Search results for 'counterfactual difference-making' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  3
    Hamid Vahid (2015). On the Significance of Difference‐Making Principles. Metaphilosophy 46 (4-5):564-574.
    It has been claimed that difference-making plays important roles in both metaphysics and epistemology. The idea is that facts often make a difference to other facts. Thus, causes are said to make a difference to their effects, and the world is thought to make a difference to what is believed. One way to cash out this idea is in terms of the notion of counterfactual dependence between the facts in question. It has recently been objected by some philosophers, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  19
    Wolfgang Pietsch, A Difference-Making Account of Causation.
    A difference-making account of causality is proposed that is based on a counterfactual definition, but differs from traditional counterfactual approaches to causation in a number of crucial respects: it introduces a notion of causal irrelevance; it evaluates the truth-value of counterfactual statements in terms of difference-making; it renders causal statements background-dependent. On the basis of the fundamental notions 'causal relevance' and 'causal irrelevance', further causal concepts are defined including causal factors, alternative causes, and importantly inus-conditions. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  59
    Brad Weslake (forthcoming). Difference-Making, Closure and Exclusion. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock & Huw Price (eds.), Making a Difference. Oxford University Press
    Consider the following causal exclusion principle: For all distinct properties F and F* such that F* supervenes on F, F and F* do not both cause a property G. Peter Menzies and Christian List have proven that it follows from a natural conception of causation as difference-making that this exclusion principle is not generally true. Rather, it turns out that whether the principle is true is a contingent matter. In addition, they have shown that in a wide range of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Peter Menzies (2004). Difference-Making in Context. In J. Collins, N. Hall & L. Paul (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals. MIT Press
    Several different approaches to the conceptual analysis of causation are guided by the idea that a cause is something that makes a difference to its effects. These approaches seek to elucidate the concept of causation by explicating the concept of a difference-maker in terms of better-understood concepts. There is no better example of such an approach than David Lewis’ analysis of causation, in which he seeks to explain the concept of a difference-maker in counterfactual terms. Lewis introduced his (...) theory of causation with these words: 'We think of a cause as something that makes a difference, and the difference it makes must be a difference from what would have happened without it. Had it been absent, its effects—some of them, at least, and usually all—would have been absent as well.' (Lewis 1973b: pp. 160-1) According to Lewis, a cause c makes a difference to an effect e in the sense that if the cause c had not occurred, the effect e would not have occurred either. All we shall see in section 2, Lewis’ theory says there is more to the concept of causation than this counterfactual condition. Lewis is on the right track, I think, in saying that we think of a cause as something that makes a difference and that this thought is best explicated in terms of counterfactual concepts. However, I shall argue that the particular way in which Lewis spells out the concept of a cause as difference-maker is unsatisfactory. For Lewis’ articulation of this concept is distorted by a specific metaphysical assumption: specifically, that causation is an absolute relation, specifiable independently of any contextual factors. The distortion induced by this assumption is reflected in the undiscriminating manner in which his theory generates countless causes for any given effect. However, commonsense judgement is much more discriminating about causes than Lewis’ theory. Accordingly, I claim that Lewis' analysis faces the problem of profligate causes and I outline some specific problem cases in section 3.. (shrink)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   24 citations  
  5. Holly Lawford-Smith (2016). Difference-Making and Individuals' Climate-Related Obligations. In Clare Hayward & Dominic Roser (eds.), Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World. 64-82.
    Climate change appears to be a classic aggregation problem, in which billions of individuals perform actions none of which seem to be morally wrong taken in isolation, and yet which combine to drive the global concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) ever higher toward environmental (and humanitarian) catastrophe. When an individual can choose between actions that will emit differing amounts of GHGs―such as to choose a vegan rather than carnivorous meal, to ride a bike to work rather than drive a car, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Luke Glynn (2013). Causal Foundationalism, Physical Causation, and Difference-Making. Synthese 190 (6):1017-1037.
    An influential tradition in the philosophy of causation has it that all token causal facts are, or are reducible to, facts about difference-making. Challenges to this tradition have typically focused on pre-emption cases, in which a cause apparently fails to make a difference to its effect. However, a novel challenge to the difference-making approach has recently been issued by Alyssa Ney. Ney defends causal foundationalism, which she characterizes as the thesis that facts about difference-making depend upon facts (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Peter Menzies & Christian List (2010). The Causal Autonomy of the Special Sciences. In Cynthia Mcdonald & Graham Mcdonald (eds.), Emergence in Mind. Oxford University Press
    The systems studied in the special sciences are often said to be causally autonomous, in the sense that their higher-level properties have causal powers that are independent of those of their more basic physical properties. This view was espoused by the British emergentists, who claimed that systems achieving a certain level of organizational complexity have distinctive causal powers that emerge from their constituent elements but do not derive from them.2 More recently, non-reductive physicalists have espoused a similar view about the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  8. Alex Broadbent (2012). Causes of Causes. Philosophical Studies 158 (3):457-476.
    When is a cause of a cause of an effect also a cause of that effect? The right answer is either Sometimes or Always . In favour of Always , transitivity is considered by some to be necessary for distinguishing causes from redundant non-causal events. Moreover transitivity may be motivated by an interest in an unselective notion of causation, untroubled by principles of invidious discrimination. And causal relations appear to add up like transitive relations, so that the obtaining of the (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  7
    Stefan Dragulinescu, Mechanisms and Difference-Making.
    I argue that difference-making should be a crucial element for evaluating the quality of evidence for mechanisms, especially with respect to the robustness of mechanisms, and that it should take central stage when it comes to the general role played by mechanisms in establishing causal claims in medicine. The difference- making of mechanisms should provide additional compelling reasons to accept the gist of Russo-Williamson thesis and include mechanisms in the protocols for Evidence- Based Medicine, as the EBM+ research group (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Alyssa Ney (2009). Physical Causation and Difference-Making. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):737-764.
    This paper examines the relationship between physical theories of causation and theories of difference-making. It is plausible to think that such theories are compatible with one another as they are aimed at different targets: the former, an empirical account of actual causal relations; the latter, an account that will capture the truth of most of our ordinary causal claims. The question then becomes: what is the relationship between physical causation and difference-making? Is one kind of causal fact more (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  11.  3
    Dingmar van Eck & Raoul Gervais, Difference Making, Explanatory Relevance, and Mechanistic Models.
    In this paper we consider mechanistic explanations for biologic malfunctions. Drawing on Lipton’s work on difference making, we offer three reasons why one should distinguish i) mechanistic features that only make a difference to the malfunction one aims to explain, from ii) features that make a difference to both the malfunction and normal functioning. Recognition of the distinction is important for a) repair purposes, b) mechanism discovery, and c) understanding. This analysis extends current mechanistic thinking, which fails to appreciate the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  5
    Stefan Dragulinescu (forthcoming). Mechanisms and Difference-Making. Acta Analytica:1-26.
    I argue that difference-making should be a crucial element for evaluating the quality of evidence for mechanisms, especially with respect to the robustness of mechanisms, and that it should take central stage when it comes to the general role played by mechanisms in establishing causal claims in medicine. The difference-making of mechanisms should provide additional compelling reasons to accept the gist of Russo-Williamson thesis and include mechanisms in the protocols for Evidence-Based Medicine, as the EBM+ research group has (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  96
    William MacAskill (2014). Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (2):269-283.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  31
    Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2012). EnviroGenomarkers: The Interplay Between Mechanisms and Difference Making in Establishing Causal Claims. Medicine Studies 3 (4):249-262.
    According to Russo and Williamson :157–170, 2007, Hist Philos Life Sci 33:389–396, 2011a, Philos Sci 1:47–69, 2011b), in order to establish a causal claim of the form, ‘C is a cause of E’, one typically needs evidence that there is an underlying mechanism between C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This thesis has been used to argue that hierarchies of evidence, as championed by evidence-based movements, tend to give primacy to evidence of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  15. Robert Northcott (2009). Is Actual Difference Making Robert Northcott Actually Different? Journal of Philosophy 106 (11).
    This paper responds to Kenneth Waters’s account of actual difference making. Among other things, I argue that although Waters is right that researchers may sometimes be justified in focusing on genes rather than other causes of phenotypic traits, he is wrong that the apparatus of actual difference makers overcomes the traditional causal parity thesis.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  14
    Hamid Vahid (2016). The Aim of Justification and Epistemic Difference-Making Principles. Acta Analytica 31 (1):11-29.
    The idea that truth is the aim of justification is one that is often defended by theorists who uphold different views about the nature of epistemic justification. Despite its prevalence, however, it is not quite clear how one is to cash out the metaphor that justification aims at truth. Some theorists, for example, have objected that the thesis would leave no room for justified false beliefs and unjustified true beliefs. In this paper, I offer an account of what it is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  36
    Robert Northcott (2009). Is Actual Difference Making Actually Different? Journal of Philosophy 106 (11):629-633.
    This paper responds to Kenneth Waters’s account of actual difference making. Among other things, I argue that although Waters is right that researchers may sometimes be justified in focusing on genes rather than other causes of phenotypic traits, he is wrong that the apparatus of actual difference makers overcomes the traditional causal parity thesis.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  18.  38
    Mats Johansson & Linus Broström (2011). Counterfactual Reasoning in Surrogate Decision Making – Another Look. Bioethics 25 (5):244-249.
    Incompetent patients need to have someone else make decisions on their behalf. According to the Substituted Judgment Standard the surrogate decision maker ought to make the decision that the patient would have made, had he or she been competent. Objections have been raised against this traditional construal of the standard on the grounds that it involves flawed counterfactual reasoning, and amendments have been suggested within the framework of possible worlds semantics. The paper shows that while this approach may circumvent (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  60
    C. Sartorio (2013). Making a Difference in a Deterministic World. Philosophical Review 122 (2):189-214.
    Some philosophers have claimed that causally determined agents are not morally responsible because they cannot make a difference in the world. A recent response by philosophers who defend the compatibility of determinism and responsibility has been to concede that causally determined agents are incapable of making a difference, but to argue that responsibility is not grounded in difference making. These compatibilists have rested such a claim on Frankfurt cases—cases where agents are intuitively responsible for acts that they couldn’t have failed (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  20. David Lewis (2001). Truthmaking and Difference-Making. Noûs 35 (4):602–615.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   72 citations  
  21.  13
    Johannes Himmelreich, Agency as Difference-Making: Causal Foundations of Moral Responsibility.
    We are responsible for some things but not for others. In this thesis, I investigate what it takes for an entity to be responsible for something. This question has two components: agents and actions. I argue for a permissive view about agents. Entities such as groups or artificially intelligent systems may be agents in the sense required for responsibility. With respect to actions, I argue for a causal view. The relation in virtue of which agents are responsible for actions is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  65
    Joakim Sandberg (2008). The Ethics of Investing: Making Money or Making a Difference? Dissertation, University of Gothenburg
    The concepts of 'ethical' and 'socially responsible' investment (SRI) have become increasingly popular in recent years and funds which offer this kind of investment have attracted many individual inve... merstors. The present book addresses the issue of 'How ought one to invest?' by critically engaging with the ideas of the proponents of this movement about what makes 'ethical' investing ethical. The standard suggestion that ethical investing simply consists in refraining from investing in certain 'morally unacceptable companies' is criticised for being (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  23.  17
    Kevin Morrell & Chanaka Jayawardhena (2010). Fair Trade, Ethical Decision Making and the Narrative of Gender Difference. Business Ethics 19 (4):393-407.
    Fair trade (FT) is of growing interest to those carrying out research into ethical decision making. In this paper, we report findings from a recent survey of FT purchasing among 688 retail shoppers in the United Kingdom. We examined the relationship between individual differences, in terms of gender and age, and three outcome measures: purchasing, word of mouth (WOM) recommendation and social advocacy. Though age appeared to have no significant effects, we found evidence of gender difference in each outcome measure. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24.  5
    Helge Skirbekk & Per Nortvedt (2011). Making a Difference: A Qualitative Study on Care and Priority Setting in Health Care. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 19 (1):77-88.
    The focus of the study is the conflict between care and concern for particular patients, versus considerations that take impartial considerations of justice to be central to moral deliberations. To examine these questions we have conducted qualitative interviews with health professionals in Norwegian hospitals. We found a value norm that implicitly seemed to overrule all others, the norm of ‘making a difference for the patients’. We will examine what such a statement implies, aiming to shed some light over moral dilemmas (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  3
    David Halpin, Sally Power & John Fitz (1991). Grant-Maintained Schools: Making a Difference Without Being Really Different. British Journal of Educational Studies 39 (4):409 - 424.
    (1991). Grant‐maintained schools: Making a difference without being really different 1 . British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 409-424.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26. Susanna Saracco (2016). Difference as a Resource for Thinking: An Online Dialogue Showing the Role Played by Difference in Problem Solving and Decision Making. Metaphilosophy 47 (3):467-476.
    Contemporary societies require citizens and workers to face unexpected challenges. This calls for a shift of emphasis from individualistic competence to the importance of collective intelligence. This article describes a plan for a project in which students who are eight to twelve years old will not only realize that difference is a crucial resource in problem solving and decision making but also live out their personal value as thinking, active beings. They will participate in an online dialogue that takes place (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  52
    Juan Comesaña & Carolina Sartorio (2014). Difference‐Making in Epistemology. Noûs 48 (2):368-387.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  28. Boris Kment (2010). Causation: Determination and Difference-Making. Noûs 44 (1):80-111.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  29.  25
    Angela M. Smith (2006). Making a Difference, Making a Statement and Making Conversation. Philosophical Books 47 (3):213-221.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  4
    Max Kistler, Interventionism, Epiphenomenalism, and Difference-Making.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Frank Veltman (2005). Making Counterfactual Assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22 (2):159-180.
    This paper provides an update semantics for counterfactual conditionals. It does so by giving a dynamic twist to the ‘Premise Semantics’ for counterfactuals developed in Veltman (1976) and Kratzer (1981). It also offers an alternative solution to the problems with naive Premise Semantics discussed by Angelika Kratzer in ‘Lumps of Thought’ (Kratzer, 1989). Such an alternative is called for given the triviality results presented in Kanazawa et al. (2005, this issue).
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  32.  17
    Pietra Rivoli (2003). Making a Difference or Making a Statement? Finance Research and Socially Responsible Investment. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (3):271-287.
    What does socially responsible investing (SRI) accomplish for investors and for society? Proponents of SRI claim that the practiceyields competitive portfolio returns for investors, while at the same time achieving better outcomes for society at large. Skepticsview SRI as ineffective at best and ill-conceived marketing hype at worst. My objective in this paper is to apply mainstream finance research findings to the question of whether SRI may be expected to lead to superior social outcomes. I conclude that under the perfectmarkets (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  33. Pamela Hieronymi (2011). Making a Difference. Social Theory and Practice 37 (1):81-94.
    I suggest that Fischer concedes too much to the consequence argument when he grants that we may not make a difference. I provide a broad sketch of (my take on) the dispute between compatibilists and incompatibilists, while suggesting that some of the discussion may have confused the freedom required for moral responsibility with a very different notion of autonomy. I introduce that less usual notion of autonomy and suggest that those who are autonomous, in this sense, do make a difference.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Karl Halvor Teigen (2005). When a Small Difference Makes a Big Difference: Counterfactual Thinking and Luck. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35. A. D. Galinsky, K. A. Liljenquist, L. J. Kray & N. R. Roese (2005). Finding Meaning From Mutability: Making Sense and Deriving Meaning From Counterfactual Thinking. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  32
    Thomas A. Regelski (2005). Music and Music Education: Theory and Praxis for 'Making a Difference'. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37 (1):7–27.
    The ‘music appreciation as contemplation’ paradigm of traditional aesthetics and music education assumes that music exists to be contemplated for itself. The resulting distantiation of music and music education from life creates a legitimation crisis for music education. Failing to make a noteworthy musical difference for society, a politics of advocacy attempts to justify music education. Praxial theories of music, instead, see music as pragmatically social in origin, meaning, and value. A praxial approach to music education stresses that appreciation is (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  25
    Win-Chiat Lee (1989). Statutory Interpretation and the Counterfactual Test for Legislative Intention. Law and Philosophy 8 (3):383-404.
    In this paper I examine the counterfactual test for legislative intention as used in Riggs v. Palmer. The distinction between the speaker's meaning approach and the constructive interpretation approach to statutory interpretation, as made by Dworkin in Law's Empire, is explained. I argue that Dworkin underestimates the potential of the counterfactual test in making the speaker's meaning approach more plausible. I also argue that Dworkin's reasons for rejecting the counterfactual test, as proposed in Law's Empire, are either (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  6
    Gill Valentine (1997). Making Space: Separatism and Difference. In John Paul Jones, Heidi J. Nast & Susan M. Roberts (eds.), Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, and Representation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 65--76.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  6
    Radomír Masaryk & Lenka Sokolová (2012). Making a Difference by Doing Applied Qualitative Research in Education: Three Case Studies. Human Affairs 22 (4):492-509.
    The paper explores the possibilities of using applied qualitative research to help to achieve changes in the context of education. It presents three case studies: an evaluation of an educational software package which may be implemented nationally; an assessment of the impact of a 1:1 Technology Rich Learning Environment experimental project conducted in two Slovak elementary schools; and international comparative research on the curricula of psychology courses in secondary schools. The authors ask three questions: 1. does qualitative research have the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  5
    Alan Malachowski (2011). Making a Difference in Cultural Politics: Rorty's Interventions. Contemporary Pragmatism 8 (1):85-95.
    This article examines some general features of what Richard Rorty called "cultural politics." It attempts to explain why Rorty thought it both possible and desirable to give politics priority over ontology. He set aside traditional philosophical questions concerning what there is, while making those worth retaining subservient to cultural negotiation. Rorty's conception of cultural politics can perhaps avoid the complaint that by failing to deliver a substantial version of objectivity, he falls hostage to dangerous relativism.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  7
    D. J. Krieger (2011). Making a Difference. Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):33-34.
    Open peer commentary on the target article “From Objects to Processes: A Proposal to Rewrite Radical Constructivism” by Siegfried J. Schmidt. Upshot: The critique of Western metaphysics, the definition of the sign as an inseparable unity of signified and signifier, the insight that language is a form of life, the deconstruction of the subject, the banning of human beings from the social system, and the appearance of non-human actors have made the traditional distinctions between real/unreal, subject /object, society/nature, and thought/action (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. D. Galinsky Adam, A. Liljenquist Katie, L. Kray Laura & J. Roese Neal (2005). Finding Meaning From Mutability: Making Sense and Deriving Significance Through Counterfactual Thinking. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Richard Teese (1982). Reviews : R. W. Connell, D. J. Ashenden, S. Kessler & G. W. Dowsett, Making the Difference. Schools, Families and Social Division (Allen & Unwin, 1982). [REVIEW] Thesis Eleven 5 (1):328-331.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  26
    Steven Dellaportas (2006). Making a Difference with a Discrete Course on Accounting Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 65 (4):391-404.
    Calls for the expansion of ethics education in the business and accounting curricula have resulted in a variety of interventions including additional material on ethical cases, the code of conduct, and the development of new courses devoted to ethical development [Lampe, J.: 1996]. The issue of whether ethics should be taught has been addressed by many authors [see for example: Hanson, K. O.: 1987; Huss, H. F. and D. M. Patterson: 1993; Jones, T. M.: 1988–1989; Kerr, D. S. and L. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   19 citations  
  45. Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock & Huw Price (eds.) (forthcoming). Making a Difference. Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  46.  32
    Peter Lipton (1993). Making a Difference. Philosophica 51.
    An effect is typically explained by citing a cause, but not any cause will do. The oxygen and the spark were both causes of the fire, but normally only the spark explains it. What then distinguishes explanatory from unexplanatory causes? One might attempt to characterise this distinction in terms of intrinsic features of the causes. For example, some causes are changes while others are standing conditions, and one might claim that only the changes explain. Both the spark and the oxygen (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  47.  6
    Sarah Schwarzkopf, Leonhard Schilbach, Kai Vogeley & Bert Timmermans (2014). “Making It Explicit” Makes a Difference: Evidence for a Dissociation of Spontaneous and Intentional Level 1 Perspective Taking in High-Functioning Autism. Cognition 131 (3):345-354.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  6
    Hennie R. Boeije, Floryt van Wesel & Eva Alisic (2011). Making a Difference: Towards a Method for Weighing the Evidence in a Qualitative Synthesis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17 (4):657-663.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49.  13
    C. Delany (2008). Making a Difference: Incorporating Theories of Autonomy Into Models of Informed Consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):e3-e3.
    Background: Obtaining patients’ informed consent is an ethical and legal obligation in healthcare practice. Whilst the law provides prescriptive rules and guidelines, ethical theories of autonomy provide moral foundations. Models of practice of consent, have been developed in the bioethical literature to assist in understanding and integrating the ethical theory of autonomy and legal obligations into the clinical process of obtaining a patient’s informed consent to treatment.Aims: To review four models of consent and analyse the way each model incorporates the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  50.  4
    Jean-Pierre Cometti (2015). Making the Difference: John Dewey and the Naturalization of Aesthetics. Aisthesis. Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi Dell’Estetico 8 (1):123-134.
    The “Neuronal man”, as Changeux has called him, is now credited with an aesthetic mind. This mind is not the “Geist” of the philosophical tradition. The cognitive sciences have took over from philosophy and now they deal with art and aesthetics as they do with whatever aspect of human thought, experience and activity. Philosophers like Kant were interested in the empirical sources of beauty, but for him empirical features of its development did not change anything at all to its very (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000