The task of designing effective economic and political institutions requires substantial foresight. The designer must anticipate not only the behavior of individual actors, but also how that behavior will aggregate. Rising complexity brought about by increases in speeds of adaptation, diversity, connectedness, and interdependence make institutional design all the more challenging. Given the focus on equilibria, the extant literature on mechanism design might appear incapable of coping with this complexity. Yet, I suggest that a deeper engagement with the origins of (...) the mechanism-design framework reveals insights that may help us design robust, adaptive institutions that can harness complexity. (shrink)
Consensus plays an ambiguous role in deliberative democracy. While it formed the horizon of early deliberative theories, many now denounce it as an empirically unachievable outcome, a logically impossible stopping rule, and a normatively undesirable ideal. Deliberative disagreement, by contrast, is celebrated not just as an empirically unavoidable outcome but also as a democratically sound and normatively desirable goal of deliberation. Majority rule has generally displaced unanimity as the ideal way of bringing deliberation to a close. This article offers an (...) epistemic perspective on this question of consensus versus disagreement. For ensuring the production of better decisions, we argue, the normative appeal of consensus varies depending on the deliberative task – whether it entails problem solving or prediction. We argue that in pure problem-solving contexts, consensus retains a strong normative appeal and forms the ideal deliberative outcome of deliberation. In contrast, on predictive tasks, consensus should generally not be used as a stopping rule noris it likely to be epistemically desirable as an outcome. Instead deliberators may be better served by ending the deliberation with a form of deliberative disagreement we call ‘positive dissensus’, which paves the way for more accurate aggregate predictions. (shrink)
Complexity science has witnessed a number of advances since the publication of Jervis's System Effects. These advances better allow us to untangle the messy elements in a system and predict sets of likely outcomes. However, just because a system is complex doesn't mean that all the ideas relating to complexity?such as agent-based modeling, path dependency, tipping points, between-class versus within-class effects, and networks?are necessarily relevant. One of our tasks is to determine whether they are?and, if so, their implications. As examples, (...) we use China's role in the formation of the United States housing bubble; the federal government's bailout of AIG and Bear Stearns but not Lehman Brothers; and China's failure to experience a regime change such as the Middle East's Arab Spring. (shrink)
Epistemic justifications for democracy have been offered in terms of two different aspects of decision-making: voting and deliberation, or ‘votes’ and ‘talk.’ The Condorcet Jury Theorem is appealed to as a justification in terms votes, and the Hong-Page “Diversity Trumps Ability” result is appealed to as a justification in terms of deliberation. Both of these, however, are most plausibly construed as models of direct democracy, with full and direct participation across the population. In this paper, we explore how these (...) results hold up if we vary the model so as to reflect the more familiar democratic structure of a representative hierarchy. We first recount extant analytic work that shows that representation inevitably weakens the voting results of the Condorcet Jury Theorem, but we question the ability of that result to shine light on real representative systems. We then show that, when we move from votes to talk, as modeled in Hong-Page, representation holds its own and even has a slight edge. (shrink)
The Red Market: On the Trail of the World’s Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers, and Child Traffickers Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 1-3 DOI 10.1007/s11673-012-9361-3 Authors Dominique E. Martin, 39 Eltham Street, Flemington, 3031 Australia Journal Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Online ISSN 1872-4353 Print ISSN 1176-7529.
Cappelen and Hawthorne tell us that the most basic, explanatory notion of truth is a monadic property of propositions. Other notions of truth, including those applying to sentences, are to be explained in terms of it. Among them are those found in Kripkean, Montagovian, and Kaplanean semantic theories, and their descendants – to wit truth at a context, at a circumstance, and at a context-plus-circumstance. If these are to make sense, the authors correctly maintain, they must be explained in terms (...) of the monadic notion of truth. (1-2) I thought that this was the received view, but the authors indicate otherwise. They describe possible-worlds semantics as making it “very natural to think of the foundational mode of evaluation for propositions as truth relative to worlds.”(7) I disagree. The natural way to understand possible worlds-semantics is to take world-states to be certain kinds of properties, and to take the truth of p at w to be the fact that p would be true (i.e. would instantiate monadic truth) were the universe to instantiate w. The authors add that it is somewhat natural to take “the actual truth of a proposition as [being] a matter of the proposition getting the value ‘true’ relative to a distinguished world -- the actual world.” (7) If this means that being actually true is being true at the actual world-state @, this isn’t just natural, it is unassailable -- as long as one doesn’t erroneously identify being true with being actually true. Since Cappelen and Hawthorne don’t do this, I take us to be on more or less the same page. Others, apparently, aren’t. We are told that “a number of the participants in the relevant disputes [about relativism] seem to take it for granted that philosophical semantics has somehow shown that the semantic value of sentences cannot be evaluated for truth or falsity simpliciter, since truth and falsity hold of a proposition relative to a world.” (77-8) We are also told: 1 Contemporary Analytic relativists reason as follows: ‘Lewis and Kaplan have shown that we need to relativize truth to triples of .. (shrink)
I must explain at once that these few pages do not attempt or pretend to be anything like a formal review of the recently published posthumous volume of Professor Bowman with the same title. I am precluded from writing such a review partly by the wide range of problems attacked by the author, partly by my own insufficient familiarity with many of the positions of the most recent physical and natural science which are brought under review. I will therefore confine (...) myself, so far as the strict business of the reviewer is concerned, to the single remark that the editor, Professor J. W. Scott, has discharged his difficult task of preparing the book for publication—no easy matter, as will be seen from his Preface—with equal skill and devotion, and has laid himself open to no worse criticism than that there are less than a dozen obvious slight misprints which have escaped detection, but will readily be detected by a careful reader. What I propose to do in the remarks which follow is simply to indicate the very real importance of the book by saying something as to its main purpose and thesis, and the points where I still feel that there is some difficulty or ambiguity about the writer's position which would, no doubt, have been largely cleared up if he had lived to reconstruct the whole six of his Vanuxem Lectures for publication as he has done the first three. (shrink)
Scholarly attempts to analyze the history of science sometime suffer from an imprecise use of terms. In order to understand accurately how science has developed and from where it draws its roots, researchers should be careful to recognize that epistemic regimes change over time and acceptable forms of knowledge production are contingent upon the hegemonic discourse informing the epistemic regime of any given period. In order to understand the importance of this point, I apply the techniques of historical epistemology to (...) an analysis of the place of the study of astrology in the medieval and early modern periods alongside a discussion of the “language games” of these period as well as the role of the “archeology of knowledge” in uncovering meaning in our study of the past. In sum, I argue that the term “science” should never be used when studying approaches to knowledge formation prior to the seventeenth century. (shrink)
Resumo: A narrativa de Rousseau sobre a origem do Estado foi retomada nos últimos séculos por diversas tradições, fazendo-se notar no seio do iluminismo escocês e nos trabalhos de Engels. James Scott, em seu recente livro Contra o grão, de 2017, ecoa algumas teses de Rousseau. Dentre tantos pontos de convergência, três se destacam e serão analisados no decorrer deste artigo: i) de um lado, a variedade dos modos de ser e de se relacionar com a natureza dos povos (...) sem Estado, a idade de ouro dos bárbaros; de outro, a estratificação dos povos sob o Estado, o empobrecimento dos agricultores cerealistas; ii) as condições ecológicas raras e especialíssimas favoráveis à emergência do aparelho estatal, em oposição às dificuldades de se formar o Estado, em regiões de abundância naturais, donde se faz necessário estabelecer a hipótese de mudanças climáticas que alteram as condições de existência; iii) e, por fim, a importância dos grãos para o processo civilizatório, isto é, a afinidade entre economia agrária de cereais e Estado.: Rousseau’s narrative about the origin of the State was recovered in the last centuries by several traditions, being noticed in the heart of the Scottish Enlightenment and in the works of Engels. James Scott, in his recent book Against the Grain of 2017, echoes some of Rousseau’s theses. Among many points of convergence, three stand out and will be analyzed in the course of this article: i) on the one hand, the variety of ways of being and relating to the nature of stateless peoples, the golden age of the barbarians; on the other, the stratification of peoples under the State, the impoverishment of cereal farmers; ii) the rare and very special ecological conditions favorable to the emergence of the State apparatus, as opposed to the difficulties of forming a State in regions of natural abundance, which imposes the necessity to establish the hypothesis of climate changes that alters the conditions of existence; iii) and, finally, the importance of grains for the civilizing process, that is, the affinity between the agrarian economy of cereals and the State. (shrink)
The basal and reciprocal models of the relationship between androgen secretion and dominance are not mutually exclusive. Individuals may differ in basal levels of androgen secretion, reactivity to experiences, and androgen sensitivity. Early experiences might affect any of these parameters.
In the spring of 1780 there appeared a short work by J. H. de Magellan, published in London but written in French, which contained the first table of specific heats to appear in print. Magellan attributed the table to Richard Kirwan, but in none of his published works does Kirwan refer to it, so that the circumstances of its compilation are obscure. Kirwan's correspondence, however, provides evidence both of his association with Magellan and of his long concern with theories of (...) heat. In a series of letters concerned principally with his forthcoming publication, written to James Watt at the beginning of 1780, Magellan attacked Joseph Black for his failure to publish his own work on heat. (shrink)
The fundamental issue of Kainz’s “contemporary reconstruction of the Hegelian problematic” is the relationship of three factors: paradox, dialectic, and system. More specifically, “might it not be the case that dialectic, paradox, and system are necessarily interrelated, so that, for example, a dialectic without paradox would be suspect, and philosophically significant dialectical paradoxes might be optimally presented in a system”? The issue is complicated by the fact that these three not only have multiple meanings, but are - despite significant interrelationships (...) - separable. From examples of their different combinations in the history of philosophy, “it would seem that almost any combination of the three factors is possible, and/or actually achieved”. This point is illustrated by Nicolas of Cusa, Kant’s “Transcendental Dialectic,” Marx and Engels, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Bradley, and Derrida. (shrink)
Two key phenomena of Merleau-Ponty's _Phenomenology of Perception are habit and inhabiting. Their chief characteristics, respectively, are generalizing actions and actively familiarizing. They are essentially and reciprocally related: inhabiting consists of being in habits and habitual actions are a way of inhabiting. The article focuses on three aspects of Merleau-Ponty's discussions: habit as simultaneously motor and perceptual, the interplay of sedimentation and spontaneity, and the body's inhabiting of space and incorporating of expressive spatiality. Merleau-Ponty's typist example and four examples of (...) the author illustrate that the relationship of habit and inhabiting is a basic structure of being-in-the-world. (shrink)
The following fragment of a papyrus-roll, written in a hand which may be assigned to the second or third century a.d., was bought by Professor O. Guéraud from the antiquary Nahman on behalf of the Société Fouad de Papyrologie . With singular generosity Professor Guéraud has resigned to us the right to publish the text, which we now present with the help of photographs and a transcript, with notes, made by Professor Guéraud. We gratefully acknowledge an obligation to Mr. D. (...) S. Crawford also for assistance in obtaining the photographs. (shrink)
An accountability-based privacy governance model is one where organizations are charged with societal objectives, such as using personal information in a manner that maintains individual autonomy and which protects individuals from social, financial and physical harms, while leaving the actual mechanisms for achieving those objectives to the organization. This paper discusses the essential elements of accountability identified by the Galway Accountability Project, with scholarship from the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP. Conceptual _Privacy by Design_ principles (...) are offered as criteria for building privacy and accountability into organizational information management practices. The authors then provide an example of an organizational control process that uses the principles to implement the essential elements. Initially developed in the ‘90s to advance privacy-enhancing information and communication technologies, Dr. Ann Cavoukian has since expanded the application of _Privacy by Design_ principles to include business processes. (shrink)