This article seeks to contribute to ongoing debates on the nature and foundations of environmental law. In doing so, the article accepts the claim made in much of the recent analytical environmental law scholarship that the discipline suffers from a lack of coherence. In a response to this claim, the article probes the potential reasons behind this incoherence. In relying on recent scholarship in the disciplines of social psychology and cultural cognition, the article argues that individual understanding of environmental risks (...) in accordance with a priori held beliefs and values aided by cognitive biases, lends support to a scenario of multiple and diverse understandings of environmental problems. This diversity is in turn reflected in both the form and content of environmental law. In a response to this diversity and incoherence, the article identifies the philosophy of pragmatism and argues that a modest interpretation of pragmatism has the potential to alleviate the biases and heuristics that give rise to the individual understanding of environmental risks. (shrink)
Although research has examined factors influencing understanding of informed consent in biomedical and forensic research, less is known about participants' attention to details in consent documents in psychological survey research. The present study used a randomized experimental design and found the majority of participants were unable to recall information from the consent form in both in-person and online formats. Participants were also relatively poor at recognizing important aspects of the consent form including risks to participants and confidentiality procedures. Memory effects (...) and individual difference characteristics also appeared to influence recall and recognition of consent form information. (shrink)
In the paper the contextual realism of H. Putnam's is briefly presented and accepted as an explanatory framework in which both science and every day experience are interpreted. Furthermore, a model of science as an experimental dialogue (A. Koyr) is explored. In the final section of the paper three scientific traditions: Platonic, Aristotelian, and Archimedean are recapitulated (O. Pedersen).