Not knowing a cat is a cat: analyticity and knowledge ascriptions

It is a natural assumption in mainstream epistemological theory that ascriptions of knowledge of a proposition p track strength of epistemic position vis-à-vis p. It is equally natural to assume that the strength of one’s epistemic position is maximally high in cases where p concerns a simple analytic truth (as opposed to an empirical truth). For instance, it seems reasonable to suppose that one's epistemic position vis-à-vis “a cat is a cat” is harder to improve than one's position vis-à-vis “a cat is on the mat”, and consequently, that the former is at least as unambiguous a case of knowledge as the latter. The current paper, however, presents empirical evidence which challenges this intuitive line of reasoning. Our study on the epistemic intuitions of hundreds of academic philosophers supports the idea that simple and uncontroversial analytic propositions are less likely to qualify as knowledge than empirical ones. We show that our results, though at odds with orthodox theories of knowledge in mainstream epistemology, can be explained in a way consistent with Wittgenstein's remarks on 'hinge propositions' or with Stalnaker's pragmatics of assertion. We then present and evaluate a number of lines of response mainstream theories of knowledge could appeal to in accommodating our results. Finally, we show how each line of response runs into some prima facie difficulties. Thus, our observed asymmetry between knowing “a cat is a cat” and knowing “a cat is on the mat” presents a puzzle which mainstream epistemology needs to resolve

Morally responsible decision making in networked military operations

\u3cp\u3eIntroducing responsible innovations on the battlefield requires a rethinking of social and psychological aspects of moral decision making on the battlefield, and in particular, including how these aspects are influenced by technology. In this chapter, the social aspects of moral decision making are accounted for in terms of the normative practices in which soldiers do their jobs. Soldiers on the battlefield are embedded in a very specific structure, and are expected to act according to rules, norms and procedures. Their actions are inspired by a certain worldview, which influences the way in which the rules, norms and procedures are interpreted. Technology, especially ICT, connects different practices on the battlefield, thereby creating a network of different (sub-)practices. This may cause a blurring or clashing of different norative practices, which affects moral decision making. In this chapter, Remotely Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs) are used as a case in point for technologically mediated moral decision making. The normative practice model gives insights in the social aspect of decision making in networked missions, but it does not pay attention to the role of the individual soldier in an in-depth way. Therefore an addition is needed, which focusses on the individual soldiers themselves. For the individual level, we take the psychological component of moral decision making and explain how this aspect is affected by technology. The model of normative practices is thus informed by insights from empirical psychology. Moral psychologists have empirically investigated how certain cues influence moral decision making. Some of the cues can be effectuated through technology. Social cognitive theory, as developed by Bandura (Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1986), (Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(3):193-209, 1999) and moral intensity theory developed by Jones (Academy of Management Review 16(2):366-395, 1991) are theories that explain moral decision making mechanisms in terms of respectively moral (dis)engagement mechanisms and the perceived moral intensity of a situation. From both theories we infer how visual data sharing technologies can increase or decrease morally appropriate decision making in networked enabled operations.\u3c/p\u3

The reliability of armchair intuitions

Armchair philosophers have questioned the significance of recent work in experimental philosophy by pointing out that experiments have been conducted on laypeople and undergraduate students. To challenge a practice that relies on expert intuitions, so the armchair objection goes, one needs to demonstrate that expert intuitions rather than those of ordinary people are sensitive to contingent facts such as cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, or educational background. This article does exactly that. Based on two empirical studies on populations of 573 and 203 trained philosophers, respectively, it demonstrates that expert intuitions vary dramatically according to at least one contingent factor, namely, the linguistic background of the expert: philosophers make different intuitive judgments if their native language is English rather than Dutch, German, or Swedish. These findings cast doubt on the common armchair assumption that philosophical theories based on armchair intuitions are valid beyond the linguistic background against which they were develope

Gebruik van sportapps door eindgebruikers en professionals

In deze workshop werden resultaten van het 'Voor iedereen een app?! project gepresenteerd. Ook werd een discussie gevoerd over de inzet van sport-apps door sportprofessionals aan de hand van stellingen

Sustainable employability of Dutch urologists under pressure

With an expected increase of urological patients of 40% in the years to come, it is of importance that urologists remain sustainably employable. This is why we have investigated the sustainable employability of urologists and residents in the Netherlands with a questionnaire. Job satisfaction is high (78%), but the workload is also perceived as high (56%). 45% of urologists wants to work less and 20% of urologists are considering quitting. 16% temporarily (partially) stops working due to signs of burnout. Women experience more work pressure-related complaints than men. Despite the high job satisfaction, the sustainable employability of urologists is under pressure. Attention to the prevention of burnout and better regulation of the workload is desirable.</p

Feasibility and acceptability of follow-up for prostate cancer in primary care: a pilot study

Background: The number of patients with prostate cancer is increasing, which puts additional pressure on health care. GP-led follow up may help reduce costs, travel time for patients, and workload for urologists and improve continuity of care. Aim: To test the feasibility and acceptability of a new clinical pathway for GP-led prostate cancer follow-up. Design & setting: A feasibility pilot study was performed in cooperation with six GP practices in the Dutch region of Amersfoort. Method: The study included 20 patients with prostate cancer in a stable phase, who were aged ≥65 years and with comorbidity. Follow-up for prostate cancer was transferred to the GP for one year. Participating GPs and urologists jointly developed a protocol. Patient satisfaction was measured at 0 and 12 months with the ‘personalised care’ subscale of the Consumer Quality (CQ) index 'general practice care'. Next, patients, GPs, and urologists were interviewed about their experiences. The clinical pathway was considered successful if no patients were referred back to the urologist, except for an increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and if the majority of patients and participating urologists and GPs were satisfied. Results: Of the 20 patients included in the study, three were referred back to the urologist because of increasing PSA levels and one died (unrelated to prostate cancer). Most patients (73%) were satisfied with the transfer of care, indicated by a score of ≥3 on the ‘personalised care’ subscale. GPs and urologists had confidence in the ability of GPs to provide follow-up care and preferred to continue this. Conclusion: The new clinical pathway was successful, warranting a larger study to provide evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of GP-led prostate cancer follow-up

Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on prostate cancer care in the Netherlands

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak has affected care for non-COVID diseases like cancer. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on prostate cancer care in the Netherlands. Methods: Prostate cancer diagnoses per month in 2020–2021 versus 2018–2019 were compared based on preliminary data of the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and nationwide pathology network. Detailed data was retrieved from the NCR for the cohorts diagnosed from March-May 2020 (first COVID-19 wave) and March-May 2018–2019 (reference). Changes in number of diagnoses, age, disease stage and first-line treatment were compared. Results: An initial decline of 17% in prostate cancer diagnoses during the first COVID-19 wave was observed. From May onwards the number of diagnoses started to restore to approximately 95% of the expected number by the end of 2020. Stage at diagnosis remainedstable over time. In low-risk localised prostate cancer radical prostatectomy was conducted more often in week 9–12 (21% versus 12% in the reference period; OR=1.9, 95% CI; 1.2–3.1) and less active surveillance was applied (67% versus 78%; OR=0.6, 95% CI; 0.4–0.9). In the intermediate-risk group, a similar change was observed in week 13–16. Radical prostatectomy volumes in 2020 were comparable to 2018–2019. Conclusion: During the first COVID-19 wave the number of prostate cancer diagnoses declined. In the second half of 2020 this largely restored although the number remained lower than expected. Changes in treatment were temporary and compliant with adapted guidelines. Although delayed diagnoses could result in a less favourable stage distribution, possibly affecting survival, this seems not very likely