This article aims at discussing some of the problems for the construction of a shared moral point... more This article aims at discussing some of the problems for the construction of a shared moral point of view in dialogical context, through a revision of both Habermas’ proceduralistic discourse ethics and Grice’s pragmatist conversational implicatures project. I claim that a) by discounting the undue idealization of both projects, supported by their Kantian underpinnings, and b) by refreshing them with a consequentialist approach to rationality in a fallibilistic bounded reasoning approach, one could achieve a more realistic understanding of the dialogical problems between moral strangers. By following such a revision, I suggest to be then possible to operate c) a reversal of the principle of rational cooperation in Grice, in convergence with Sperber & Wilson’s relevance theory, while also considering the role of other additional mechanisms in interaction, such as empathy (in Alvin Goldman’s sense). These modifications result in a fallibilistic understanding of the process of the dialogical construction of a shared moral point of view among moral strangers, with the aid of a non-idealized use of procedures and implicatures.
This paper discusses some epistemic aspects of legitimate ex- pert disagreement between domain sc... more This paper discusses some epistemic aspects of legitimate ex- pert disagreement between domain scientists, while considering domain specific multi-criteria decision-making problems. Particularly, it articu- lates both 1) the problem of the normative justification for explaining conflicting expert propositional knowledge, and also 2) the handling of disagreement derived from non-conclusive evidence, standing-in as de- scriptive properties of expert beliefs. Further, 3) it considers some pre- liminary consequences of the resulting inconsistency in the automation of conflicting expert multi-criteria decision making, and suggests that the epistemic treatment of this procedure may help to clarify what types of solution and difficulties may be there regarding the many dimensions of knowledge justification.
Studies in systems, decision and control, Sep 9, 2017
In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be criti... more In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof.
In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be criti... more In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof.
This article aims at discussing some of the problems for the construction of a shared moral point... more This article aims at discussing some of the problems for the construction of a shared moral point of view in dialogical context, through a revision of both Habermas’ proceduralistic discourse ethics and Grice’s pragmatist conversational implicatures project. I claim that a) by discounting the undue idealization of both projects, supported by their Kantian underpinnings, and b) by refreshing them with a consequentialist approach to rationality in a fallibilistic bounded reasoning approach, one could achieve a more realistic understanding of the dialogical problems between moral strangers. By following such a revision, I suggest to be then possible to operate c) a reversal of the principle of rational cooperation in Grice, in convergence with Sperber & Wilson’s relevance theory, while also considering the role of other additional mechanisms in interaction, such as empathy (in Alvin Goldman’s sense). These modifications result in a fallibilistic understanding of the process of the dialogical construction of a shared moral point of view among moral strangers, with the aid of a non-idealized use of procedures and implicatures.
This paper discusses some epistemic aspects of legitimate ex- pert disagreement between domain sc... more This paper discusses some epistemic aspects of legitimate ex- pert disagreement between domain scientists, while considering domain specific multi-criteria decision-making problems. Particularly, it articu- lates both 1) the problem of the normative justification for explaining conflicting expert propositional knowledge, and also 2) the handling of disagreement derived from non-conclusive evidence, standing-in as de- scriptive properties of expert beliefs. Further, 3) it considers some pre- liminary consequences of the resulting inconsistency in the automation of conflicting expert multi-criteria decision making, and suggests that the epistemic treatment of this procedure may help to clarify what types of solution and difficulties may be there regarding the many dimensions of knowledge justification.
Studies in systems, decision and control, Sep 9, 2017
In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be criti... more In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof.
In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be criti... more In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof.
Informação de qualidade para aperfeiçoar as políticas públicas e salvar vidas Principais conclusõ... more Informação de qualidade para aperfeiçoar as políticas públicas e salvar vidas Principais conclusões • O Brasil é o que menos testa entre os 20 países com maior taxa de óbitos por Covid-19. Além de não realizar o volume de testes necessários, o Brasil tampouco realiza testes suficientes para identificar a proporção de brasileiros que já manteve contato com o vírus. • A lacuna de informação sobre a presença e circulação do vírus entre a população está na base da subnotificação de casos positivos e deixa as decisões de distanciamento físico e de flexibilização mais sensíveis à pressão dos negócios, à política ou à subjetividade. • A média de positividade dos testes no país foi de 36% em junho de 2020, sendo que a recomendação da OMS é de até 5%, patamar não alcançado por nenhum estado brasileiro. • Grande parte dos estados torna público apenas o total de testes, sem classificação por tipo que, como se sabe, têm eficácia distinta na identificação do vírus. Somente 14 estados prestam contas do número de testes RT-PCR, que identifica mais precisamente as pessoas infectadas, e do número de testes que apontam as pessoas que já tiveram contato com o vírus e possuem anticorpos (IgM e IgG). • As secretarias de saúde do Acre, Amapá, Goiás, Rondônia, Rio de Janeiro, Roraima, São Paulo e Tocantins não apresentam nenhuma informação sobre os testes realizados em suas plataformas oficiais; • Somente 09 estados apresentaram uma taxa de positividade inferior a 20% na primeira semana de junho. E até o dia 20 de junho a testagem com resultados positivos era alta em todos os estados.
Philosophy of medicine has traditionally examined two issues: the scientific ontology for medicin... more Philosophy of medicine has traditionally examined two issues: the scientific ontology for medicine and the epistemic significance of the types of evidence used in medical research. In answering each question, philosophers have typically brought to bear tools from traditional analytic philosophy. In contrast, this volume explores medical knowledge from the perspective offered by social epistemology. While many of the same issues are addressed, the approach to these issues generates both fresh questions and new insights into old debates. In addition, the broader purview offered by social epistemology opens up opportunities to address new topics such as the role of consensus conferences, epistemic injustice, the value of medical knowledge, continuing medical education, and industry funding. This article situates and summarizes the contributions to this special issue.
Uploads
Papers by Luciana Garbayo