Background Interest in strengthening residents’ autonomy in nursing homes is intensifying and professional caregivers’ experience ethical dilemmas when the principles of beneficence and autonomy conflict. This increased focus requires expanded knowledge of how residents experience decision-making in nursing homes and how being subject to paternalism affects residents’ dignity. Research question/aim This study explored how residents experience paternalism in nursing homes. Research design This study involved a qualitative interpretive design with participant observations and semi-structured interviews. The interpretations were informed by Gadamer’s (...) hermeneutics. Participants and research context Eleven residents were interviewed after a period of participant observation in two nursing homes. Ethical considerations The study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki declaration. The Regional Ethics Committee (REK) permitted the researcher to perform participant observation in the nursing homes. The use of audio recordings of interviews was registered and supervised by Sikt - Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. The resident’s consent was assessed continuously. Three interviews were terminated for ethical reasons. Findings The resident interviews revealed that residents found it obvious for caregivers to possess the decision-making authority in nursing homes. When residents explained their views, three main themes emerged: (1) To be included even though caregivers make the decisions, (2) Surrender to dependency, and (3) Adherence to nursing home norms. Conclusions Residents submit to their caregivers and give caregivers the responsibility and function as leaders. Paternalism was experienced as dignifying in situations where it contributed to residents being able to live according to second order desires and values, and when it implied respect and appraisal of residents’ capabilities. Paternalism was experienced as debasing when residents felt left out, and when residents felt that their capabilities were underestimated. This also included their capability to withstand paternalistic influence. (shrink)

Theories of personality and personality disorders need, from time to time, to be revised and updated according to new empirical and conceptual developments. Such development has taken place in the realms of affective neuroscience, evolution and social cognition. In this article we outline a new personality theory which claims that phenomena we usually ascribe to the concept personality are best understood by postulating a web consisting of three major constituents: Temperament (mainly primary emotions), attachment and self-consciousness (mentalizing). We describe these (...) constituents, their neurobiological underpinnings, the subjective experiences they evoke and their behavioral implications. We discuss the relevance of the espoused theory for the field of personality disorders with references to borderline, narcissistic and avoidant personality disorders as well as the DSM-5 Alternative Model. Implications for social psychology, psychotherapy and common-sense self-understanding are outlined. The theory aims to bridge previous contradictions between natural sciences and hermeneutics by its propositions of the evolution of self-consciousness. (shrink)

This volume examines the notion of an analytic proof as a natural deduction, suggesting that the proof's value may be understood as its normal form--a concept with significant implications to proof-theoretic semantics.

By a valid inference is here understood an inference that succeeds in its aim to justify its conclusion given that its premisses are already justified. For an inference to be valid it is thus not enough that the sentence asserted in the conclusion is a logical consequence of the sentences asserted in the premisses. A proof is understood as a succession of valid inferences that is closed (i.e. all its assumptions are discharged and all its free variables are bound by (...) some of the inferences). On the other hand, in mathematics the justification of an assertion has traditionally been taken to consist in a proof of it, which gives rise to an explanatory circle.In an attempt to avoid this circle, I have in previous works tried to explain the notion of ground for an assertion without referring to valid inferences. However, it turns out that the resulting notion of ground has unwanted consequences like the notion of proof in the so-called BHK-interpretation of intuitionistic logic. For instance, one is guaranteed a ground or a proof of an implication A → B as soon as there is in fact no ground or proof of A, regardless of whether one really knows this fact, and hence without having a real justification of the assertion of the implication.In the absence of a non-circular explanation of the notions of valid inference and proof, I suggest that we should try to formulate a number of principles of how these two epistemic notions depend on each other. A more careful explanation of the validity of an inference results in what I call a heuristic idea about the validity of inference, which is used as a guide to formulate precise principles. One such principle generalizes Gentzen’s idea that his introduction rules define the meaning of the logical constants. Another principle generalizes a previously noted property of Gentzen’s elimination rules that I have called that of satisfying the inversion principle. It results in a notion that I call non-creativity, which implies validity. (shrink)

According to a main idea of Gentzen the meanings of the logical constants are reflected by the introduction rules in his system of natural deduction. This idea is here understood as saying roughly that a closed argument ending with an introduction is valid provided that its immediate subarguments are valid and that other closed arguments are justified to the extent that they can be brought to introduction form. One main part of the paper is devoted to the exact development of (...) this notion. Another main part of the paper is concerned with a modification of this notion as it occurs in Michael Dummett’s book The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. The two notions are compared and there is a discussion of how they fare as a foundation for a theory of meaning. It is noted that Dummett’s notion has a simpler structure, but it is argued that it is less appropriate for the foundation of a theory of meaning, because the possession of a valid argument for a sentence in Dummett’s sense is not enough to be warranted to assert the sentence. (shrink)

Reviewed Works:Gaisi Takeuti, Proof Theory.Georg Kreisel, Proof Theory: Some Personal Recollections.Wolfram Pohlers, Contributions of the Schutte School in Munich to Proof Theory.Stephen G. Simpson, Subsystems of $\mathbf{Z}_2$ and Reverse Mathematics.Solomon Feferman, Proof Theory: A Personal Report.

Dag Prawitz The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, Volume 19, Issue 1, Page 119-122, March 2013.

It has been common in contemporary logic and philosophy of logic to identify the validity of an inference with its conclusion being a (logical) consequence of its premisses.

The main question addressed in this chapter is how to analyze the modal ingredient in the concept of logical consequence or logical validity of an inference, here expressed by saying that the truth of the conclusion of a logically valid inference should follow by necessity of thought from the truth of the premisses. It is claimed that this modal ingredient is not taken care of by Tarski’s requirement, later developed in model theory, that for all interpretations of the non-logical terms (...) of the sentences, the conclusion is true if the premisses are. Instead we must bring in reasoning or the notion of proof in the analysis, and it is shown how one may develop a notion of proof or validity of an argument based on the constructive meaning of the logical constants. It is proposed that from a constructive point of view, a sentence is a consequence of a set of premisses if and only if there is a proof in the sense explained of the sentence from the set of premisses. Knowledge of such a proof compels us to hold the conclusion true given that we hold the premisses true. (shrink)

The traditional picture of logic takes it for granted that "valid arguments have a fundamental epistemic significance", but neither model theory nor traditional proof theory dealing with formal system has been able to give an account of this significance. Since valid arguments as usually understood do not in general have any epistemic significance, the problem is to explain how and why we can nevertheless use them sometimes to acquire knowledge. It is suggested that we should distinguish between arguments and acts (...) of inferences and that we have to reconsider the latter notion to arrive at the desired explanation. More precisely, the notions should be developed so that the following relationship holds: one gets in possession of a ground for a conclusion by inferring it from premisses for which one already has grounds, provided that the inference in question is valid. The paper proposes explications of the concepts of ground and deductively valid inference so that this relationship holds as a conceptual truth. Logical validity of inference is seen as a special case of deductive validity, but does not add anything as far as epistemic significance is concerned—it resides already in the deductively valid inferences. (shrink)

Compositionality is a principle used in logic, philosophy, mathematics, linguistics, and computer science for assigning meanings to language expressions in a systematic manner following syntactic construction, thereby allowing for a perspicuous algebraic view of the syntax-semantics interface. Yet the status of the principle remains under debate, with positions ranging from compositionality always being achievable to its having genuine empirical content. This paper attempts to sort out some major issues in all this from a logical perspective. First, we stress the fundamental (...) harmony between Compositionality and its apparent antipode of Contextuality that locates meaning in interaction with other linguistic expressions and in other settings than the actual one. Next, we discuss basic further desiderata in designing and adjudicating a compositional semantics for a given language in harmony with relevant contextual syntactic and semantic cues. In particular, in a series of concrete examples in the realm of logic, we point out the dangers of over-interpreting compositional solutions, the ubiquitous entanglement of assigning meanings and the key task of explaining given target inferences, and the dynamics of new language design, illustrating how even established compositional semantics can be rethought in a fruitful manner. Finally, we discuss some fresh perspectives from the realm of game semantics for natural and formal languages, the general setting for Samson Abramsky’s influential work on programming languages and process logics. We highlight outside-in coalgebraic perspectives on meanings as finite or infinitely unfolding behavior that might challenge and enrich current discussions of compositionality. (shrink)

An inference can be seen as a speech act, in which one passes from a number of assertions called premisses to another assertion, the conclusion, which is presented as supported or justified by the premisses. To justify the assertion that appears as conclusion is the characteristic aim of an inference. Here, we confine ourselves to deductive inferences where the justification is taken to be conclusive. A short, natural explanation of what it is for a (deductive) inference to be valid is (...) to say that it is valid if it succeeds in its aim, that is, if its premisses do (conclusively) justify the conclusion, given that premisses are justified. The paper is concerned with developing this explanation further. (shrink)

In a mathematical perspective, neighborhood models for modal logic are generalized quantifiers, parametrized to points in the domain of objects/worlds. We explore this analogy further, connecting generalized quantifier theory and modal neighborhood logic. In particular, we find interesting analogies between conservativity for linguistic quantifiers and the locality of modal logic, and between the role of invariances in both fields. Moreover, we present some new completeness results for modal neighborhood logics of linguistically motivated classes of generalized quantifiers, and raise new types (...) of open problem. With the bridges established here, many further analogies might be explored between the two fields to mutual benefit. (shrink)

This article provides an introduction to Kaplan-style semantics. The formal semantics usually employs the notion of a model, which, besides supplying the sets utterance contexts, circumstances and a domain M 0 of individuals, and also interprets the nonlogical atomic expressions of the language. Standard compositionality applies only to character: Funct makes immediate sense, since character assigns a semantic value directly to expressions. For semantic functions taking contextual arguments, the notion of compositionality must be revised. Notions of contextual compositionality apply directly (...) to the functional version of the setup that starts with the function char, and defines the other semantics from it. The point of evaluation semantics is indeed basic: if it is compositional, so is the content semantics, and the character semantics. (shrink)

WeingartnerPaul and LeebHans-Peter, eds, Kreisel’s Interests: On the Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Tributes; 41. London: College Publications, 2020. Pp. viii + 171. ISBN: 978-1-84890-330-2.

We study the logical and computational properties of basic theorems of uncountable mathematics, in particular Pincherle's theorem, published in 1882. This theorem states that a locally bounded function is bounded on certain domains, i.e. one of the first ‘local-to-global’ principles. It is well-known that such principles in analysis are intimately connected to (open-cover) compactness, but we nonetheless exhibit fundamental differences between compactness and Pincherle's theorem. For instance, the main question of Reverse Mathematics, namely which set existence axioms are necessary to (...) prove Pincherle's theorem, does not have an unique or unambiguous answer, in contrast to compactness. We establish similar differences for the computational properties of compactness and Pincherle's theorem. We establish the same differences for other local-to-global principles, even going back to Weierstrass. We also greatly sharpen the known computational power of compactness, for the most shared with Pincherle's theorem however. Finally, countable choice plays an important role in the previous, we therefore study this axiom together with the intimately related Lindelöf lemma. (shrink)

Cantor’s first set theory paper (1874) establishes the uncountability of ${\mathbb R}$. We study this most basic mathematical fact formulated in the language of higher-order arithmetic. In particular, we investigate the logical and computational properties of ${\mathsf {NIN}}$ (resp. ${\mathsf {NBI}}$ ), i.e., the third-order statement there is no injection resp. bijection from $[0,1]$ to ${\mathbb N}$. Working in Kohlenbach’s higher-order Reverse Mathematics, we show that ${\mathsf {NIN}}$ and ${\mathsf {NBI}}$ are hard to prove in terms of (conventional) comprehension axioms, (...) while many basic theorems, like Arzelà’s convergence theorem for the Riemann integral (1885), are shown to imply ${\mathsf {NIN}}$ and/or ${\mathsf {NBI}}$. Working in Kleene’s higher-order computability theory based on S1–S9, we show that the following fourth-order process based on ${\mathsf {NIN}}$ is similarly hard to compute: for a given $[0,1]\rightarrow {\mathbb N}$ -function, find reals in the unit interval that map to the same natural number. (shrink)

We may try to explain proofs as chains of valid inference, but the concept of validity needed in such an explanation cannot be the traditional one. For an inference to be legitimate in a proof it must have sufficient epistemic power, so that the proof really justifies its final conclusion. However, the epistemic concepts used to account for this power are in their turn usually explained in terms of the concept of proof. To get out of this circle we may (...) consider an idea within intuitionism about what it is to justify the assertion of a proposition. It depends on Heyting’s view of the meaning of a proposition, but does not presuppose the concept of inference or of proof as chains of inferences. I discuss this idea and what is required in order to use it for an adequate notion of valid inference. (shrink)

Bu makale genel olarak karşılaştırmalı teoloji alanını Türkçe okuyucuya tanıtmayı amaçlamaktadır. Karşılaştırmalı teoloji, son yıllarda Batıda yeniden yorumlanmış ve ötekinden öğrenme düsturuyla yola çıkan akademik bir disiplin alanıdır. Bu makale karşılaştırmalı teolojiyi tanıtmakla beraber Hristiyan teolojisi içindeki yerini de sorgulayacaktır. Bu bağlamda, karşılaştırmalı teolojinin dinler teolojisine bir alternatif olup olmadığı, karşılaştırmalı teolojinin dinler teolojisinden bağımsız bir alan olarak değerlendirilip değerlendirilemeyeceği, dinler teolojisi içerisinde bir tipoloji olarak görülüp görülmediği gibi sorunlara da cevap arayacaktır. Nihayetinde bu makalede karşılaştırmalı teolojinin dinler teolojisine alternatif (...) olarak görülemeyeceği, aynı zamanda dinler teolojisi içerisinde üç veya dört yönlü tipolojilerden biri olarak da değerlendirilemeyeceği sonucuna varılmıştır. Sonuçta karşılaştırmalı teoloji ve dinler teolojisinin birbirinden bağımsız ama birbirlerini tamamlayan iki alan olduğu iddia edilecektir. (shrink)