Conspiracy Theories and Evidential Self-Insulation

What are conspiracy theories? And what, if anything, is epistemically wrong with them? I offer an account on which conspiracy theories are a unique way of holding a belief in a conspiracy. Specifically, I take conspiracy theories to be self-insulating beliefs in conspiracies. On this view, conspiracy theorists have their conspiratorial beliefs in a way that is immune to revision by counter-evidence. I argue that conspiracy theories are always irrational. Although conspiracy theories involve an expectation to encounter some seemingly disconfirming evidence (allegedly planted by the conspirators), resistance to all counter- evidence cannot be justified on these grounds

The relevance of ontological commitments

In this introductory note, I describe my particular view of the notion of ontological commitments as honest and pragmatic working hypotheses that assume the existence (out there) of certain entities represented by the symbols in our theory. I argue that this is not naive, in the sense that it does not entail the belief that the hypotheses could ever be proved to be true (or false), but it is nevertheless justified by the success and predictive power of the theory that contains the concepts assumed to exist. I also claim that the ontological commitments one holds (even if tacitly so) have a great influence on what kind of science is produced, how it is used, and how it is understood. Not only I justify this claim, but I also propose a sketch of a possible falsification of it. As a natural conclusion, I defend the importance of identifying, clarifying and making explicit one's ontological commitments if fruitful scientific discussions are to be had. Finally, I compare my point of view with that of some philosophers and scientists who have put forward similar notions.Comment: Submitted for peer-revie

The Arts of Persuasion in Science and Law: Conflicting Norms in the Courtroom

Epistemology is important in the debate about science and technology in the courtroom. The epistemological issues and the arguments about them in the context of scientific and technical evidence are now well developed. Of equal importance, though, is an understanding of norms of persuasion and how those norms may differ across disciplines and groups. Norms of persuasion in the courtroom and in legal briefs differ from norms at a scientific conference and in scientific journals. Here, Kritzer examines the disconnect between science and the courtroom in terms of the differing norms of persuasion found within the scientific community and within the legal community

Science and pseudoscience - Falsifiability

The delimitation between science and pseudoscience is part of the more general task of determining which beliefs are epistemologically justified. Standards for demarcation may vary by domain, but several basic principles are universally accepted. Karl Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. He argues that verification and confirmation can play no role in formulating a satisfactory criterion of demarcation. Instead, it proposes that scientific theories be distinguished from non-scientific theories by testable claims that future observations might reveal to be false. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29821.6192

AGAINST MECHANISM: METHODOLOGY FOR AN EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICS

When the first economics departments were proposed at Cambridge and Oxford, the proponents thought acceptance would be improved if economics could be seen as incorporating the methods of physics. The enterprise was premised on the existence of economic laws that describe invariant relationships between events. These event regularities, like gravity, were not affected by human action. Humans could adapt and use them, but not change them. Thus the metaphor of "mechanism" seemed appropriate and became embedded in economists' language. It is common to use the term market mechanism to link prices and commodities. This suggests the economy is like turning a crank attached to a set of gears where there is a fixed relationship between the crank's motion and the last gear's motion. The gears have no ideas of their own, they don't get mad; there is no cognitive element between events and action.Institutional and Behavioral Economics,

Notary's Responsibility for Falsifying the Identity of the Parties in Making the Deed of Foundation Establishment

An authentic deed essentially contains formal truth in accordance with what the parties told the Notary. However, the notary has the obligation to ensure that what is contained in the notarial deed is truly understood and in accordance with the wishes of the parties, namely by reading it so that the contents of the notarial deed become clear. Notaries as public officials are required to be responsible for the authentic deed that they have made. If the authentic deed that they have made occurs after a legal dispute occurs, then this can be questioned, whether the authentic deed was the Notary's mistake, or whether there was an agreement that was made between the Notary and one of them. Formulation of the problem What is the Notary's responsibility in making a deed that contains elements of falsifying the identities of the parties? The research method used is a legislative approach, namely legal research carried out by prioritizing research on library materials or also called secondary materials, in the form of normative law and how to implement it in practice by supported by data, a-data, used in order to obtain materials for analysis related toNotary's responsibility in making foundation deeds for falsifying the identities of the parties. The theories used are the theory of responsibility and the theory of legal certainty. From the results of this research, the responsibility of a Notary in making a deed that contains elements of falsifying the identities of the parties, is that a Notary is responsible for the material truth of the authentic deed he or she makes, if the Notary concerned is involved in a criminal act of falsifying an authentic deed. Information submitted by a party whose material truth is highly doubtful. Notary's testimony regarding the substance of the deed, legal certainty regarding the foundation deed made by the Notary, there is falsification of the identities of the parties, so that the legal certainty of the parties is made by the Notary, there is falsification of the identities of the parties, so this legal certainty also has implications for the position of the deed in the future. Keywords: Documents; Fake; Notary; Protection