新时代“健康优先”的三重理论逻辑

新时代我国施行“健康优先”在理论上合乎天然的逻辑。基于法理逻辑、价值逻辑和生产逻辑构建一个三重维度的分析框架。公民的生命权、健康权和发展权的保障和维护,是从微观个体层面催生“健康优先”的法理逻辑。汇聚到人民群众层面,“健康优先”与“以人民为中心”的发展思想共轭产生“以人民健康为中心”的理念,其价值逻辑不言自明。“健康优先”的生产逻辑体现在着眼于“现实的人”这一具有能动性的生产要素,既有利于人力资本的“再生产”,也有利于改善和提升健康人力资本。

     

Interpolation and Amalgamation; Pushing the Limits. Part II

This is the second part of the paper [Part I] which appeared in the previous issue of this journal.     

Lost in dissociation: The main paradigms in unconscious cognition

Contemporary studies in unconscious cognition are essentially founded on dissociation, i.e., on how it dissociates with respect to conscious mental processes and representations. This is claimed to be in so many and diverse ways that one is often lost in dissociation. In order to reduce this state of confusion we here carry out two major tasks: based on the central distinction between cognitive processes and representations, we identify and isolate the main dissociation paradigms; we then critically analyze their key tenets and reported findings.     

CoTO: A novel approach for fuzzy aggregation of semantic similarity measures

Semantic similarity measurement aims to determine the likeness between two text expressions that use different lexicographies for representing the same real object or idea. There are a lot of semantic similarity measures for addressing this problem. However, the best results have been achieved when aggregating a number of simple similarity measures. This means that after the various similarity values have been calculated, the overall similarity for a pair of text expressions is computed using an aggregation function of these individual semantic similarity values. This aggregation is often computed by means of statistical functions. In this work, we present CoTO (Consensus or Trade-Off) a solution based on fuzzy logic that is able to outperform these traditional approaches.     

An examination of the SEP candidate analogical inference rule within pure inductive logic

Within the framework of (Unary) Pure Inductive Logic we investigate four possible formulations of a probabilistic principle of analogy based on a template considered by Paul Bartha in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1] and give some characterizations of the probability functions which satisfy them. In addition we investigate an alternative interpretation of analogical support, also considered by Bartha, based not on the enhancement of probability but on the creation of possibility.     

The computational value of debate in defeasible reasoning

Defeasible reasoning is concerned with the logics of non-deductive argument. As is described in the literature, the study of this type of reasoning is considerably more involved than the study of deductive argument, even so that, in realistic applications, there is often a lack of resources to perform an exhaustive analysis. It follows that, in a theory of defeasible reasoning, the order and direction in which arguments are developed, i.e. theprocedure, is important. The aim of this article is to show that debate is the most efficient procedure to argue in the presence of limited resources. To do so, there is first some general theory on defeasible argumentation, which is followed by an introduction to the problem of dialectical search. The problem of dialectical search is (or at least, should be) the essential issue in every theory on argumentation, and emerges at every occasion that involves adjudication on competing arguments. Starting with an example, it is explained that dialectical search can be best scheduled according to classical debating techniques, that work along well-tried methods. These methods (which include various forms of curtailment, interruption, and interpretation) have proven their value in keeping debating efforts within reasonable bounds. How they apply in a theory of formal argument, will be shown in this article.This research was made possible by SION, and is financed by NWO under contract number 612-316-019. Part of this research has been conducted at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This article contains fragments of Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the author's dissertation. Studies in Defeasible Argumentation (1993).     

Rational Illogicality

Many accounts of structural rationality give a special role to logic. This paper reviews the problem case of clear-eyed logical uncertainty. An account of rational norms on belief that does not give a special role to logic is developed: doxastic probabilism.