Why, when asking oneself whether to believe that p, must one immediately recognize that this question is settled by, and only by, answering the question whether p is true? Truth is not an optional end for first-personal doxastic deliberation, providing an instrumental or extrinsic reason that an agent may take or leave at will. Otherwise there would be an inferential step between discovering the truth with respect to p and determining whether to believe that p, involving a bridge premise that (...) it is good to believe the truth with respect to p. But there is no such gap between the two questions within the first-personal deliberative perspective; the question whether to believe that p seems to collapse into the question whether p is true. (shrink)

Two prejudices have hampered our understanding of John Stuart Mill’s central argument for free speech. One prejudice is that arguments for free speech can only be made in terms of values or rights. This prejudice causes us to miss the depth of Mill’s argument. He does not argue that silencing speech is harmful or violates rights, but instead that silencing speech is a uniquely self-undermining act; it undermines the ground upon which it is based. But even if we overcome this (...) prejudice and appreciate the self-undermining character of Mill’s argument, the prejudice that epistemic justification is a completable task blinds us to the role of open-mindedness in his argument; and failing to see this leads us to wrongly conclude that his argument is invalid. It is only once we have overcome both prejudices that we can appreciate the depth and power of Mill’s argument for free speech. (shrink)

Believing that p, assuming that p, and imagining that p involve regarding p as true—or, as we shall call it, accepting p. What distinguishes belief from the other modes of acceptance? We claim that conceiving of an attitude as a belief, rather than an assumption or an instance of imagining, entails conceiving of it as an acceptance that is regulated for truth, while also applying to it the standard of being correct if and only if it is true. We argue (...) that the second half of this claim, according to which the concept of belief includes a standard of correctness, is required to explain the fact that the deliberative question whether to believe that p is transparent to the question whether p. This argument raises various questions. Is there such a thing as deliberating whether to believe? Is the transparency of the deliberative question whether to believe that p the same as the transparency of the factual question whether I do believe that p? We will begin by answering these questions and then turn to a series of possible objections to our argument. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world. After liberalization in 1991, microfinance became a panacea for poor people without collateral and information asymmetry. The higher cost of microfinance and debt traps highlighted the need for the state to intervene in resource redistribution. In addition, national lockdowns and COVID-19 restrictions have made it difficult for emerging economies like India to achieve this sustainable development goal. The Reserve Bank of India introduced self-help group (SHG) bank linkage to ensure the financial inclusion of (...) the poor. The difference-in-difference method examined how SHGs affect entrepreneur households’ income. CMIE Consumer Pyramid dx data were used for analysis. The data establish that SHGs have increased the income of the households, and demographic factors such as education, income level and gender also impact the financial inclusion of the poor. (shrink)

Why, when asking oneself whether to believe that p, must one immediately recognize that this question is settled by, and only by, answering the question whether p is true? Truth is not an optional end for first-personal doxastic deliberation, providing an instrumental or extrinsic reason that an agent may take or leave at will. Otherwise there would be an inferential step between discovering the truth with respect to p and determining whether to believe that p, involving a bridge premise that (...) it is good (in whichever sense of good one likes, moral, prudential, aesthetic, allthings-considered, etc.) to believe the truth with respect to p. But there is no such gap between the two questions within the first-personal deliberative perspective; the question whether to believe that p seems to collapse into the question whether p is true. (shrink)

When we deliberate whether to believe some proposition, we feel immediately compelled to look for evidence of its truth. Philosophers have labelled this feature of doxastic deliberation 'transparency'. I argue that resolving the disagreement in the ethics of belief between evidentialists and pragmatists turns on the correct explanation of transparency. My hypothesis is that it reflects a conceptual truth about belief: a belief that p is correct if and only if p. This normative truth entails that only evidence can be (...) a reason for belief. Although evidentialism does not follow directly from the mere psychological truth that we cannot believe for non-evidential reasons, it does follow directly from the normative conceptual truth about belief which explains why we cannot do so. (shrink)

Estrogen receptor α (ERα) is a ligand‐dependent transcription factor that regulates the expression of estrogen‐responsive genes. Approximately 70% of patients with breast cancer are ERα positive. Estrogen stimulates cancer cell proliferation and contributes to tumor progression. Endocrine therapies, which suppress the ERα signaling pathway, significantly improve the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. However, the development of de novo or acquired endocrine therapy resistance remains a barrier to breast cancer treatment. Therefore, understanding the regulatory mechanisms of ERα is essential to (...) overcome the resistance to treatment. This review focuses on the regulation of ERα expression, including copy number variation, epigenetic regulation, transcriptional regulation, and stability, as well as functions from the point of view post‐translational modifications. (shrink)

We propose a new game to strategically justify the constrained equal awards rule in claims problems. Our game is “procedurally fair” and “multilateral”. In addition, even if claimants cannot reach an agreement in any period, they can renegotiate in the next period. We show that, for each claims problem, the awards vector chosen by the constrained equal awards rule achieved at period 1 is the unique subgame perfect equilibrium outcome of the game.

Akama et al. [1] systematically studied an arithmetical hierarchy of the law of excluded middle and related principles in the context of first-order arithmetic. In that paper, they first provide a prenex normal form theorem as a justification of their semi-classical principles restricted to prenex formulas. However, there are some errors in their proof. In this paper, we provide a simple counterexample of their prenex normal form theorem [1, Theorem 2.7], then modify it in an appropriate way which still serves (...) to largely justify the arithmetical hierarchy. In addition, we characterize a variety of prenex normal form theorems by logical principles in the arithmetical hierarchy. The characterization results reveal that our prenex normal form theorems are optimal. For the characterization results, we establish a new conservation theorem on semi-classical arithmetic. The theorem generalizes a well-known fact that classical arithmetic is $\Pi _2$ -conservative over intuitionistic arithmetic. (shrink)

Why can't deliberation conclude in an intention except by considering whether to perform the intended action? I argue that the answer to this question entails that reasons for intention are determined by reasons for action. Understanding this feature of practical deliberation thus allows us to solve the toxin puzzle.

We identify bar recursion on moduli of continuity as a fundamental notion of constructive mathematics. We show that continuous functions from the Baire space \ to the natural numbers \ which have moduli of continuity with bar recursors are exactly those functions induced by Brouwer operations. The connection between Brouwer operations and bar induction allows us to formulate several continuity principles on the Baire space stated in terms of bar recursion on continuous moduli which naturally characterise some variants of bar (...) induction. These principles state that a certain kind of continuous function from \ to \ admits a modulus of continuity with a bar recursor. The results for the Baire space are recast in the setting of the Cantor space \ using the notion of fan recursor, a bar recursor for binary trees. This yields characterisations of uniformly continuous functions on the Cantor space and fan theorem in terms of fan recursors. The results for the Cantor space hold over the extensional version of intuitionistic arithmetic in all finite types ), and those for the Baire space hold over \ extended with the type for Brouwer operations. Our work places Spector’s bar recursion in a proper context of Brouwer’s intuitionistic mathematics and clarifies the connection between bar recursion and bar induction. (shrink)

It is common for philosophers to claim that doxastic voluntarism, the view that an agent can form beliefs voluntarily, is false, and therefore that agents do not have the kind of control over their beliefs required for a straightforward application of deontological concepts such as obligation or duty in the domain of epistemology. The role that the denial of doxastic voluntarism plays in an argument to the effect that agents do not have obligations with respect to belief is simply this.

We systematically study several principles and give a principle which is weaker than disjunctive Markov’s principle. We also show that the principle is underivable and strictly weaker than MP∨ in certain extensions of the system EL of elementary analysis.

We provide a fine‐grained analysis on the relation between König's lemma, weak König's lemma, and the decidable fan theorem in the context of constructive reverse mathematics. In particular, we show that double negated variants of König's lemma and weak König's lemma are equivalent to double negated variants of the general decidable fan theorem and the binary decidable fan theorem, respectively, over a nearly intuitionistic system containing a weak countable choice only. This implies that the general decidable fan theorem is not (...) equivalent to the binary decidable fan theorem in the absence of a strong countable choice. In addition, we introduce a principle which fills the gap between König's lemma and weak König's lemma, and show that König's lemma is equivalent to weak König's lemma plus this principle. We also solve several problems arising from the investigation. (shrink)

The issue of justice after catastrophe is an enormous challenge to contemporary theories of distributive justice. In the past three decades, the controversy over distributive justice has centered on the ideal of equality. One of intensely debated issues concerns what is often called the “equality of what,” on which there are three primary views: welfarism, resourcism, and the capabilities approach. Another major point of dispute can be termed the “equality or another,” about which three positions debate: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and sufficientarianism. (...) On these topics of distributive justice, authors are concerned with the current difference between the better-off and the worse-off or the present situation of the badly-off. By contrast, it is essential to take account of the past distribution of well-being as well as the present situation in order to explore questions of post-catastrophe justice. Without looking at the pre-disaster distribution of income, preference satisfaction, or basic capabilities among affected people, no present assessment of the damage caused by the disaster could be correct and no proposed remedy adequate. It is true that luck egalitarians assess the current distribution among people by referring to the decision that each individual made. Yet they pay scant attention to the situation in which each one stayed in the past. Therefore, we can legitimately say that most theorists of distributive justice, including luck egalitarians, have failed to give consideration to the past state of each person. -/- To fill this gap in the literature, the present article explores philosophical questions that arise when we take account of each person’s past and present situations in discussing distributive justice regarding public compensation and assistance to survivors and families of victims of natural and industrial disasters. In addressing these novel questions, I develop and refine various concepts, ideas, and arguments that have been presented in the study of distributive justice in normal settings. I tackle two tasks, the first of which is to explore the foundation and scope of luck egalitarianism. Despite the moral appeal it has in many cases, luck egalitarianism has attracted the so-called harshness objection. Some luck egalitarians attempt to avoid this objection in a pragmatic way by combining the luck egalitarian doctrine with the principle of basic needs satisfaction. However, they do not provide any systematic rationale for this combination. In contrast with such pragmatic responses, I seek to offer a principled argument for holding individuals responsible for their choices only when their basic needs are met, by invoking the ideas of respect for human voluntariness and rescue of human vulnerability. Based on this argument, I propose a form of responsibility-sensitive theory, which considers the pre-disaster distribution of well-being as a default position. The second task I take on is to refine sufficientarianism in the context of post-catastrophe justice. Luck egalitarianism with boundaries set by the basic needs principle seems to indicate the potential for sufficientarianism. But major proponents of this view conceive the welfarist assumption, a considerably high standard of well-being, and the controversial treatment of persons staying below the threshold, all of which seem problematic in the post-disaster situation. I try to construct a new version of sufficientarianism by replacing these current features with more robust ones. (shrink)

We define a liar-type paradox as a consistent proposition in propositional modal logic which is obtained by attaching boxes to several subformulas of an inconsistent proposition in classical propositional logic, and show several famous paradoxes are liar-type. Then we show that we can generate a liar-type paradox from any inconsistent proposition in classical propositional logic and that undecidable sentences in arithmetic can be obtained from the existence of a liar-type paradox. We extend these results to predicate logic and discuss Yablo’s (...) Paradox in this framework. Furthermore, we define explicit and implicit self-reference in paradoxes in the incompleteness phenomena. (shrink)

We refine the arithmetical hierarchy of various classical principles by finely investigating the derivability relations between these principles over Heyting arithmetic. We mainly investigate some restricted versions of the law of excluded middle, De Morgan's law, the double negation elimination, the collection principle and the constant domain axiom.

We systematically study conservation theorems on theories of semi-classical arithmetic, which lie in-between classical arithmetic $\mathsf {PA}$ and intuitionistic arithmetic $\mathsf {HA}$. Using a generalized negative translation, we first provide a structured proof of the fact that $\mathsf {PA}$ is $\Pi _{k+2}$ -conservative over $\mathsf {HA} + {\Sigma _k}\text {-}\mathrm {LEM}$ where ${\Sigma _k}\text {-}\mathrm {LEM}$ is the axiom scheme of the law-of-excluded-middle restricted to formulas in $\Sigma _k$. In addition, we show that this conservation theorem is optimal in the (...) sense that for any semi-classical arithmetic T, if $\mathsf {PA}$ is $\Pi _{k+2}$ -conservative over T, then ${T}$ proves ${\Sigma _k}\text {-}\mathrm {LEM}$. In the same manner, we also characterize conservation theorems for other well-studied classes of formulas by fragments of classical axioms or rules. This reveals the entire structure of conservation theorems with respect to the arithmetical hierarchy of classical principles. (shrink)

Akama et al. [1] introduced a hierarchical classification of first-order formulas for a hierarchical prenex normal form theorem in semi-classical arithmetic. In this paper, we give a justification for the hierarchical classification in a general context of first-order theories. To this end, we first formalize the standard transformation procedure for prenex normalization. Then we show that the classes $$\textrm{E}_k$$ and $$\textrm{U}_k$$ introduced in [1] are exactly the classes induced by $$\Sigma _k$$ and $$\Pi _k$$ respectively via the transformation procedure in (...) any first-order theory. (shrink)

Within a weak subsystem of second-order arithmetic , that is -conservative over , we reformulate Kreisel's proof of the Second Incompleteness Theorem and Boolos' proof of the First Incompleteness Theorem.

Kierstead showed that every computable marriage problem has a computable matching under the assumption of computable expanding Hall condition and computable local finiteness for boys and girls. The strength of the marriage theorem reaches or if computable expanding Hall condition or computable local finiteness for girls is weakened. In contrast, the provability of the marriage theorem is maintained in even if local finiteness for boys is completely removed. Using these conditions, we classify the strength of variants of marriage theorems in (...) the context of reverse mathematics. Furthermore, we introduce another condition that also makes the marriage theorem provable in, and investigate the sequential and Weihrauch strength of marriage theorems under that condition. (shrink)

Mark Schroeder has recently presented apparent counterexamples to the standard account of the distinction between the right and the wrong kinds of reasons. We argue that these examples appear to refute the standard account only because they blur the distinction between two kinds of reasoning: reasoning about whether to intend or believe that p and reasoning about whether to take up the question of whether to intend or believe that p.

没後20年、いま必要な歴史に裏打ちされた予見力、現実政治に提言する率直さ、道義性と理想主義。.