Objectivism and Subjectivism in Epistemology

There is a kind of objectivism in epistemology that involves the acceptance of objective epistemic norms. It is generally regarded as harmless. There is another kind of objectivism in epistemology that involves the acceptance of an objectivist account of justification, one that takes the justification of a belief to turn on its accuracy. It is generally regarded as hopeless. It is a strange and unfortunate sociological fact that these attitudes are so prevalent. Objectivism about norms and justification stand or fall together. Justification is simply a matter of conforming to norms. In this essay, I shall make the case for objectivism about justification

Sir, Yes, Sir! : The Courts, Congress and Structural Injunctions

This is a deeply confused book. Not that the authors\u27 stance is unclear: They have seen federal courts in action, and they don\u27t like what they see. Their subject is federal judicial supervision of state and local governments through injunctive decrees. The authors\u27 position wouldn\u27t be confused - or at least would be confused in a different way - if they dealt with injunctive decrees aimed at enforcing what the judges took to be constitutional requirements. In such cases there\u27s at least something coherent that can be said about judges displacing democratic decision-making. Sandler and Schoenbrod, though, don\u27t deal with constitutional cases. Their concern is judicial enforcement of federal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

Could it be right to convict and punish defendants using only statistical evidence? In this paper, I argue that it is not and explain why it would be wrong. This is difficult to do because there is a powerful argument for thinking that we should convict and punish defendants using statistical evidence. It looks as if the relevant cases are cases of decision under risk and it seems we know what we should do in such cases (i.e., maximize expected value). Given some standard assumptions about the values at stake, the case for convicting and punishing using statistical evidence seems solid. In trying to show where this argument goes wrong, I shall argue (against Lockeans, reliabilists, and others) that beliefs supported only by statistical evidence are epistemically defective and (against Enoch, Fisher, and Spectre) that these epistemic considerations should matter to the law. To solve the puzzle about the role of statistical evidence in the law, we need to revise some commonly held assumptions about epistemic value and defend the relevance of epistemology to this practical question

Interview with Kenneth Arrow

Arrow argues that the biggest failures of economic theory are: our failure to explain the business cycle; the missing explanations for the size of fluctuations of prices; our failure to explain the causes of growth and of the spread of innovation. He then discusses several of the existing alternatives to the rational expectations paradigm. He tells the story of his dissertation, and how Koopmans wanted to decline his Nobel Prize.Finally, he discusses health care reform, and malaria in Africa.Health Care; Business Cycles; Fluctuations

Transcript of keynote speech, "Don't Lecture Me"

Keynote speech given by Donald Clark at “Into something rich and strange” – making sense of the sea-change, the 2010 Association for Learning Technology Conference in Nottingham, England. In the chair, Vanessa Pittard, Bect

Introduction to Data Ethics

An Introduction to data ethics, focusing on questions of privacy and personal identity in the economic world as it is defined by big data technologies, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic capitalism. Originally published in The Business Ethics Workshop, 3rd Edition, by Boston Acacdemic Publishing / FlatWorld Knowledge

Just do it? When to do what you judge you ought to do

While it is generally believed that justification is a fallible guide to the truth, there might be interesting exceptions to this general rule. In recent work on bridge-principles, an increasing number of authors have argued that truths about what a subject ought to do are truths we stand in some privileged epistemic relation to and that our justified normative beliefs are beliefs that will not lead us astray. If these bridge-principles hold, it suggests that justification might play an interesting role in our normative theories. In turn, this might help us understand the value of justification, a value that's notoriously difficult to understand if we think of justification as but a fallible means to a desired end. We will argue that these bridge-principles will be incredibly difficult to defend. While we do not think that normative facts necessarily stand in any interesting relationship to our justified beliefs about them, there might well be a way of defending the idea that our justified beliefs about what to do won't lead us astray. In turn, this might help us understand the value of justification, but this way of thinking about justification and its value comes with costs few would be willing to pay

Just do it? When to do what you judge you ought to do

While it is generally believed that justification is a fallible guide to the truth, there might be interesting exceptions to this general rule. In recent work on bridge-principles, an increasing number of authors have argued that truths about what a subject ought to do are truths we stand in some privileged epistemic relation to and that our justified normative beliefs are beliefs that will not lead us astray. If these bridge-principles hold, it suggests that justification might play an interesting role in our normative theories. In turn, this might help us understand the value of justification, a value that's notoriously difficult to understand if we think of justification as but a fallible means to a desired end. We will argue that these bridge-principles will be incredibly difficult to defend. While we do not think that normative facts necessarily stand in any interesting relationship to our justified beliefs about them, there might well be a way of defending the idea that our justified beliefs about what to do won't lead us astray. In turn, this might help us understand the value of justification, but this way of thinking about justification and its value comes with costs few would be willing to pay

Solicitors General Panel on the Legacy of the Rehnquist Court

All of us who are speaking probably share the same giddy feeling in front of a microphone with no red light. For years, my daughter told people that the greatest threat to Western civilization was her father at a podium without a red light. Before becoming Solicitor General, I spent my career as a trial lawyer, arguing only a few appeals. I found this red light tradition a little peculiar. More often than not, timers and lights in courts of appeals are viewed as advisory at best. I\u27ve had arguments where ten minutes were allocated per side, and yet argument extended until the afternoon. In another case that allocated ninety minutes per side and began at nine o\u27clock, we didn\u27t actually finish until four o\u27clock in the afternoon. So coming into the SG\u27s office, my view about the red light was, well, perhaps it shows your time has nominally expired, but undoubtedly the Justices will have other questions. And in any event, I might want to take a few extra minutes to address additional points. That was so wrong. The red light ended everything-absolutely everything-and not just for the advocates; it also ended the questioning of the Associate Justices. The Chief Justice was an equal opportunity cutter-offer. On many occasions, he cut off oral argument when a Justice was at the outset of a question he or she had been trying to get out in the open oral combat that was advocacy in the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Rehnquist