The subject of “We intend”

This paper examines and compares the ways in which intentions of the singular kind (“I intend”) and the plural kind (“we intend”) are subjective. Are intentions of the plural kind ours in the same way intentions of the singular kind are mine? Starting with the singular case, it is argued that “I intend” is subjective in virtue of self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is special in that it is self-identifying, self-validating, self-committing, and self-authorizing. Moving to the plural form, it is argued that in spite of apparent differences, attitudes of the form “we intend” are subjective in the same way. The self-knowledge at work here is plural rather than singular. This supports a plural subject account of collective intentionality. It is argued that the worries sometimes raised in the literature against the metaphysical “spookiness” of plural subjects are due to a fundamental misconception of the way in which attitudes of either kind –singular and plural – are subjective.     

The Issue of Schooling….or How to Tame a Horse

The issue of schooling is being thoroughly analysed by a number of excellent scholars in this special issue. It is a very comprehensive analytical work which I intend to take into a commentary consideration in this brief article. Schooling is a matter of great and recent concern not the least from a political point of view, where schooling seems to take on a specific role that deals with not only schooling as a normativity but also schooling as the absolute forming of students. Despite ongoing disagreements on what kind of schooling may prove the best as well as the correct form of education as a whole, in this paper I argue that relevant science may have a pretty good idea as to how to apply schooling in such a way as to ensure that teaching is applied equally efficient. It is, however, slightly more difficult to see how this very same science and the above mentioned knowledge finds its way into educational policies not to mention finding its way into the classroom. I argue, that schooling is not (surprisingly and not only) society’s tool for data delivery and data interpretation, but also (and perhaps rather) some certain specific actors of society’s tool for culturalization. This thereby changes schooling from being an educational tool only, a mere transfer of data and a formation of students into a political tool, thus creating a notion of schooling being more or less synonymous with a different kind of formation, a formation of a quite specific nature to suit quite specific properties. I claim these properties to be of an economic, market oriented and universalist nature. I therefore wish to draw attention to two aspects of interest: the oddity of science’s position in this matter, where science appears to have plausible answers as to how the best possible schooling looks like, however, at the same time – not surprisingly - also seem to live up to politically phrased demands in accordance with the premise of the competition state. This, off course, give rise to further questions on the necessity of politically independent universities and the pressure they underlie.     

A Negotiation Approach to Intake and Treatment Choice

Treatment choice is the decision process whereby the psychotherapeutic methods and the psychotherapist are determined when psychotherapy is recommended for a specific client. In this article the problem of treatment choice is situated within an integrative view of psychotherapy. A review of the literature confirms the usefulness of the following concepts for treatment choice: client preferences, client control of the situation of choice, and the mutual acceptability of differing views of therapists and clients. These research findings reveal the importance of four elements in the psychotherapeutic intake strategy: exploration of the client's perspective, informing the client, negotiation as a process of confrontation between the client's and the clinician's perspective, and the client's ultimate choice between alternative treatment proposals.     

The legal basis for the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty

The author, a High Court Judge, has chaired the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) since its establishment in 1992. The Committee has worked in the health sector, but from 1999 the scope has been broadened to cover all fields of science. The article describes how the work is organised and the experiences gained. It is stressed, that the difficulty in connection with scientific dishonesty is, first and foremost, to organise a system suitable for investigating cases effectively, professionally, and with proper respect to the fundamental legal rights of the parties involved. The Committee has also spent much effort in determining what can be termed scientific dishonesty and what falls outside this category but which may, nevertheless, be characterised as breaching of good scientific practice. It is emphasised that these rules are not arbitrarily established by the Committee, but formulated in accordance with norms general accepted by opinion leaders in the scientific community. An carlier version of this paper was presented at a symposium, Scientific Misconduct. An International Perspective, organised by The Medical University of Warsaw, 16 November, 1998. The article is based on more comprehensive articles by the same author in DCSD’s Annual Reports for 1993 and 1995.     

Spiritual care as eHealth: a systematic review

A systematic review was undertaken of the literature on the use of the Internet and other information and communication technologies (ICT's) in the provision and support of religious and spiritual care in healthcare. Indexes such as Medline, PsychoINFO and Proquest Religion were searched. The review found little systematic study of the effectiveness of the Internet and other ICT's in religious and spiritual care. It is believed that the results of this review provide a basis for promise spiri care in the further explora of the potential and of ICT's for tual healthcare.     

Investigating systematic individual differences in sleep-deprived performance on a high-fidelity flight simulator

Laboratory research has revealed considerable systematic variability in the degree to which individuals' alertness and performance are affected by sleep deprivation. However, little is known about whether or not different populations exhibit similar levels of individual variability. In the present study, we examined individual variability in performance impairment due to sleep loss in a highly select population of militaryjet pilots. Ten active-duty F-117 pilots were deprived of sleep for 38 h and studied repeatedly in a high-fidelity flight simulator. Data were analyzed with a mixed-model ANOVA to quantify individual variability. Statistically significant, systematic individual differences in the effects of sleep deprivation were observed, even when baseline differences were accounted for. The findings suggest that highly select populations may exhibit individual differences in vulnerability to performance impairment from sleep loss just as the general population does. Thus, the scientific and operational communities' reliance on group data as opposed to individual data may entail substantial misestimation of the impact of job-related stressors on safety and performance.     

Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision

In ‘belief revision’ a theory is revised with a formula φ resulting in a revised theory . Typically, is in , one has to give up belief in by a process of retraction, and φ is in . We propose to model belief revision in a dynamic epistemic logic. In this setting, we typically have an information state (pointed Kripke model) for the theory wherein the agent believes the negation of the revision formula, i.e., wherein is true. The revision with φ is a program *φ that transforms this information state into a new information state. The transformation is described by a dynamic modal operator [*φ], that is interpreted as a binary relation [ [*φ] ] between information states. The next information state is computed from the current information state and the belief revision formula. If the revision is successful, the agent believes φ in the resulting state, i.e., Bφ is then true. To make this work, as information states we propose ‘doxastic epistemic models’ that represent both knowledge and degrees of belief. These are multi-modal and multi-agent Kripke models. They are constructed from preference relations for agents, and they satisfy various characterizable multi-agent frame properties. Iterated, revocable, and higher-order belief revision are all quite natural in this setting. We present, for an example, five different ways of such dynamic belief revision. One can also see that as a non-deterministic epistemic action with two alternatives, where one is preferred over the other, and there is a natural generalization to general epistemic actions with preferences.