We investigate the articulation between domain-general reasoning and interpretive processes in failures of deductive reasoning. We focus on illusory inferences from disjunction-like elements, a broad class of deductive fallacies studied in some detail over the past 15 years. These fallacies have received accounts grounded in reasoning processes, holding that human reasoning diverges from normative standards. A subset of these fallacies, however, can be analyzed differently: human reasoning is not to blame, instead the premises were interpreted in a nonobvious, yet perfectly (...) predictable and reasonable way. Once we consider these interpretations, the apparent fallacious conclusion is no mistake at all. We give a two-factor account of these fallacies that incorporates both reasoning-based elements and interpretive elements, showing that they are not in real competition. We present novel experimental evidence in favor of our theory. Cognitive load such as induced by a dual-task design is known to hinder the interpretive mechanisms at the core of interpretation-based accounts of the fallacies of interest. In the first experiment of its kind using this paradigm with an inferential task instead of a simpler truth-value-judgment task, we found that the manipulation affected more strongly those illusions where our theory predicts that interpretive processes are at play. We conclude that the best way forward for the field to investigate the elusive line between reasoning and interpretation requires combining theories and methodologies from linguistic semantics and the psychology of reasoning. (shrink)

Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Volume 21, Issue 4, Page 347-371, November 2022. We sometimes have to choose between options that are seemingly incomparable insofar as they seem to be neither better than, worse than, nor equal to each other. This often happens when the available options are quite different from one another. For instance, consider a choice between prioritizing either criminal justice reform or healthcare reform as a public policy goal. Even after the relevant details of the goals and possible (...) reforms are filled in, it is plausible that neither goal is better than, worse than, nor equal to the other. Such seemingly incomparable options present a problem for rational choice since it is unclear how an agent might rationally choose between them. What we need are some principles to help govern rational choice when faced with seemingly incomparable options. I here present three such principles. While each principle is individually compelling, I show that they are jointly incompatible. I then argue that the correct response to this inconsistent triad is to reject the principle that rationally censures performing a sequence of choices one knows will result in a suboptimal outcome. The upshot is that when seeming incomparability is involved, an agent can money pump themselves without being less rational for it. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Translating Care for the Voiceless PatientLeo AlmazanUndocumented immigrants do not have the luxury of having a professional interpreter by their bedside to help them navigate the complexities of their often-dire situation. Most of the time, they have to rely on the kindness of volunteers or untrained medical personnel to help them. In 2001, I was a non-clinical student in training at a level 1 trauma hospital in the Midwest. (...) The night in question, one of the residents asked me to go to the infectious diseases unit to translate for a newly admitted undocumented patient. [End Page 152]The patient was in his early twenties. This was the second time he had arrived in the US after walking through the desert. His diagnosis was dire—he drank stagnant water during his journey, and he had acquired an aggressive type of infection whose origin (viral? bacterial?) the specialists could not as yet determine. After initial testing, the doctors discovered that he was also suffering from full-blown AIDS.When I entered the room where the young man was lying, shaking violently due to a high fever, I felt deep anger and profound sadness. People looked at the young man with a mixture of disdain and anger. He was, after all, "wasting" the hospital's precious resources. At the same time, his immediate reaction after hearing me speak to him in his native language and sensing that I understood him, that is, that I could empathize with his fears, made me decide that I would do whatever I could to help him.After a brief initial conversation, it became painfully clear that he neither had any formal education nor did he understand the gravity of his medical condition, aggravated by AIDS. Besides that, he did not comprehend what was being done to him, which included the use of experimental drugs that he had not consented to take.My task then morphed from an untrained translator trying to help someone understand a foreign language to a new ally trying to help someone navigate the short-, mid-, and long-term life-altering decisions he would have to make without full knowledge or understanding of his actual circumstances. In short, I quickly transition from interpreter to advocate.It was probably the result of the stress and pressure I suddenly found myself experiencing, but I remember thinking back to my high school etymologies class and realizing that the verb "to advocate," from ad-vocare, means to support, defend, or protect someone. "When did I commit to any of those things?" I thought to myself. And then I immediately remember thinking, "Not at all! I did not commit to any of those things! All I said "yes" to was to lend my voice for a couple of minutes so that a doctor and a patient could understand each other. I surely did not intend to lend my voice to someone who has no voice!"A second and even bigger surprise for me, however, was that, in the process of translating, I could hear what the young man and the physician were truly saying to each other. In other words, as my mouth moved to speak, now in Spanish and now in English, I was able to capture and translate not only the words being said but also the feelings and emotions and the deeper meaning of what was being communicated. For example, when the young man asked, "¿Voy a estar bien?" ["Am I going to be OK?"] I could "hear" his real question, "Am I dying?" When the doctor said, "Your CD4+ cell count is less than 200," I heard him say, "Couldn't you have chosen another place to die?" Conscious of my role, however, I limited myself to performing my duties as professionally and precisely as possible.The following day, I consulted with a professional interpreter who worked at the same hospital, and I asked her how I could be more helpful to the young man. As she advised me how to proceed, I could tell she was truly torn.On the one hand, she wanted me to proceed with the outmost professionalism, to remain "neutral," "objective," and to avoid, at all... (shrink)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sanctioned investor-paid rating agency Egan-Jones for falsely stating that it did not know its clients’ investment positions. The SEC’s action against Egan-Jones raises the broad question whether knowledge of clients’ investment positions creates a conflict of interest for investor-paid ratings. In an experimental setting, we find that investor-paid rating agencies are likely to assign credit ratings that are biased in favor of their clients’ positions, and that this effect is attenuated when the rated company (...) has a sophisticated investor base that is expected to scrutinize ratings. The effect is not conditional on the risk profile of the rated companies. Taken together, our findings suggest that a conflict of interest stemming from investors’ preferences is likely to bias ratings under investor-pays business models, but scrutiny by the company’s investor base can counteract this bias. (shrink)

Leo Strauss's Philosophy and Law contains a groundbreaking study of the political philosophy of Maimonides and his Islamic predecessors, and it offers an argument on behalf of that philosophy which is also a profound critique of modern philosophy. Here is an entirely new and complete English translation of Strauss's work, which takes as its ideal the exacting standards of accuracy that Strauss himself emphasized in his own work. It includes a prefatory essay introducing the argument of each of the four (...) sections of Philosophy and Law. This is a fresh and challenging treatment of the perennial conflict between reason and revelation, or philosophy and religion. Strauss's key contention in this book is that the most influential modern approaches to this conflict have run aground in ways that reflect their loss of key insights developed by the medieval philosophers of Islam and their Jewish pupils, especially Maimonides. Strauss challenges the modern view that scientific enlightenment must ultimately amount to atheism, and that therefore there can be no such thing as enlightened religion. Through a careful, original, and detailed treatment of central works of the medieval Islamic-Jewish tradition, especially Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, Strauss aims to recover their key insights into this question. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.

Cahier 1 : « Merleau-Ponty. Philosophie et non-philosophie ».E. de Saint-Aubert, La « promiscuité ». Merleau-Ponty à la recherche d’une psychanalyse ontologique ; P. Maniglier, De Mauss à Claude Lévi-Strauss : cinquante ans après. Pour une ontologie Maori ; E. Bimbenet, Sens pratique et pratiques réflexives. Quelques développements sociologiques de l’ontologie..

INTRODUCTION Philosophical theology is the systematic inquiry about God's existence and being. We find it in Aristotle's Metaphysics, in Cicero's De natura ...