The crisis of medicine: philosophy and the social construction of medicine

During the past decade there has been a debate about the field of philosophy of medicine. The debate has focused on fundamental questions about whether the field exists and the nature of the field. This article explores the debate and argues that it has paid insufficient attention to the social dimensions of both philosophy and medicine. The article goes on to argue that by exploring this debate one can better understand some of the difficult questions facing contemporary medicine and health care.     

Incarnation and the Divine Hiddenness Debate

This paper examines the debate that has arisen in connection with J. L. Schellenberg's work on divine hiddenness. It singles out as especially deserving of attention Paul Moser's proposal that the debate distinguish more clearly between classical theism and Hebraic theisms. This worthwhile proposal, I argue, will be unlikely to exert its full potential influence upon the debate unless certain features of Christian incarnation belief are recognized and addressed in connection with it.     

Public Debate – An Act of Hostility?

This paper focuses on eristic in political debate of the forensic, or confrontational, type. First, some findings on the enactment and persuasiveness of hostility in a series of Danish TV-debates 1975–85 are presented, including a list of the clearly hostile debater's characteristics and a subdivision of conspiracy arguments. This presentation serves to illustrate that hostility is less persuasive than argumentation practitioners and theorists tend to assume. Next, the widespread notion of debate as a genre half-way between the quarrel and the critical discussion is challenged in a discussion of Douglas N. Walton's distinction between types of dialogue. It is maintained that the normative model of confrontational debate excludes the quarrel and that debate should not be perceived as second-rate critical discussion.     

The Internal Suicide Debate Hypothesis: Exploring the Life versus Death Struggle

Researchers and theorists (e.g., Shneidman, Stengel, Kovacs, and Beck) hyothesized that suicidal people engage in an internal debate, or struggle, over whether to live or die, but few studies have tested its tenability. This study introduces direct assessment of a suicidal debate, revealing new aspects of suicidal ideation. Results, from an online survey (N = 1,016), showed nearly all suicide‐risk respondents engaged in the debate. In addition, debate frequency accounted for 54% of the variance in suicidality scores, and showed significant associations with other indicators of suicide risk. Likely factors of the debate, reasons for living and dying, showed significant differences by suicidality, and most suicide‐risk participants reported going online for such purposes, demonstrating a behavioral component of the debate.     

The extreme-right and enfranchisement of immigrants: Main issues in the public “debate” on integration in Belgium

In Belgium, the issue of (local) enfranchisement of foreign residents has without any doubt become the most salient topic of public debate on integration of immigrants and their descendants. Although debate about the issue dates back to the early 1970s, at the start of the 21st century it is still one of the hottest topics in Belgian politics. A second salient topic concerns the strategy against the Flemish extreme-right wing party the Vlaams Blok, or the debate about the so-called ‘cordon sanitaire’ since the 1990s. This contribution wants to discuss the public debate on voting rights for non-Belgians and the strategy against the Vlaams Blok as the most contentious issues in the wider debate about (the future of) immigrant incorporation in Belgian society. Thus, we hope to be able to clarify the (absence of) debate on integration and multiculturalism in Belgium.     

The traumatic memory debate: A failure in scientific communication and cooperation

Perhaps no other topic in recent history has generated such emotionality as the ongoing traumatic memory debate involving alleged reports of physical and sexual abuse. The literature on this topic is replete with reliance on anecdotal statements, unwarranted and grossly overstated generalizations, emotionally laden conclusions, attacks and counterattacks. This state of affairs has resulted in creating a polarization between cognitive memory researchers and clinical researchers who are attempting to resolve the debate through scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, the databases on both sides of the issue are weak. The purpose of this article is to highlight the key issues at the center of this debate in an attempt to move the debate forward. It is argued that resolution of this debate can only be achieved by conducting appropriately designed clinical research with a population of traumatically abused subjects. To achieve this objective, both sides need to suppress their emotional rhetoric, open lines of communication, and engage in cooperative research efforts. This issue is too important for both the field of psychology and society as a whole to remain polarized and unresolved.     

The traumatic memory debate: A failure in scientific communication and cooperation

Perhaps no other topic in recent history has generated such emotionality as the ongoing traumatic memory debate involving alleged reports of physical and sexual abuse. The literature on this topic is replete with reliance on anecdotal statements, unwarranted and grossly overstated generalizations, emotionally laden conclusions, attacks and counterattacks. This state of affairs has resulted in creating a polarization between cognitive memory researchers and clinical researchers who are attempting to resolve the debate through scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, the databases on both sides of the issue are weak. The purpose of this article is to highlight the key issues at the center of this debate in an attempt to move the debate forward. It is argued that resolution of this debate can only be achieved by conducting appropriately designed clinical research with a population of traumatically abused subjects. To achieve this objective, both sides need to suppress their emotional rhetoric, open lines of communication, and engage in cooperative research efforts. This issue is too important for both the field of psychology and society as a whole to remain polarized and unresolved.     

The Politics of Sex and Gender: Benhabib and Butler Debate Subjectivity

This paper responds to the sense of “crisis” or “trouble” that dominates contemporary feminist debate about the categories of sex and gender. It argues that this perception of crisis has emerged from a fundamental confusion of theoretical and political issues concerning the implications of the sex/gender debate for political representation and agency. It explores the sense in which this confusion is manifest in a debate between Seyla Benhabib and Judith Butler.     

Varsity medical ethics debate 2018: constant health monitoring - the advance of technology into healthcare

The 2018 Varsity Medical Ethics debate convened upon the motion: “This house believes that the constant monitoring of our health does more harm than good”. This annual debate between students from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is now in its tenth year. This year’s debate was hosted at the Oxford Union on 8th of February 2018, with Oxford winning for the Opposition, and was the catalyst for the collation and expansion of ideas in this paper.New technological devices have the potential to enhance patient autonomy, improve patient safety, simplify the management of chronic diseases, increase connectivity between patients and healthcare professionals and assist individuals to make lifestyle changes to improve their health. However, these are pitted against an encroachment of technology medicalising the individual and home, an exacerbation of health inequalities, a risk to the security of patient data, an alteration of the doctor-patient relationship dynamic and an infringement on individual self-identity. This paper will draw upon and develop these concepts, while contending arguments for and against constant health monitoring. This is not a review of medical devices and health monitoring, but a reflective development and more detailed elaboration of the main points highlighted in the 2018 Varsity Medical Ethics debate.     

The genesis of victimization surveys and of the realist‐constructionist divide

The invention of victimization surveys is often presented as a synthesis of the two theoretical attitudes that, supposedly, dominated the 1960s debate over official crime statistics: realism and social constructionism. This paper turns this genesis story on its head. Using original archives, I argue that victimization surveys responded to organizational opportunities in the field of applied research. It was only after the fact that two of their architects seized the debate on crime measurement to broadcast their invention. In so doing they strategically recast the terms of this debate into a binary division between two antithetical social ontologies. This case is used to discuss how social scientists come to reinterpret and misunderstand their history.     

A Conversation Worth Having: Hauerwas and Gustafson on Substance in Theological Ethics

When a debate is misplaced, new problems are cast in the distorting language of the settled problems of the past while, at the same time, the participants in the debate are assimilated into communities of thought with which they have little in common. The result is that their work, and our response to it, is distorted. This article contends that the polemical debate between James Gustafson (and his followers) and Stanley Hauerwas (and his followers) is just such a misplaced debate. In fact, both can be shown to be Troeltschianhistoricists, and it is only when this commonality is recognized that their very real and deep differences can be rightly appreciated as emblematic of the true sources of disagreement at the growing edge of the discipline.     

What Is Left of the Active Externalism Debate?

Since the publication of Clark and Chalmers' Extended Mind paper, the central claims of that paper, viz. the thesis that cognitive processes and cognitive or mental states extend beyond the brain and body, have been vigorously debated within philosophy of mind and philosophy of cognitive science. Both defenders and detractors of these claims have since marshalled an impressive battery of arguments for and against “active externalism.” However, despite the amount of philosophical energy expended, this debate remains far from settled. We argue that this debate can be understood as answering two metaphysical questions. Yet prominent voices within the debate have assumed that there is a tight relationship between these two questions such that one question can be answered via the other. We defend an alternative ‘wide’ view, whereby mentality is understood as constituted by wide social and cultural factors. Our wide view entails that the two metaphysical questions are separate and should be kept distinct. This suggests that active externalism as understood by prominent voices within that debate requires dissolution, rather than solution. However, if the debate were instead understood as only focusing on the second of the two questions, then there could be a possible future for this debate.     

SCIENCE AND RELIGION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: A PERSONAL VIEW ON THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE

This article considers the current state of the science–religion debate in the United Kingdom. It discusses the societies, groups, and individual scholars that shape that debate, including the dialogue between theology and physics, biology, and psychology. Attention is also given to theology's engagement with ecological issues. The article also reflects on the loss of influence of denominational Christianity within British society, and the impact both on the character of the debate and the role of the churches. Finally, some promising trajectories of development for the future are outlined.     

Evaluating Dialectical Structures

This paper develops concepts and procedures for the evaluation of complex debates. They provide means for answering such questions as whether a thesis has to be considered as proven or disproven in a debate or who carries a burden of proof. While being based on classical logic, this framework represents an (argument-based) approach to non-monotonic, or defeasible reasoning. Debates are analysed as dialectical structures, i.e. argumentation systems with an attack- as well as a support-relationship. The recursive status assignment over the arguments is conditionalised on proponents in a debate. The problem of multiple status assignments arising on circular structures is solved by showing that uniqueness can be guaranteed qua reconstruction of a debate. The notion of burden of proof as well as other discursive aims rational proponents pursue in a debate is defined within the framework.     

Can the skepticism debate be resolved?

External world skeptics are typically opposed to admitting as evidence anything that goes beyond the purely phenomenal, and equally typically, they disown the use of rules of inference that might enable one to move from premises about the phenomenal alone to a conclusion about the external world. This seems to bar any a posteriori resolution of the skepticism debate. This paper argues that the situation is not quite so hopeless, and that an a posteriori resolution of the debate becomes possible once it is recognized that the skeptic holds overly defensive and ill-motivated positions vis-à-vis both evidence and inference, and that more reasonable ones are available. In stating these more reasonable positions, as well as in showing how they make possible an a posteriori resolution of the skepticism debate, the paper draws on the machinery of Bayesian epistemology.     

Woman,Women, and the Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel

Abstract

This article arises from a critical examination of the way the human sexuality debate developed at national level within the United Reformed Church (URC) between 1997 and 2000. Documents that reflected the thinking of members of the Church were carefully examined in order to identify the issues that members of the URC considered fundamental to the debate. From this analysis three closely linked themes, which, it will be argued here form a circular argument, are reflected on theologically: homophobia, sexuality and changing traditional interpretations of the Bible. There can only be an end to the debate when the URC and other Churches are able to escape this circular argument. Taking the experience of South Africa after the apartheid years as a guide, the discussion concludes by exploring ways by which the Church might end the debate and move forward.     

Why logical pluralism?

This paper scrutinizes the debate over logical pluralism. I hope to make this debate more tractable by addressing the question of motivating data: what would count as strong evidence in favor of logical pluralism? Any research program should be able to answer this question, but when faced with this task, many logical pluralists fall back on brute intuitions. This sets logical pluralism on a weak foundation and makes it seem as if nothing pressing is at stake in the debate. The present paper aims to improve this situation by looking at a promising case study and drawing general lessons about the kind of evidence that would support logical pluralism. I argue that the best motivation for logical pluralism will ultimately be rooted in certain kinds of performative data.

     

Lessons and new directions for extended cognition from social and personality psychology

This paper aims to expand the range of empirical work relevant to the extended cognition debates. First, I trace the historical development of the person-situation debate in social and personality psychology and the extended cognition debate in the philosophy of mind. Next, I highlight some instructive similarities between the two and consider possible objections to my comparison. I then argue that the resolution of the person-situation debate in terms of interactionism lends support for an analogously interactionist conception of extended cognition. I argue that this interactionism might necessitate a shift away from the dominant agent-artifact paradigm toward an agent–agent paradigm. If this is right, then social and personality psychology—the discipline(s) that developed from the person-situation debate—opens a whole new range of empirical considerations for extended cognition theorists which align with Clark & Chalmers original vision of agents themselves as spread into the world.     

Battling for the Bible: Academy,Church and the Gay Agenda

Abstract

This paper considers the fact that the academic resources of contemporary biblical scholarship are employed by both sides in the Church debate on homosexuality. When historical and critical evidence has been marshalled, decisions continue to be made on the basis of prior commitments to deeply held theological convictions. This being the case it is important to consider the role that biblical scholars play in debate. It can no longer be considered adequate that they continue to supply supposedly objective knowledge concerning the texts while remaining silent concerning the ethics of interpretation. In the future queer theology will exercise a profound impact and queer readings that move beyond the current boundaries of ‘legitimate’ interpretations will proliferate. This will radically reshape the terrain on which debate takes place. However, at the present moment, there is an urgent need to question the ethics of interpretation within the academy itself.     

The Entanglement Structure of Quantum Field Systems

This article discusses the peculiar features of quantum entanglement and quantum non-locality within the algebraic approach to relativistic quantum field theory (RQFT). The debate on the ontology of RQFT is considered in the light of these well-known but little discussed features. In particular, this article examines the ontic structural realist understanding of quantum entanglement and quantum non-locality and its contribution to this debate.