Moral Arguments in the Debate over Nanotechnologies: Are We Talking Past Each Other?

How are we to understand the fact that the philosophical debate over nanotechnologies has been reduced to a clash of seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that paralyzes all rational discussion of the ultimate ethical question of social acceptability in matters of nanotechnological development? With this issue as its starting point, the study reported on here, intended to further comprehension of the issues rather than provide a cause-and-effect explanation, seeks to achieve a rational grasp of what is being said through the appeals made to this or that principle in the range of arguments put forward in publications on the subject. We present the results of the study’s analyses in two parts. In the first, we lay out the seven categories of argument that emerged from an analysis of the literature: the arguments based on nature, dignity, the good life, utility, equity, autonomy, and rights. In the second part, we present the background moral stances that support each category of argument. Identifying the different categories of argument and the moral stance that underlies each category will enable a better grasp of the reasons for the multiplicity of the arguments that figure in discussions of the acceptability of nanotechnologies and will ultimately contribute to overcoming the tendency towards talking past each other that all too often disfigures the exchange. Clarifying the implications of the moral arguments deployed in the debate over nanotechnologies may make it possible to reduce the confusion observable in these exchanges and contribute to a better grasp of the reasons for their current unproductiveness.     

The Exemption that Confirms the Rule: Reflections on Proceduralism and the UK Hybrid Embryos Controversy

This paper provides an interpretation of the licensing provisions envisaged under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as a model for a rule and exemption-based procedural strategy for the adjudication of potential ethical controversies, and it offers an account of the liberal-democratic legitimacy of the procedure’s outcomes as well as of the legal procedure itself. Drawing on a novel articulation of the distinction between exceptions and exemptions, the paper argues that such a rule and exemption mechanism, while not devoid of attractions, is not immune from the criticisms often levied against procedural approaches to the management of pluralism: it either has to fall back on substantive justification in ways that are not helpful when trying to arbitrate a moral controversy, or it appears justificatorily groundless.     

Effects of simulated stuttering on listener recall

In an investigation of the effects of simulated stuttering on listener recall, a presentation was varied on two factors: degree of stuttering (mild or severe) and information value of stuttered words (low or high). A control presentation featuring non-stuttered speech also was prepared. Five groups of 16 subjects were randomly assigned to, and participated in, one of the five listening conditions. Then they completed a 20-item recall test. A one-way analysis of variance revealed sognificant differences among the five conditions. Two-way analysis of variance disclosed no main effects. However, a significant interaction showed that recall was lowest in the severe stuttering-high information condition. The results are discussed in terms of attention to critical information.     

Assessing outcome in smoking cessation studies.

Outcome measures for smoking cessation are reviewed and evaluated, including 3 self-report measures and 3 biochemical validation measures. Point prevalence reflects the percentage of participants taking action, prolonged abstinence reflects those in the maintenance stage, and continuous abstinence reflects those who progress from action to maintenance without lapsing or relapsing. Biochemical assessments are primarily measures of point prevalence abstinence. The desirability of biochemical validation is a particularly controversial and critical issue. Three factors affect the accuracy of self-report: Type of Population, Type of Intervention, and Demand Characteristics. False-negative rates are generally low. Three broad issues impact on decisions to use biochemical validation: (a) alternative explanations for false positives, (b) refusal rate problems, and (c) the effect of inaccuracy on intervention assessment.     

Category theory and the foundations of mathematics: Philosophical excavations

The aim of this paper is to clarify the role of category theory in the foundations of mathematics. There is a good deal of confusion surrounding this issue. A standard philosophical strategy in the face of a situation of this kind is to draw various distinctions and in this way show that the confusion rests on divergent conceptions of what the foundations of mathematics ought to be. This is the strategy adopted in the present paper. It is divided into 5 sections. We first show that already in the set theoretical framework, there are different dimensions to the expression foundations of. We then explore these dimensions more thoroughly. After a very short discussion of the links between these dimensions, we move to some of the arguments presented for and against category theory in the foundational landscape. We end up on a more speculative note by examining the relationships between category theory and set theory.Various versions of this paper have been read by many people, many of whom have made crucial comments. Needless to say, I am entirely responsible for the claims made in this paper. I would particularly like to thank, in alphabetical order, Mario Bunge, Marta Bunge, Michael Hallett, Andrew Irvine, Saunders Mac Lane, Collin McLarty, Peneloppe Maddy and Mihaly Makkai. Part of the work was done while the author was a visiting fellow at REHSEIS in Paris and at the Center for Philosophy of Science in Pittsburgh. I would like to thank everyone for his or her help and support. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the SSHRC of Canada while this work was done.     

Debunking myths about self-quitting. Evidence from 10 prospective studies of persons who attempt to quit smoking by themselves

This article examines data from 10 longterm prospective studies (N greater than 5,000) in relation to key issues about the self-quitting of smoking, especially those discussed by Schachter. When a single attempt to quit was evaluated, self-quitters' success rates were no better than those reported for formal treatment programs. Light smokers (20 or less cigarettes per day) were 2.2 times more likely to quit than heavy smokers. The cyclical nature of quitting was also examined. There was a moderate rate (mdn = 2.7%) of long-term quitting initiated after the early months (expected quitting window) of these studies, but also a high rate (mdn = 24%) of relapsing for persons abstinent for six months. The number of previous unsuccessful quit attempts was unrelated to success in quitting. Finally, there were few occasional smokers (slips) among successful long-term quitters. We argue that quitting smoking is a dynamic process, not a discrete event.