Stanley's Three Flaws

In this essay, I shall briefly present Epistemic Contextualism (EC), Invariantism and Interest- Relative Invariantism (IRI) (section 2). Then I will discuss three theses of Jason Stanley’s Knowledge and Practical Interests (Oxford 2005). I argue that Stanley’s case against Contextualism is based on a misconception of its semantic nature, that there is a disadvantage for Interest-Relative Invariantism in terms of the sceptical paradox and that Stanley’s explanation of intuitions can be interpreted in favour of Contextualism (sections 3.1. - 3.3.)

Conceptual Analysis, Theory Construction, and Conceptual Elucidation

Almost a half century after the publication of the Philosophical Investigations, it seems important to ask why Wittgenstein"s ideas have had so little impact on contemporary discussions in the philosophy of mind. A clue can be discerned by what Georges Rey says in the introduction to his book on contemporary philosophy of mind. Rey announces at the outset to his readers that his treatment of the mind aspires to be continuous with science, not with literature. He explains that there is a recent resurgence of interest in the philosophy of mind with "explanatory questions� about what sort of thing a pain, a thought, a mental image, a desire, or an emotion is. Neither materialism nor dualism provides a "serious� theory about the mind, which will give us a "serious� explanation of mental phenomena. According to Rey, although old-style grammatical investigations may have given us a "heightened sensitivity to complexities and nuances of our ordinary mental talk,� they "tended to occur at the expense of further theorizing about the mental phenomena themselves� (Rey, 4)

"The Paradox of Self-Consciousness" by José Luis Burmùdez

What José Luis Bermúdez calls the paradox of self-consciousness is essentially the conflict between two claims: (1) The capacity to use first-personal referential devices like “I” must be explained in terms of the capacity to think first-person thoughts. (2) The only way to explain the capacity for having a certain kind of thought is by explaining the capacity for the canonical linguistic expression of thoughts of that kind. (Bermúdez calls this the “Thought-Language Principle”.) The conflict between (1) and (2) is obvious enough. However, if a paradox is an unacceptable conclusion drawn from apparently valid reasoning from apparently true premises, then Bermúdez’s conflict is no paradox. It is rather a conflict between the view that thought must be explained in terms of language, and the view that first person linguistic reference must be explained in terms of first-person thought. Neither view is immediately obvious, and nor is it obvious that the arguments for either are equally compelling. What we have here is a difference of philosophical opinion, not a paradox

Cluster randomised trials in the medical literature: two bibliometric surveys

Background: Several reviews of published cluster randomised trials have reported that about half did not take clustering into account in the analysis, which was thus incorrect and potentially misleading. In this paper I ask whether cluster randomised trials are increasing in both number and quality of reporting. Methods: Computer search for papers on cluster randomised trials since 1980, hand search of trial reports published in selected volumes of the British Medical Journal over 20 years. Results: There has been a large increase in the numbers of methodological papers and of trial reports using the term 'cluster random' in recent years, with about equal numbers of each type of paper. The British Medical Journal contained more such reports than any other journal. In this journal there was a corresponding increase over time in the number of trials where subjects were randomised in clusters. In 2003 all reports showed awareness of the need to allow for clustering in the analysis. In 1993 and before clustering was ignored in most such trials. Conclusion: Cluster trials are becoming more frequent and reporting is of higher quality. Perhaps statistician pressure works

Towards a Global Learning Commons: ccLearn

Though open educational resources (OER) promise to transform the conditions for teaching and learning worldwide, there are many barriers to the full realization of this vision. Among other things, much of what is currently considered "free and open" is legally, technically, and/or culturally incompatible. Herein, the authors give a brief history of open education, outline some key problems, and offer some possible solutionsThis article was originally published in Educational Technology 4(6). Nov-Dec 2007

Employing the method of Ḥadīt̲h̲ criticism in verifying the attribution of books to their authors : A practical case study on The Books of al-Ḥiyal (legal stratagems) which are attributed to the Ḥanafīs in the second century

The present study examines a genre of books known as, al-Ḥiyal (legal stratagems), which have been attributed to the three imāms of the Ḥanafī school. Historical sources attribute the authorship of a text in said genre to al-Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, another to Abū Yūsuf, and a third to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. The work attributed to Abū Yūsuf is still extant in some manuscript vaults, and the one attributed to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan has been printed. This study seeks to unravel the reality of these books, whether they are a product of a single work or three different stand-alone works. Additionally, it seeks to verify the accuracy of the attribution of each of these texts to its author, highlighting the confusion that has arisen when the texts have been mixed up between one another, and the negative consequences that resulted from that confusion. In order to achieve these objectives, this study aims to gather all of the reports and narrations found in these texts and to critique them academically. The content of these reports will be examined and scrutinized in search of signs that help affirm or deny their attribution. I have applied the critical method of ḥadīth scholars in verifying the attribution of any given text to its author, while at the same time not ignoring other tools of verification. The aim of said application is to highlight its importance and its role in verifying the attribution of any given text to its author

Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: Evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module

BACKGROUND: A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote. METHODS: A literature search of 1,988 citations was manually inspected and duplicate citations identified and coded to create a benchmark dataset. The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module (SRA-DM) was iteratively developed and tested using the benchmark dataset and compared with EndNote’s default one step auto-deduplication process matching on (‘author’, ‘year’, ‘title’). The accuracy of deduplication was reported by calculating the sensitivity and specificity. Further validation tests, with three additional benchmarked literature searches comprising a total of 4,563 citations were performed to determine the reliability of the SRA-DM algorithm. RESULTS: The sensitivity (84%) and specificity (100%) of the SRA-DM was superior to EndNote (sensitivity 51%, specificity 99.83%). Validation testing on three additional biomedical literature searches demonstrated that SRA-DM consistently achieved higher sensitivity than EndNote (90% vs 63%), (84% vs 73%) and (84% vs 64%). Furthermore, the specificity of SRA-DM was 100%, whereas the specificity of EndNote was imperfect (average 99.75%) with some unique records wrongly assigned as duplicates. Overall, there was a 42.86% increase in the number of duplicates records detected with SRA-DM compared with EndNote auto-deduplication. CONCLUSIONS: The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module offers users a reliable program to remove duplicate records with greater sensitivity and specificity than EndNote. This application will save researchers and information specialists time and avoid research waste. The deduplication program is freely available online