Pub Date : 2023-10-08DOI: 10.1007/s11229-023-04352-7
Caspar Jacobs
Abstract It is often claimed that one can avoid the kind of underdetermination that is a typical consequence of symmetries in physics by stipulating that symmetry-related models represent the same state of affairs (Leibniz Equivalence). But recent commentators (Dasgupta in Philos Perspect 25:115–160, 2011; Pooley in: Knox and Wilson (eds) The Routledge companion to the philosophy of physics, Routledge, Milton Park, 2021; Pooley and Read in Br J Philos Sci, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1086/718274 ; Teitel in J Philos 119:233–278, 2021) have responded that claims about the representational capacities of models are irrelevant to the issue of underdetermination, which concerns possible worlds themselves. In this paper I distinguish two versions of this objection: (1) that a theory’s formalism does not (fully) determine the space of physical possibilities, and (2) that the relevant notion of possibility is not physical possibility. I offer a refutation of each.
人们经常声称，通过规定与对称相关的模型代表相同的事物状态(莱布尼茨等价)，可以避免物理学中对称性的典型后果——不确定性。但是最近的评论者(Dasgupta在Philos perspective 25:15 - 160, 2011;Pooley in: Knox and Wilson(编)The Routledge companion to physics, Routledge, Milton Park, 2021;《哲学科学学报》，2021,https://doi.org/10.1086/718274;Teitel在J Philos 119:233-278, 2021)中回应说，关于模型表征能力的主张与不确定问题无关，不确定问题涉及可能世界本身。在本文中，我区分了这一反对意见的两个版本:(1)理论的形式主义并不(完全)决定物理可能性的空间，(2)可能性的相关概念不是物理可能性。我对每一个都提出反驳。
{"title":"Are models our tools not our masters?","authors":"Caspar Jacobs","doi":"10.1007/s11229-023-04352-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04352-7","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is often claimed that one can avoid the kind of underdetermination that is a typical consequence of symmetries in physics by stipulating that symmetry-related models represent the same state of affairs (Leibniz Equivalence). But recent commentators (Dasgupta in Philos Perspect 25:115–160, 2011; Pooley in: Knox and Wilson (eds) The Routledge companion to the philosophy of physics, Routledge, Milton Park, 2021; Pooley and Read in Br J Philos Sci, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1086/718274 ; Teitel in J Philos 119:233–278, 2021) have responded that claims about the representational capacities of models are irrelevant to the issue of underdetermination, which concerns possible worlds themselves. In this paper I distinguish two versions of this objection: (1) that a theory’s formalism does not (fully) determine the space of physical possibilities, and (2) that the relevant notion of possibility is not physical possibility. I offer a refutation of each.","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135197644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-08DOI: 10.1007/s11229-023-04350-9
Ilho Park
{"title":"Evidence and the epistemic betterness","authors":"Ilho Park","doi":"10.1007/s11229-023-04350-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04350-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135198621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-07DOI: 10.1007/s11229-023-04339-4
Henry Taylor
Abstract This paper develops and defends a compound powerful qualities view of properties. According to this view, properties are essentially composed of distinct powerful and qualitative elements. First, I outline an argument for the compound powerful qualities view, based on the claim that it has the explanatory power of other views, without incurring their costs. Second, I argue that the view has the resources to explain how properties are individuated, by claiming that properties are partially individuated by their qualitative elements, and partially by their powerful elements. Third, I distinguish two versions of the view, one of which says that the qualitative and powerful are parts of properties, the other of which says that they are aspects of properties. I argue that the parthood view is the more parsimonious because it can avoid postulating a novel metaphysical relation. Fourth, I argue that the relation between the powerful and qualitative elements of a property is necessary, and lay out various viable options concerning what the relation might be, including grounding and primitivism.
{"title":"Compound powerful qualities: properties as compounds of distinct powers and qualities","authors":"Henry Taylor","doi":"10.1007/s11229-023-04339-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04339-4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper develops and defends a compound powerful qualities view of properties. According to this view, properties are essentially composed of distinct powerful and qualitative elements. First, I outline an argument for the compound powerful qualities view, based on the claim that it has the explanatory power of other views, without incurring their costs. Second, I argue that the view has the resources to explain how properties are individuated, by claiming that properties are partially individuated by their qualitative elements, and partially by their powerful elements. Third, I distinguish two versions of the view, one of which says that the qualitative and powerful are parts of properties, the other of which says that they are aspects of properties. I argue that the parthood view is the more parsimonious because it can avoid postulating a novel metaphysical relation. Fourth, I argue that the relation between the powerful and qualitative elements of a property is necessary, and lay out various viable options concerning what the relation might be, including grounding and primitivism.","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"201 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135254982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-05DOI: 10.1007/s11229-023-04340-x
Ric Sims
{"title":"Boundary objects, trading zones, and stigmergy: the social and the cognitive in science","authors":"Ric Sims","doi":"10.1007/s11229-023-04340-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04340-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134975186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-03DOI: 10.1007/s11229-023-04262-8
Shuhei Shimamura, Tuomo Tiisala
Abstract This paper presents a new argument to defend the normativity of meaning, specifically the thesis that there are no meanings without norms. The argument starts from the observation inferentialists have emphasized that incompatibility relations between sentences are a necessary part of meaning as it is understood. We motivate this approach by showing that the standard normativist strategy in the literature, which is developed in terms of veridical reference that may swing free from the speaker’s understanding, violates the ought-implies-can principle, but ours does not. In addition, our approach is superior because, unlike the dominant approach, it can be extended from declarative sentences to non-representational uses of language. In this paper, however, we only formulate the argument for the base case that involves incompatibility relations between declarative sentences. The goal is not to derive norms from something that is not normative, but to explicate the distinctive type of normativity that is built into meaning as it is understood by language-users. The explication proceeds in two steps. (1) For any sentence s a speaker understands, there is another sentence s’ that is (and is understood by the speaker as) incompatible with s . (2) In virtue of understanding this incompatibility of meanings, she ought not to be committed to both s and s’ . This prohibition is not derived from instrumental practical reason, nor is it based on representational correctness, but its source is the incompatibility of meanings.
{"title":"Normativity of meaning: An inferentialist argument","authors":"Shuhei Shimamura, Tuomo Tiisala","doi":"10.1007/s11229-023-04262-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04262-8","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents a new argument to defend the normativity of meaning, specifically the thesis that there are no meanings without norms. The argument starts from the observation inferentialists have emphasized that incompatibility relations between sentences are a necessary part of meaning as it is understood. We motivate this approach by showing that the standard normativist strategy in the literature, which is developed in terms of veridical reference that may swing free from the speaker’s understanding, violates the ought-implies-can principle, but ours does not. In addition, our approach is superior because, unlike the dominant approach, it can be extended from declarative sentences to non-representational uses of language. In this paper, however, we only formulate the argument for the base case that involves incompatibility relations between declarative sentences. The goal is not to derive norms from something that is not normative, but to explicate the distinctive type of normativity that is built into meaning as it is understood by language-users. The explication proceeds in two steps. (1) For any sentence s a speaker understands, there is another sentence s’ that is (and is understood by the speaker as) incompatible with s . (2) In virtue of understanding this incompatibility of meanings, she ought not to be committed to both s and s’ . This prohibition is not derived from instrumental practical reason, nor is it based on representational correctness, but its source is the incompatibility of meanings.","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135689543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Purpose: This study aimed to report 12 years of experience in the development of a quality assurance system in radiation oncology in a university hospital.
Material and methods: We developed the Quality Assurance Program in Radiation Oncology (QUAPRO) in 2008 to detect treatment deviation in the radiotherapy (RT) process with three steps of near-miss detection: simulation and prescription (primary check, PC), treatment planning (secondary check, SC), and treatment delivery process (tertiary check, TC). We transferred our paper-based medical records to electronic-based radiotherapy information systems (RTISs) in 2013. QUAPRO was completely integrated into RTIS in 2017. Since then, electronic-based incident reporting has been conducted. The program is called the Radiation Incident Learning System (RILS). The near-miss rates were compared during the three time periods: 2008-2012, 2013-2017, and 2017-2020.
Results: Five years of paper-based QUAPRO for 2008-2012 demonstrated a fluctuation in the checking ratio, with a gradually increasing rate of near misses of 3.5-19.7%. After electronic-based medical records were developed in 2013, the results revealed a dramatic increase from a rate of 2.7 to 4.2 in the number of checks per patient and achieved an increased rate of near misses of 24.7% for PC, SC, and TC. The rate of near misses gradually decreased to 5.3% after 2017 because of RT workflow improvement.
Conclusion: The analysis of 12 years in near-miss data reflected the effectiveness of our quality assurance program. The QUAPRO system can detect near-miss incidents in the whole RT workflow and illustrate the detection improvement when integrated into electronic-based medical records. Regular feedback and exploration of near-miss reporting are recommended for proper RT workflow improvement.
{"title":"Development of a quality assurance system in radiation oncology: A 12-year experience in a University Hospital.","authors":"Wannapha Nobnop, Vicharn Lorvidhaya, Somsak Wanwilairat, Anirut Watcharawipha, Ekkasit Tharavichitkul, Wimrak Onchan, Somvilai Chakrabandhu, Pitchayaponne Klunklin, Bongkot Jia-Mahasap, Pooriwat Muangwong, Imjai Chitapanarux","doi":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_39_22","DOIUrl":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_39_22","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to report 12 years of experience in the development of a quality assurance system in radiation oncology in a university hospital.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We developed the Quality Assurance Program in Radiation Oncology (QUAPRO) in 2008 to detect treatment deviation in the radiotherapy (RT) process with three steps of near-miss detection: simulation and prescription (primary check, PC), treatment planning (secondary check, SC), and treatment delivery process (tertiary check, TC). We transferred our paper-based medical records to electronic-based radiotherapy information systems (RTISs) in 2013. QUAPRO was completely integrated into RTIS in 2017. Since then, electronic-based incident reporting has been conducted. The program is called the Radiation Incident Learning System (RILS). The near-miss rates were compared during the three time periods: 2008-2012, 2013-2017, and 2017-2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five years of paper-based QUAPRO for 2008-2012 demonstrated a fluctuation in the checking ratio, with a gradually increasing rate of near misses of 3.5-19.7%. After electronic-based medical records were developed in 2013, the results revealed a dramatic increase from a rate of 2.7 to 4.2 in the number of checks per patient and achieved an increased rate of near misses of 24.7% for PC, SC, and TC. The rate of near misses gradually decreased to 5.3% after 2017 because of RT workflow improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The analysis of 12 years in near-miss data reflected the effectiveness of our quality assurance program. The QUAPRO system can detect near-miss incidents in the whole RT workflow and illustrate the detection improvement when integrated into electronic-based medical records. Regular feedback and exploration of near-miss reporting are recommended for proper RT workflow improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"186 1","pages":"1975-1981"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74175307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：