In philosophy intuition is used in reasoning as a test-bed for the conclusions of philosophical arguments. Logic, rhetoric and intuition are the main conceptual tools in philosophical reasoning. Intuition often acts as a sort of empirical verification of the acceptability of a particular thesis. Rather like a sort of empirical test or an experimental control, to use an analogy with what happens in natural science. The basis for this method is that intuition is generalisable, or in other words, broadly speaking, it can be shared at a universal level. Moreover, intuition must have foundational validity, a primary capacity for justification that is greater than any other alternative information. It should be greater than the reference to data from the cultural and religious tradition, for example, or the recourse to the theses of classical authors. Likewise it should be able to withstand the hypotheses and empirical confirmations of scientific and technical knowledge. Experimental philosophy appears to question intuition’s alleged foundational and universal nature. Intuition is a psychological phenomenon linked to what is conventionally known, according to some authors (Stanovich 1999; see Chap. 9 of Viale 2012), but not to others (Gigerenzer 2007), as System 1 of mind. Contrary to System 2, which is rational and explicit, this system is implicit and highly contextdependent. It is permeable to the influences of emotional variables derived from the cultural and environmental context. Seen in this way, it would seem difficult to affirm the thesis of the universality of human intuition. The underlying hypothesis derived from the findings of cognitive science argues the contrary: namely that intuition is local and contingent, changing in relation not only to cultural context but also to individual psychological variables, like personality traits or emotional and affective contingencies. Experimental philosophy has explored the universality
The voices of African-American thinkers were often systematically and arbitrarily excluded from philosophical discourse for several reasons. The first, and more sinister of these, is similar to the exclusion of women's voices. The legacy of racism, like that of sexism, is now recognized to have been a blight up on the academy for centuries and lost in that rejection were the voices of some very sophisticated, very creative, and potentially very critical voices. The second reason is related to the path academic philosophy took in the 20th century.
There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a `good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.
Statsmodels is a library for statistical and econometric analysis in Python. This paper discusses the current relationship between statistics and Python and open source more generally, outlining how the statsmodels package fills a gap in this relationship. An overview of statsmodels is provided, including a discussion of the overarching design and philosophy, what can be found in the package, and some usage examples. The paper concludes with a look at what the future holds.
I don't know in what fit of pique George Bernard Shaw wrote that infamous aphorism, words that have plagued members of the teaching profession for nearly a century. They are found in "Maxims for Revolutionists," an appendix to his play Man and Superman. "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches" is a calamitous insult to our profession, yet one readily repeated even by teachers. More worrisome, its philosophy often appears to underlie the policies concerning the occupation and activities of teaching. Where did such a demeaning image of the teacher's capacities originate? How long have we been burdened by assumptions of ignorance and ineptitude within the teaching corps? Is Shaw to be treated as the last word on what teachers know and don't know, or do and can't do?
Abstract The rapid advancement of Conversational AI tools like ChatGPT has sparked polarized debates in academia, particularly around issues of plagiarism, ownership, and bias. Unexamined misconceptions may hinder the effective integration of Conversational AI tools, limiting their potential to stimulate interactive and convergent learning experiences. This study investigates prevailing criticisms by infusing insights from theories of Mimesis from Greek philosophy, Value Creation from Economics, and Deconstruction from Western philosophy to provide a well-rounded perspective. Utilizing qualitative thematic coding, this review analysed 40 ChatGPT-related articles selected from an initial pool of 302 articles sourced from Scopus and Web of Science using a Boolean search. The PRISMA flowchart was employed to ensure transparency and rigor in the screening process. The review also integrated 14 theoretical and 10 methodology-focused studies. The findings revealed that: (i) nothing in the world is truly original except for Nature itself and knowledge derives from imitation and shared understanding; (ii) creation involves adaptation and transformation in response to user or contextual demands; and (iii) truth is multiple and resists rigid binary notions of right and wrong; which suggest that attributing blame to Conversational AI for plagiarism, ownership, or bias is unjustified. Conversational AI, when used with clear guidelines and thoughtful pedagogical strategies, can foster creativity through collaboration, enhance opportunities by synthesizing raw information, and elicit intellectual engagement by offering non-binary truths. The findings will help students, educators, and administrators cross-check the criticisms of Conversational AI tools and reshape attitudes to embrace their functional adaptability to enhance knowledge dissemination.
Julia R. Varshavsky, Swati D. G. Rayasam, Jennifer B. Sass
et al.
Abstract A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors. This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs. Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors. We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism.
Industrial medicine. Industrial hygiene, Public aspects of medicine
The arrow of time refers to the curious asymmetry that distinguishes the future from the past. Reversing the Arrow of Time argues that there is an intimate link between the symmetries of 'time itself' and time reversal symmetry in physical theories, which has wide-ranging implications for both physics and its philosophy. This link helps to clarify how we can learn about the symmetries of our world; how to understand the relationship between symmetries and what is real, and how to overcome pervasive illusions about the direction of time. Roberts explains the significance of time reversal in a way that intertwines physics and philosophy, to establish what the arrow of time means and how we can come to know it. This book is both mathematically and philosophically rigorous yet remains accessible to advanced undergraduates in physics and philosophy of physics.
Introduction. A. N. Radishchev in his writings lays the foundations of a humanistic study of Russian society and an anthropological
understanding of economic orders. Most of the works were not published during his lifetime; the scientific publication of works and the study of
views, mainly of a social nature, was undertaken in the 1940s–1950s. The comments emphasized the radical worldview of the thinker, manifested
in the literary fi eld. In reality, the enlightener’s work is more multifaceted and covers philosophy, law, history, and economics. Three life periods
are distinguished, diff erent in subject matter, but consonant with moral ideas. Theoretical analysis. The fi rst period of writing is characterized
by works of social philosophy, fi ction and offi cial notes of a legal and economic nature, in which Radishchev’s ambivalent attitude to power, awmaking and moral values is revealed. The probable coincidence of the enlightener’s views with his European contemporaries (Locke, Diderot,
A. Smith, Blackstone) and Russian philosophers (Tatishchev, Storkh) is revealed. Parallels with the works of I. Kant and the categorical apparatus
of modern economic anthropology are determined. Empirical analysis. The views of Radishchev and Catherine II are interpreted in a comparative
way. It is shown that there are no direct invectives in the “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” against the Empress. The works on legislation
in the third period of creativity are an adjusted continuation of the works of the fi rst period. The most complete economic and anthropological
theme is presented in the essay “On Chinese Bargaining”, which implicitly rejects the principles of the government’s economic policy, which
does not take into account the spatial identity of Russia, its civilizational mission and the potential of free enterprise. Results. The writings
of A. N. Radishchev anticipate the fi eld of research of modern economic anthropology: the importance of refl ection in human behavior, its noumenal and phenomenal representation, historical construction of ways of action and thought, performative thinking, hierarchy and fragmentation
of power, structuration of economic (market) relations are taken into consideration. The key concepts are collective faith, feelings and habits,
inclinations and individual diff erences, good-action, objective and subjective interests, reasonableness and rationality in historical refraction.
The problems of conciliarity, will, moral imperatives, acquisition of systematic knowledge, necessity of laws, human rights are highlighted as the
most important from the position of the enlightener.