2,713 research outputs found

    A Political Theory of Engineered Systems and A Study of Engineering and Justice Workshops

    Get PDF
    Since there are good reasons to think that some engineered systems are socially undesirable—for example, internal combustion engines that cause climate change, algorithms that are racist, and nuclear weapons that can destroy all life—there is a well-established literature that attempts to identify best practices for designing and regulating engineered systems in order to prevent harm and promote justice. Most of this literature, especially the design theory and engineering justice literature meant to help guide engineers, focuses on environmental, physical, social, and mental harms such as ecosystem and bodily poisoning, racial and gender discrimination, and urban alienation. However, the literature that focuses on how engineered systems can produce political harms—harms to how we shape the way we live in community together—is not well established. The first part of this thesis contributes to identifying how particular types of engineered systems can harm a democratic politics. Building on democratic theory, philosophy of collective harms, and design theory, it argues that engineered systems that extend in space and time beyond a certain threshold subvert the knowledge and empowerment necessary for a democratic politics. For example, the systems of global shipping and the internet that fundamentally shape our lives are so large that people cannot attain the knowledge necessary to regulate them well nor the empowerment necessary to shape them. The second part of this thesis is an empirical study of a workshop designed to encourage engineering undergraduates to understand how engineered systems can subvert a democratic politics, with the ultimate goal of supporting students in incorporating that understanding into their work. 32 Dartmouth undergraduate engineering students participated in the study. Half were assigned to participate in a workshop group, half to a control group. The workshop group participants took a pretest; then participated in a 3-hour, semi-structured workshop with 4 participants per session (as well as a discussion leader and note-taker) over lunch or dinner; and then took a posttest. The control group participants took the same pre- and post- tests, but had no suggested activity in the intervening 3 hours. We find that the students who participated in workshops had a statistically significant test-score improvement as compared to the control group (Brunner-Munzel test, p \u3c .001). Using thematic analysis methods, we show the data is consistent with the hypothesis that workshops produced a score improvement because of certain structure (small size, long duration, discussion-based, over homemade food) and content (theoretically rich, challenging). Thematic analysis also reveals workshop failures and areas for improvement (too much content for the duration, not well enough organized). The thesis concludes with a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical research

    On Wondering: The Epistemology of A Questioning Attitude

    Get PDF
    An emerging trend in contemporary epistemology departs from the traditional preoccupation with the nature of knowledge, belief, evidence, justification, and the problems of skepticism. This trend focuses instead on the nature of inquiry itself and especially on the role of questions and questioning attitudes that arise in and define that activity. Naturally, this emerging trend calls for a philosophical exploration of the nature of questioning attitudes like curiosity and wondering, and of the various epistemological considerations pertaining to them. Consequently, this project primarily addresses two questions: what does it mean to wonder? And what is required to wonder well? The project is thus both descriptive and normative, aiming to pin down the place that wondering has in our ontology of epistemologically significant mental states and to determine what kinds of prescriptive norms it is subject to in the course of rational inquiry

    UMSL Bulletin 2023-2024

    Get PDF
    The 2023-2024 Bulletin and Course Catalog for the University of Missouri St. Louis.https://irl.umsl.edu/bulletin/1088/thumbnail.jp

    LIPIcs, Volume 251, ITCS 2023, Complete Volume

    Get PDF
    LIPIcs, Volume 251, ITCS 2023, Complete Volum

    UMSL Bulletin 2022-2023

    Get PDF
    The 2022-2023 Bulletin and Course Catalog for the University of Missouri St. Louis.https://irl.umsl.edu/bulletin/1087/thumbnail.jp

    Writing Facts: Interdisciplinary Discussions of a Key Concept in Modernity

    Get PDF
    "Fact" is one of the most crucial inventions of modern times. Susanne Knaller discusses the functions of this powerful notion in the arts and the sciences, its impact on aesthetic models and systems of knowledge. The practice of writing provides an effective procedure to realize and to understand facts. This concerns preparatory procedures, formal choices, models of argumentation, and narrative patterns. By considering "writing facts" and "writing facts", the volume shows why and how "facts" are a result of knowledge, rules, and norms as well as of description, argumentation, and narration. This approach allows new perspectives on »fact« and its impact on modernity

    Frivolous Floodgate Fears

    Get PDF
    When rejecting plaintiff-friendly liability standards, courts often cite a fear of opening the floodgates of litigation. Namely, courts point to either a desire to protect the docket of federal courts or a burden on the executive branch. But there is little empirical evidence exploring whether the adoption of a stricter standard can, in fact, decrease the filing of legal claims in this circumstance. This Article empirically analyzes and theoretically models the effect of adopting arguably stricter liability standards on litigation by investigating the context of one of the Supreme Court’s most recent reliances on this argument when adopting a stricter liability standard for causation in employment discrimination claims. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff proving retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must prove that their participation in a protected activity was a but-for cause of the adverse employment action they experienced. Rejecting the arguably more plaintiff-friendly motivating-factor standard, the Court stated, “[L]essening the causation standard could also contribute to the filing of frivolous claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employer[s], administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.” Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 358 (2013). And over the past ten years, the Court has overturned the application of motivating-factor causation as applied to at least four different federal antidiscrimination statutes. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s concern that motivating-factor causation encourages frivolous charges, many employment law scholars worry that the heightened but-for standard will deter legitimate claims. This Article empirically explores these concerns, in part using data received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Specifically, it empirically tests whether the adoption of the but-for causation standard for claims filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and by federal courts of appeals under the Americans with Disabilities Act has impacted the filing of discrimination claims and the outcome of those claims in federal court. Consistent with theory detailed in this Article, the empirical analysis provides evidence that the stricter standard may have increased the docket of the federal courts by decreasing settlement within the EEOC and during litigation. The empirical results weigh in on concerns surrounding the adoption of the but-for causation standard and provide evidence that the floodgates argument, when relied on to deter frivolous filings by changing liability standards, in fact, may do just the opposite by decreasing the likelihood of settlement in the short term, without impacting the filing of claims or other case outcomes
    • 

    corecore