Jury theorems are mathematical theorems about the ability of collectives to make correct decisions. Several jury theorems carry the optimistic message that, in suitable circumstances, ‘crowds are wise’: many individuals together (using, for instance, majority voting) tend to make good decisions, outperforming fewer or just one individual. Jury theorems form the technical core of epistemic arguments for democracy, and provide probabilistic tools for reasoning about the epistemic quality of collective decisions. The popularity of jury theorems spans across various disciplines such (...) as economics, political science, philosophy, and computer science. This entry reviews and critically assesses a variety of jury theorems. It first discusses Condorcet's initial jury theorem, and then progressively introduces jury theorems with more appropriate premises and conclusions. It explains the philosophical foundations, and relates jury theorems to diversity, deliberation, shared evidence, shared perspectives, and other phenomena. It finally connects jury theorems to their historical background and to democratic theory, social epistemology, and social choice theory. (shrink)

A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and practical users is often plagued by a number of “myths”, that is, widely accepted claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations of QM. These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement-independent reality, locality of QM, nonlocality of QM, the existence of well-defined relativistic QM, the claims that quantum field theory (QFT) solves the problems of relativistic QM or (...) that QFT is a theory of particles, as well as myths on black-hole entropy. The fact is that the existence of various theoretical and interpretational ambiguities underlying these myths does not yet allow us to accept them as proven facts. I review the main arguments and counterarguments lying behind these myths and conclude that QM is still a not-yet-completely-understood theory open to further fundamental research. (shrink)

We give a review and critique of jury theorems from a social-epistemology perspective, covering Condorcet’s (1785) classic theorem and several later refinements and departures. We assess the plausibility of the conclusions and premises featuring in jury theorems and evaluate the potential of such theorems to serve as formal arguments for the ‘wisdom of crowds’. In particular, we argue (i) that there is a fundamental tension between voters’ independence and voters’ competence, hence between the two premises of most jury theorems; (ii) (...) that the (asymptotic) conclusion that ‘huge groups are infallible’, reached by many jury theorems, is an artifact of unjustified premises; and (iii) that the (nonasymptotic) conclusion that ‘larger groups are more reliable’, also reached by many jury theorems, is not an artifact and should be regarded as the more adequate formal rendition of the ‘wisdom of crowds’. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Millennium Jahrgang: 13 Heft: 1 Seiten: 211-274.

A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and practical users is often plagued by a number of “myths”, that is, widely accepted claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations of QM. These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement-independent reality, locality of QM, nonlocality of QM, the existence of well-defined relativistic QM, the claims that quantum field theory (QFT) solves the problems of relativistic QM or (...) that QFT is a theory of particles, as well as myths on black-hole entropy. The fact is that the existence of various theoretical and interpretational ambiguities underlying these myths does not yet allow us to accept them as proven facts. I review the main arguments and counterarguments lying behind these myths and conclude that QM is still a not-yet-completely-understood theory open to further fundamental research. (shrink)

The article examines whether countries should legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. Firstly, context of the debate is provided by defining the key terms and giving the overview of how the debate evolved throughout history. The arguments in favor of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide are addressed, namely the argument from autonomy and self–determination and the claim for the “right to die with dignity”. The consequences which were showed to occur in the countries which legalized euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are analyzed, (...) and the case study on the Netherlands and Belgium is made. Finally, the model for the dignity–respecting health–care is proposed followed by the call for bigger accessibility and funding for palliative care. (shrink)

High artistic achievements were repeatedly connected with poetry in the tradition of Western aesthetical thought, and the poetry with eliciting emotions. The same has happened within the tradition of film reviewing and theorising: poetry has been repeatedly evoked as a paradigmatic artistic achievement of particular films. But among the different affective states that can be elicited in humans by arts, attribution of ‘poetry’ typically addresses the eliciting and articulation of particular general moods, not the specific, episodic, short-term emotions. In this (...) paper, specified are the differences among emotions and moods, and how a distinct mood is achieved is demonstrated by the close analysis of the introductory descriptive scene in the film Citizen Kane. However, the crucial question is how very different and heterogeneous stylistic means pointed out in the analysis of the scene could elicit a particular, unique, holistic mood. In short, the answer is given by understanding that in the same way in which the moods selectively regulate our relations toward the world, choosing for the perception mood-congruent features of the world to sustain a particular mood, so the filmmakers choose a repertory of stylistic solutions congruent with the selectivity of the intended mood to elicit it in the immersed film viewer. (shrink)

The Heideggerian question posed here as “what does it mean to dwell in a global age” leaves open, invites even, the possibility of committing two conceptual mistakes from which, depending on the theoretical universe we inhabit, two separate sets of problems arise. On the one hand, if the adverbial “in a global age” is taken to denote a radical historical caesura between “our age” and the age in which the concept was first deployed, one has to prove that the caesura (...) is indeed not only historically operative but legitimate on an ontological level. This would, however, be a futile attempt: there hardly exists an essential, qualitative difference between the ontological regime of “our global age” and the one sketched in Heidegger's 1954 essay “Building Dwelling Thinking.” We have not been blessed by any epochal turns, despite important switches – to move for a second to a different register—in regimes of accumulation. Thus, it may be concluded, the ontological question about the state of “dwelling in a precarious age” has already been posed and answered by Heidegger himself—from an ontological perspective, he is our contemporary. And of course, to such question there can in fact be only one answer: it is the same “metaphysics” that has precluded the possibility of “dwelling” throughout modernity that gave rise to our age as global. But then to avoid the mistake sketched out above and the repetition of an already accomplished analysis, the question as it is posed for us here should be taken as a politicization of the original concept, foreign to a puritanically ontological Heideggerian diagnostics, although building on its foundations: what is to be done historically at this moment to enter “dwelling”? (shrink)

Even though the Bohmian trajectories given by integral curves of the conserved Klein-Gordon current may involve motions backwards in time, the natural relativistic probability density of particle positions is well-defined. The Bohmian theory predicts subtle deviations from the statistical predictions of more conventional formulations of quantum theory, but it seems that no present experiment rules this theory out. The generalization to the case of many particles or strings is straightforward, provided that a preferred foliation of spacetime is given.

Bosonic and fermionic particle currents can be introduced in a more unified way, with the cost of introducing a preferred spacetime foliation. Such a unified treatment of bosons and fermions naturally emerges from an analogous superstring current, showing that the preferred spacetime foliation appears only at the level of effective field theory, not at the fundamental superstring level. The existence of the preferred spacetime foliation allows an objective definition of particles associated with quantum field theory in curved spacetime. Such an (...) objective definition of particles makes the Bohmian interpretation of particle quantum mechanics more appealing. The superstring current allows a consistent Bohmian interpretation of superstrings themselves, including a Bohmian description of string creation and destruction in terms of string splitting. The Bohmian equations of motion and the corresponding probabilistic predictions are fully relativistic covariant and do not depend on the preferred foliation. (shrink)

In a homogeneous jury, in which each vote is correct with the same probability, and each pair of votes correlates with the same correlation coefficient, there exists a correlation-robust voting quota, such that the probability of a correct verdict is independent of the correlation coefficient. For positive correlation, an increase in the correlation coefficient decreases the probability of a correct verdict for any voting rule below the correlation-robust quota, and increases that probability for any above the correlation-robust quota. The jury (...) may be less competent under the correlation-robust rule than under simple majority rule and less competent under simple majority rule than a single juror alone. The jury is always less competent than a single juror under unanimity rule. (shrink)

To relax the apparent tension between nonlocal hidden variables and relativity, we propose that the observable proper time is not the same quantity as the usual proper-time parameter appearing in local relativistic equations. Instead, the two proper times are related by a nonlocal rescaling parameter proportional to |ψ|2, so that they coincide in the classical limit. In this way particle trajectories may obey local relativistic equations of motion in a manner consistent with the appearance of nonlocal quantum correlations. To illustrate (...) the main idea, we first present two simple toy models of local particle trajectories with nonlocal time, which reproduce some nonlocal quantum phenomena. After that, we present a realistic theory with a capacity to reproduce all predictions of quantum theory. (shrink)

Since Bohmian mechanics is explicitly nonlocal, it is widely believed that it is very hard, if not impossible, to make Bohmian mechanics compatible with relativistic quantum field theory. I explain, in simple terms, that it is not hard at all to construct a Bohmian theory that lacks Lorentz covariance, but makes the same measurable predictions as relativistic QFT. All one has to do is to construct a Bohmian theory that makes the same measurable predictions as QFT in one Lorentz frame, (...) because then standard relativistic QFT itself guarantees that those predictions are Lorentz invariant. I first explain this in general terms, then I describe a simple Bohmian model that makes the same measurable predictions as the Standard Model of elementary particles, after which I give some hints towards a more fundamental theory beyond standard model. Finally, I present a short story telling how my views of fundamental physics in general, and of Bohmian mechanics in particular, evolved over time. (shrink)

Statistical physics cannot explain why a thermodynamic arrow of time exists, unless one postulates very special and unnatural initial conditions. Yet, we argue that statistical physics can explain why the thermodynamic arrow of time is universal, i.e., why the arrow points in the same direction everywhere. Namely, if two subsystems have opposite arrow-directions at a particular time, the interaction between them makes the configuration statistically unstable and causes a decay towards a system with a universal direction of the arrow of (...) time. We present general qualitative arguments for that claim and support them by a detailed analysis of a toy model based on the baker’s map. (shrink)

Suppose that a majority of jurors decide that a defendant is guilty (or not), and we want to know the likelihood that they reached the correct verdict. The French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) showed that we can get a mathematically precise answer, a result known as the “Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Condorcet’s theorem isn’t just about juries, though; it’s about collective decision-making in general. As a result, some philosophers have used his theorem to argue for democratic forms of government. This (...) essay explains Condorcet’s theorem and how philosophers have used it as an argument for democracy. (shrink)

Sistemas jurídicos -- Enunciados jurídicos preinterpretivos -- Enunciados jurídicos interpretivos.

Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic research. Usually journals carry this out. However, parts of maths and physics appear to have a parallel, crowd-sourced model of peer review, where papers are posted on the arXiv to be publicly discussed. In this paper we argue that crowd-sourced peer review is likely to do better than journal-solicited peer review at sorting papers by quality. Our argument rests on two key claims. First, crowd-sourced peer (...) review will lead on average to more reviewers per paper than journal-solicited peer review. Second, due to the wisdom of the crowds, more reviewers will tend to make better judgments than fewer. We make the second claim precise by looking at the Condorcet Jury Theorem as well as two related jury theorems developed specifically to apply to peer review. (shrink)

Trial by jury is a fundamental feature of democratic governance. But what form should jury decision-making take? I argue against the status quo system in which juries are encouraged and even required to engage in group deliberation as a means to reaching a decision. Jury deliberation is problematic for both theoretical and empirical reasons. On the theoretical front, deliberation destroys the independence of jurors’ judgments that is needed for certain attractive theoretical results. On the empirical front, we have evidence from (...) both legal and non-legal contexts that group deliberation often leads to group judgments that are worse in a number of respects than judgments generated by non-interactional methods of judgment aggregation. Finally, I examine some possible alternatives to free-wheeling jury deliberation, including the constrained and structured deliberation embodied in the DELPHI method, voting, and averaging of probabilistic judgments. (shrink)

November 1936 PREFACE THIS book is, in slightly revised form, a dis sertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Yale University.

U članku pod gornjim naslovom su sličnosti i razlike metafizičkih počela Aristotela i Tome Akvinskog iskazane analizom argumentacije koja je sržna za obje ove metafizike: o postojanju Nepokretnog pokretača, Čistog akta. Tom analizom je pokazano da, iako im argumentacija ima istu logičku strukturu i isto polazište – promjenu bića – ipak ih je razlika u shvaćanju metafizičkih počela samog bića dovela do različitih zaključaka. Tako je ovdje pokazano da je za Aristotelovu metafiziku supstancije zadnja zbiljnost bića supstancijalna forma, koje svoje (...) zadnje utemeljenje ima u Čistom aktu, Nepokretnom pokretaču, dok za metafiziku bitka Tome Akvinskog zadnja zbiljnost bića jest bitak, koji svoje zadnje utemeljenje ima također u Čistom aktu, ali koji je shvaćen kao Čisti akt bivstvovanja, Subzistentni bitak. Stoga je za Aristotela Čisti akt isključivo oblikovatelj ostale stvarnosti ukoliko je svršni uzrok te nema, niti može imati, kao Nepokretni pokretač, ikakav drugi uzročni utjecaj na ostalu stvarnost, dok je za Tomu Akvinskog Nepokretni pokretač nužno Čisti akt bivstvovanja čije djelovanje je stvaranje.In this article the similarities and differences of Aristotle’s and Thomas Aquinas’ metaphysical principles are set forth by analyzing the core arguments of their metaphysics: principally, those concerning the existence of the Unmoved Mover, also called Pure Act. The analysis shows that although their arguments have the same logical structure and the same starting point – the fact that beings change – different conceptions of the metaphysical principles of being nevertheless lead to different conclusions. Therefore, this article shows that within Aristotle’s metaphysics of substance, the ultimate actuality is the substantial form which has its last ground in Pure Act, the Unmoved Mover. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas believes that the ultimate actuality is existence, which also has its last ground in Pure Act, but the Act of Existence, or Subsistent Existence. Therefore, Aristotle’s Pure Act is a mere giver of forms and the final cause of reality. This Pure Act does not have, nor it can have any other causal influence on the rest of reality, while Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover is necessarily the Pure Act of Existence whose activity we call creation. (shrink)

Najnovija enciklika pape Benedikta XVI Caritas in veritate, kao i prethodne enciklike posvećene socijalnoj tematici, najreprezentativniji su dio opusa katoličkog socijalnog nauka koji u svijetlu judeo-kršćanske Objave i općih načela kršćanske filozofije raščlanjuje aktualne svjetske društvene prilike.U članku se razložila prožetost socijalnog nauka Crkve filozofijom te ukazalo na metafizičke specifičnosti te filozofije, koja sačinjava, kako se je pokazalo, filozofski okvir enciklike Caritas in veritate. Analizom logike filozofskog diskursa Benedikta XVI koja inkorporira, u taj filozofski okvir, načelo besplatnosti kao izraz ljudskog (...) bratstva, nastojalo se ukazati na doprinos enciklike Caritas in veritate aktualnim promišljanjima filozofije globalizacije.The latest encyclical letter by the Pope Benedict XVI Caritas in veritate, similar to the former encyclicals dedicated to social issues, is the most representative part of the Catholic social teaching which analyses current world issues in the light of Judeo-Christian Revelation and general principles of Christian philosophy.This article has expounded the philosophical background of Roman Catholic social teaching and indicated metaphysical peculiarities of that philosophy which builds, as it is shown, the philosophical foundation of the encyclical Caritas in veritate. By analyzing the logic of Benedict’s philosophical discourse, which in that philosophical frame includes the principle of gratuitousness as the expression of human fraternity, we tried to show the contribution of Caritas in veritate encyclical letter to current philosophical thought about globalization. (shrink)