and integrity competencies (...) of participants and explore the use of diaries as a measure of training effectiveness. In the evaluative case study, a micro-credential programme was used as the context of the study and data was analysed using deductive content analysis. As a result, we outline criteria for analysis to be used in ethics training programmes for learning diaries. Results indicated that learning diaries submitted in the forum format (compared to individual submissions) provide peer support, so learners display more content knowledge on high levels of reflection and understanding. Submitting learning diaries over a longer period and making submissions repeatedly can improve writing and reflection competencies. The quality of learning diary entries may also depend on learner characteristics, such as commitment and motivation. Keeping a learning diary can help retain obtained competencies over a longer period. The article ends with a set of recommendations for implementing learning diaries as one measure of evaluation. (shrink)

To build a culture of integrity in a HE institution, innovative approaches are needed to enhance education of research ethics and integrity. In addition to educating students, understanding is needed on how to facilitate for those who lead others. The focus is on early-career researchers as future REI leaders. The current study sheds light on how learning and REI leadership competencies evolve during scaffolded collaborative research ethics training for this target group. The study combines new instruments as part of holistic (...) DBR. Data was collected from 3 groups of experienced researchers attending 3 training sessions in the form of written group reports and group discussion recordings. Qualitative deductive analysis was utilised for monitoring the learning process, scaffolding patterns, and display of REI leadership principles. Also, quantitative analysis was applied to group discussion data, displaying the nature of collaboration. Results imply that collaborative case-based role play format is effective in training future REI leaders. All groups displayed high levels of understanding. Combining ECRs and researchers with leadership experience supported knowledge building in the groups by bringing in various perspectives. Even though groups required different amounts of scaffolding, the nature was similar: maintaining goal orientation, highlighting critical features and redirecting learners. Learning analytics of collaboration indicated that the person with leadership experience was not necessarily the most active participant nor took the role of a ‘group leader’. Still, it was mostly that person who displayed leadership competencies thus supporting other group members to develop leadership aspects. (shrink)

Consider two competing interpretations of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: the epistemic and cognitive interpretations. The epistemic interpretation presents the first Critique as a work of epistemology, but what is more, it sees Kant as an early proponent of anti-psychologism—the view that descriptions of how the mind works are irrelevant for epistemology.2 Even if Kant does not always manage to purge certain psychological-sounding idioms from his writing, the epistemic interpretation has it, he is perfectly clear that he means his evaluation (...) of knowledge to be carried out independently of psychology.3 In contrast, the cognitive interpretation presents the first Critique as a description of the operation of human .. (shrink)

This section begins Part III of the book, dealing with various competing interpretations. In particular, the section reviews and rejects four proposals for saving the Governing Deduction from self-defeat. The first proposal by Owen attempts to save Parmenides’ arguments by appealing to the _Tractatus._ The second proposal by Furth offers a global assessment of the role played by the Governing Deduction in _WT_. The third proposal, by Austin, appeals to supposed linguistic facts about Parmenides’ use of negative idioms. (...) The fourth proposal, due to Curd, suggests that ‘the esti is not to be read existentially and that when the existential reading is abandoned, Parmenides’ claim that the route of what-is-not is unsayable and unthinkable becomes far less controversial’. (shrink)

My starting point is some widely accepted and intuitive ideas about justified, well-founded belief. By drawing on John Pollock’s work, I sketch a formal framework for making these ideas precise. Central to this framework is the notion of an inference graph. An inference graph represents everything that is relevant about a subject for determining which of her beliefs are justified, such as what the subject believes based on what. The strengths of the nodes of the graph represent the degrees of (...) justification of the corresponding beliefs. There are two ways in which degrees of justification can be computed within this framework. I argue that there is not any way of doing the calculations in a broadly probabilistic manner. The only alternative looks to be a thoroughly non-probabilistic way of thinking wedded to the thought that justification is closed under competent deduction. However, I argue that such a view is unable to capture the intuitive notion of justification, for it leads to an uncomfortable dilemma: either a widespread scepticism about justification, or drawing epistemically spurious distinctions between different types of lotteries. This should worry anyone interested in well-founded belief. (shrink)

Chapter 6 addresses the problem of scepticism. More specifically, it focuses on a particularly difficult sceptical argument which proceeds from the plausible claims (i) that we don’t know that we are not radically deceived and (ii) that, if so, we don’t know much at all to the problematic sceptical conclusion that we don’t know much at all. It is argued that there is reason to take issue with both premises of this argument. More specifically, Chapter 6 presents a novel theoretical (...) argument against the principle the knowledge transmits across competent deduction, which motivates the second premise. And it develops a new way of resisting the first premise. The key idea here is that we can have basic knowledge of the denials of sceptical hypotheses thanks to an ability to know that certain possibilities could not easily obtain. Having dealt with some objections, Chapter 6 compares the approach to scepticism developed here with its closest competitor, the sensitivity-based approach, and argues that there is reason to favour the former. (shrink)

Improbable knowing is knowing something even though it is almost certain on one’s evidence at the time that one does not know that thing. Once probabilities on the agent’s evidence are introduced into epistemic logic in a very natural way, it is easy to construct models of improbable knowing, some of which have realistic interpretations, for instance concerning agents like us with limited powers of perceptual discrimination. Improbable knowing is an extreme case of failure of the KK principle, that is, (...) of a case of knowing something even though one does not know at the time that one knows that thing. A generalization of the argument yields cases of improbable rationality, in which it is rational for one to do something even though it is almost certain on one’s evidence at the time that it is not rational for one to do that thing. When the models are elaborated to represent appearances and beliefs as well as knowledge, they turn out to contain Gettier cases. Neglect of the possibility of improbable knowing may cause some sceptical claims and claims of the non-closure of knowledge under competent deduction to look more plausible than they deserve to. A formal appendix explores the closely related question of the conditions under which a reflection principle is violated. The principle says that the evidential probability of a proposition conditional on the evidential probability of that proposition’s being c is itself c. (shrink)

Recent research has identified a tension between the Safety principle that knowledge is belief without risk of error, and the Closure principle that knowledge is preserved by competent deduction. Timothy Williamson reconciles Safety and Closure by proposing that when an agent deduces a conclusion from some premises, the agent’s method for believing the conclusion includes their method for believing each premise. We argue that this theory is untenable because it implies problematically easy epistemic access to one’s methods. Several (...) possible solutions are explored and rejected. (shrink)

What is the epistemological structure of situations where many small risks amount to a large one? Lottery and preface paradoxes and puzzles about quantum-mechanical blips threaten the idea that competent deduction is a way of extending our knowledge. Seemingly, everyday knowledge involves small risks, and competently deducing the conjunction of many such truths from them yields a conclusion too risky to constitute knowledge. But the dilemma between scepticism and abandoning MPC is false. In extreme cases, objectively improbable truths (...) are known. Safety is modal, not probabilistic, in structure, with closure and factiveness conditions. It is modelled using closeness of worlds. Safety is analogous to knowledge. It suggests an interpretation of possible worlds semantics for epistemic logic. To avoid logical omniscience, a relation of epistemic counterparthood between formulas is introduced. This supports a safety conception of knowledge and formalizes how extending knowledge by deduction depends on logical competence. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is the prima facie plausible view, expressed by the principle of Counter-Closure, that knowledge-yielding competent deductive inference must issue from known premises. I construct a case that arguably falsifies this principle and consider five available lines of response that might help retain Counter-Closure. I argue that three are problematic. Of the two remaining lines of response, the first relies on non-universal intuitions and forces one to view the case I construct as exhibiting a justified, (...) true belief to which none of the usual diagnoses of knowledge failure in Gettier cases apply. The second line involves claiming that Fake Barns and its ilk are misdiagnosed by epistemological orthodoxy as Gettier cases. We are thus confronted by a trilemma: either the case I discuss undermines the first-blush plausible principle of Counter-Closure; or the case I discuss instantiates a novel kind of Gettier case; or a popular conception of a key range of alleged Gettier cases must be rejected. No matter which horn we choose, the case points to a philosophically curious conclusion. (shrink)

According to a popular closure principle for epistemic justification, if one is justified in believing each of the premises in set Φ and one comes to believe that ψ on the basis of competently deducing ψ from Φ—while retaining justified beliefs in the premises—then one is justified in believing that ψ. This principle is prima facie compelling; it seems to capture the sense in which competent deduction is an epistemically secure means to extend belief. However, even the single-premise (...) version of this closure principle is in conflict with certain seemingly good inferences involving the epistemic possibility modal ♢. According to other compelling principles concerning competent deduction and epistemic justification, one can competently infer ¬♢φ from ¬φ in deliberation even though there are cases in which one can justifiably believe ¬φ but would be unjustified in believing ¬♢φ. Thus, as we argue, philosophers must choose between unrestricted closure for justification and the validity of these other principles. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that two claims usually included in any minimally detailed presentation of the epistemic closure principle are inconsistent, namely, that closure explains how we extend our knowledge through deduction and that it is different from another epistemic principle, to wit, transmission. The attempt to offer a correct diagnosis of reasonings such as the one involved in Dretke’s zebra case is an instance of a discussion in which the distinction takes part. My argument has the following (...) structure. First, I introduce the distinction between closure and transmission following the standard presentation. Second, I introduce the main motivations behind the principles; in particular, I establish that the main motivation behind closure consists in explaining the phenomenon of the advancement of knowledge through deductive reasoning. Third, based on the identification of a restriction on any plausible formulation of closure capable of explaining the phenomenon aforementioned, I cast doubts on the distinction between this principle and transmission. I conclude that any formulation of the epistemic principle of closure which satisfies its main motivation collapses into the epistemic principle of transmission. (shrink)

This paper presents a new argument for a form of contextualism about ‘justified belief’, the argument being based on considerations concerning the nature of belief. It is then argued that this form of contextualism, although it is true, cannot help to answer the threat of scepticism. However, it can explain many other puzzling phenomena: it can give an account of the linguistic mechanisms that determine how the extension of ‘justified belief’ shifts with context; it can help to defuse some puzzles (...) regarding the closure of justified belief under competent deduction; and it can give a plausible account of the role that practical concerns play in the thinking of a rational believer, allowing for a more plausible kind of "intellectualism" about justified belief. (shrink)

It is useful to note how (CC) differs from closure: (C) If S comes to believe q solely on the basis of competent deduction from p and S knows that p, then S knows that q. I won’t be discussing (C) today, but here is a useful contrast.

Contextualists claim two important virtues for their view. First, contextualism is a non-skeptical epistemology, given the plausible idea that not all contexts invoke the high standards for knowledge needed to generate the skeptical conclusion that we know little or nothing. Second, contextualism is able to preserve closure concerning knowledge – the idea that knowledge is extendable on the basis of competent deduction from known premises. As long as one keeps the context fixed, it is plausible to think that (...) some closure principle can be articulated that will survive scrutiny. Opponents of contextualism often try to gain an advantage over it by claiming that their view mimics these virtues of contextualism as well as having other virtues. A recent example of the same is termed ‘contrastivism," as presented by Jonathan Schaffer. I will argue that the representation made is chimerical, that in fact contrastivism has no hope of mirroring these twin virtues of contextualism. (shrink)

All standard epistemic logics legitimate something akin to the principle of closure, according to which knowledge is closed under competent deductive inference. And yet the principle of closure, particularly in its multiple premise guise, has a somewhat ambivalent status within epistemology. One might think that serious concerns about closure point us away from epistemic logic altogether—away from the very idea that the knowledge relation could be fruitfully treated as a kind of modal operator. This, however, need not be so. (...) The abandonment of closure may yet leave in place plenty of formal structure amenable to systematic logical treatment. In this paper we describe a family of weak epistemic logics in which closure fails, and describe two alternative semantic frameworks in which these logics can be modelled. One of these—which we term plurality semantics—is relatively unfamiliar. We explore under what conditions plurality frames validate certain much-discussed principles of epistemic logic. It turns out that plurality frames can be interpreted in a very natural way in light of one motivation for rejecting closure, adding to the significance of our technical work. The second framework that we employ—neighbourhood semantics—is much better known. But we show that it too can be interpreted in a way that comports with a certain motivation for rejecting closure. (shrink)

Radical scepticism contends that our knowledge of the external world is impossible. Particularly, radical scepticism can be motivated by the closure principle. Several commentators have noted that a straightforward way to respond to such arguments is via externalist strategies, e.g., Goldman, Greco, Bergmann. However, these externalist strategies are not effective against a slightly weaker form of the argument, a closure principle for rationally grounded knowledge, closureRK.\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${closure}_{RK.}$$\end{document} The sceptical argument, framed around the (...) closureRK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {closure}_{\mathrm{RK}}$$\end{document} principle, targets rationally grounded knowledge. Although externalist strategies are ineffective against this form of argument, its conclusion can nonetheless be resisted by combining, in a novel way, the resources of Wittgenstein and Davidson. In particular, I argue that the sceptic is assuming an unrestricted way of using the closureRK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {closure}_{\mathrm{RK}}$$\end{document} principle, which is incorrect. Alternatively, I argue for The Conditionality of Rational Support Thesis, i.e., the thesis that rational support via competent deduction is conditional. In particular, rational support must be provided within an evaluative system in which hinge propositions are presupposed and contentful beliefs are being evaluated. In the end, we can resist the closureRK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {closure}_{\mathrm{RK }}$$\end{document}-based sceptical argument while retaining the closureRK\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\hbox {closure}_{\mathrm{RK}}$$\end{document} principle. (shrink)

I seem to know that I won't experience spaceflight but also that if I win the lottery, then I will take a flight into space. Suppose I competently deduce from these propositions that I won't win the lottery. Competent deduction from known premises seems to yield knowledge of the deduced conclusion. So it seems that I know that I won't win the lottery; but it also seems clear that I don't know this, despite the minuscule probability of my (...) winning (if I have a lottery ticket). So we have a puzzle. It seems to generalize, for analogues of the lottery-proposition threaten almost all ordinary knowledge attributions. For example, my apparent knowledge that my bike is parked outside seems threatened by the possibility that it's been stolen since I parked it, a proposition with a low but non-zero probability; and it seems that I don't know this proposition to be false. Familiar solutions to this family of puzzles incur unacceptable costs—either by rejecting deductive closure for knowledge, or by yielding untenable consequences for ordinary attributions of knowledge or of ignorance. After canvassing and criticizing these solutions, I offer a new solution free of these costs. Knowledge that p requires an explanatory link between the fact that p and the belief that p. This necessary but insufficient condition on knowledge distinguishes actual lottery cases from typical, apparently analogous ‘quasi-lottery’ cases. It does yield scepticism about my not winning the lottery and not experiencing spaceflight, but the scepticism doesn't generalize to quasi-lottery cases such as that involving my bike. (shrink)

The closure principle is pivotal in contemporary epistemology, yet its tenability is subject to ongoing dispute. In particular, both global and local error possibilities challenge the closure principle. Duncan Pritchard seeks to defend a version of the closure principle – _Competent __Deduction Closure_ – by appealing to two ideas. To address local error possibilities, he appeals to the idea of favoring support to save closure; to address global error possibilities, he draws on the concept of hinge commitments in Wittgenstein’s later (...) philosophy. However, upon closer examination, this two-pronged defense proves inadequate. On the one hand, while factive favoring support can address the challenge posed by local error possibilities, non-factive favoring support cannot guarantee that the closure principle holds in all cases. Specifically, there arises an _epistemic sorites point_ at which closure breaks down. On the other hand, although the anti-skeptical hypothesis may be regarded as a hinge commitment that we cannot apply in the _Competent Deduction Closure_, certain cases of transmission failure also amount to closure failure. Thus, the appeal to hinge commitment, while insightful, is ultimately too narrow to rule out all instances of closure failure. (shrink)

The object of this paper is to show why recent research in the psychology of deductive and probabilistic reasoning does not have.

I argue that DeRose's attributor contextualism cannot straightforwardly preserve the widespread view that, when a subject believes q solely on the basis of competent deduction from p, knowledge of q requires knowledge of p. I present a novel challenge to the compatibility of this widespread view with DeRose's contextualism, then argue that the tension can be resolved in only one of two ways: if DeRose rejects the widespread view or if DeRose accepts the existence of a range of (...) contextualism-specific Gettier-style cases. (shrink)

It has been argued that an advantage of the safety account over the sensitivity account is that the safety account preserves epistemic closure, while the sensitivity account implies epistemic closure failure. However, the argument fails to take the method-relativity of the modal conditions on knowledge, viz., sensitivity and safety, into account. In this paper, I argue that the sensitivity account and the safety account are on a par with respect to epistemic closure once the method-relativity of the modal conditions is (...) taken into account. Therefore, epistemic closure is no longer an arbiter in the debate. (shrink)

It is widely thought that if knowledge requires sensitivity, knowledge is not closed because sensitivity is not closed. This paper argues that there is no valid argument from sensitivity failure to non-closure of knowledge. Sensitivity does not imply non-closure of knowledge. Closure considerations cannot be used to adjudicate between safety and sensitivity accounts of knowledge.

In this paper, I’ll survey a number of closure principles of epistemic justification and find them all wanting. However, it’ll be my contention that there’s a novel closure principle of epistemic justification that has the virtues of its close cousin closure principles, without their vices. This closure principle of epistemic justification can be happily thought of as a multi-premise closure principle and it cannot be used in Cartesian skeptical arguments that employ a closure principle of epistemic justification. In this way, (...) then, it represents marked improvement over other contemporary closure principles of epistemic justification that require both sacrificing multi-premise closure and forcing anti-Cartesian skeptics who reject the closure principle employed in certain Cartesian skeptical arguments to cast aside justification closure. (shrink)

El artículo tiene como objetivo describir las competencias informacionales a desarrollar durante la formación profesional. Se presenta los referentes teóricos a partir del empleo de un enfoque de sistema que supone el análisis y la síntesis, la inducción y la deducción como métodos de investigación, con el propósito de dar conocer los hitos en las universidades y organizaciones internacionales relacionadas. La modelación fue empleada para la construcción de un nuevo proyecto de desarrollo de competencias informacionales desde la perspectiva de la (...) formación profesional universitaria ajustada a las necesidades de la educación superior en Cuba. El nuevo proyecto se configura en tres unidades básicas (acceso, procesamiento y comunicación), con sus respectivos elementos de competencia, saberes esenciales e indicadores para la evaluación del desempeño. El artículo fundamenta la tesis de que el desarrollo de competencias informacionales debe ser sistemáticamente estructurado, planificado y ejecutado como parte integral de la formación curricular en interacción con los contenidos de las disciplinas docentes, bajo la dirección del profesor y la participación protagónica de los profesionales en formación. ABSTRACT The article aims at describing the competence to be developed during professional training. It presents the theoretical referents by means of an approach system that includes synthesis and analysis, induction and deduction as research methods in order to reveal the milestones of information skills development in universities and related international organizations. Modeling was used for the construction of a new skills development project from the perspective of university professional training according to the needs of Higher Education in Cuba. The new project is composed of three basic units (access, processing and communication), with their respective competence elements, essential knowledge and indicators for the evaluation of the performance. The article supports the theory that information development skills must be systematically structured, planned and implemented as an integral part of the curricular training in interaction with the contents of subjects, under the teacher´s guidance and the active participation of profesionals in training. (shrink)

It’s often thought that the phenomenon of risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure but not for single-premise closure. But recently, Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter have challenged this thought. Lasonen-Aarnio argues that, insofar as risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure, it poses a similar problem for single-premise closure. For she thinks that, there being such a thing as deductive risk, risk may aggregate over a single premise and the deduction itself. Schechter argues that single-premise closure succumbs to (...) risk aggregation outright. For he thinks that there could be a long sequence of competent single-premise deductions such that, even though we are justified in believing the initial premise of the sequence, intutively, we are not justified in believing the final conclusion. This intuition, Schechter thinks, vitiates single-premise closure. In this paper, I defend single-premise closure against the arguments offered by Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter. (shrink)

The ethical evaluation of healthcare research projects ensures the protection of the study participants’ rights. Concurrently, the use of big health data and AI analysis is rising. A critical question is whether existing measures, including ethics committees, can competently evaluate AI-involved health projects and foresee risks. Our research aimed to identify and describe the types of research projects submitted between January 2020 and April 2024 to the Estonian Council for Bioethics and Human Research (EBIN) and to analyse AI use cases (...) in recent years. Notably, the committee was established before the significant rise in AI usage in health research. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of submission documents using deductive and inductive approaches to gather information on the types of studies using AI and make some preliminary conclusions on readiness to evaluate projects. Results indicate that most applications come from universities, use diverse data sources in the research and the use of AI is rather uniform, and the applications do not exhibit diversity in the utilisation of AI capabilities. (shrink)

This chapter presents the simpleminded form of epistemological disjunctivist neo-Mooreanism. In the good+ case our agent — this chapter calls him ‘John’ — perceptually knows the target empirical proposition which entails that he is not a brain-in-a-vat (BIV) (the chapter calls this proposition _p_), where sufficient epistemic support for this knowledge is provided by the relevant reflectively accessible factive reason (i.e., his seeing that _p_). Like Zula, John does not need to take a view on whether he is a BIV (...) in order to know that p (nor does it matter that he is unable to perceptually discriminate between the objects at issue in the two scenarios — hands and ‘vat-hands’, say). If, however, he is confronted with this hypothesis, then he needs to take a view on it and so either have an adequate epistemic basis for believing that not-BIV, or else no longer believe (and hence know) that _p_ (and much else besides). But on the simpleminded view such epistemic support for believing that not-BIV is easy to come by, since John has reflectively available to him rational support for his belief that p which (he is fully aware) _entails p_ and hence which entails not-BIV as well. Hence, by undertaking the relevant competent deduction he can come to know on this reflective basis that he is not a BIV. (shrink)

This chapter first looks at the Dynamic Deductive System in the context of human inferential capacities, and argues that if we make a distinction between competence and performance and develop a theory of the heuristics that humans use in making inferences, then the Dynamic Deductive System can illuminate that project in cognitive psychology. Ludlow and Živanović then examine some foundational questions about the nature of polarity and the question of whether proof theory could serve as a theory of meaning. They (...) conclude by returning to a reflection on the Medieval project in logic and discuss the way in which we now understand the nature of that project. (shrink)

This chapter addresses theoretical and empirical objections that critics have presented against the epistemic argument for democracy presented in the previous chapter (the argument from collective wisdom). The objections this chapter addresses include those based on the average voter’s alleged incompetence and systematic biases, as well as those that challenge the relevance of deductive arguments for democracy. The metrics by which political scientists and economists claim to measure voters’ incompetence are elitist and the argument “garbage in, garbage out” on which (...) people like Brennan rely to criticize democracy fail to take into account the fact that collective intelligence is not a linear function of individual competence but an emergent property that crucially depends on group properties, including cognitive diversity, and thus not captured by Brennan’s purely individualistic framework. Inferring from individual input to collective outcomes is thus neither empirical nor demonstrative. Systematic biases would be, and often are, a problem for democracy but not more than for oligarchies of knowers. In a free and diverse public sphere the public and its democratic representatives have more opportunities to debias themselves, at least over time, than small groups of homogenously thinking elites. (shrink)