学术自由、女权主义与证据的概率概念

Tom Vinci
{"title":"学术自由、女权主义与证据的概率概念","authors":"Tom Vinci","doi":"10.17265/2159-5313/2022.06.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a current debate about the extent to which Academic Freedom should be permitted in our universities. On the one hand, we have traditionalists who maintain that Academic Freedom should be unrestricted: people who have the appropriate qualifications and accomplishments should be allowed to develop theories about how the world is, or ought to be, as they see fit. On the other hand, we have post-traditional philosophers who argue against this degree of Academic Freedom. I consider a conservative version of post-traditional philosophy that permits restrictions on Academic Freedom only if the following conditions are met, probabilities”, pr(e/h) are 1. I consider various possible ways to escape this quandary, none of which are without difficulties, concluding that a research policy allowing for unrestricted Academic Freedom is probably the best that we can hope for.","PeriodicalId":69353,"journal":{"name":"哲学研究:英文版","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic Freedom, Feminism and the Probabilistic Conception of Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Tom Vinci\",\"doi\":\"10.17265/2159-5313/2022.06.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a current debate about the extent to which Academic Freedom should be permitted in our universities. On the one hand, we have traditionalists who maintain that Academic Freedom should be unrestricted: people who have the appropriate qualifications and accomplishments should be allowed to develop theories about how the world is, or ought to be, as they see fit. On the other hand, we have post-traditional philosophers who argue against this degree of Academic Freedom. I consider a conservative version of post-traditional philosophy that permits restrictions on Academic Freedom only if the following conditions are met, probabilities”, pr(e/h) are 1. I consider various possible ways to escape this quandary, none of which are without difficulties, concluding that a research policy allowing for unrestricted Academic Freedom is probably the best that we can hope for.\",\"PeriodicalId\":69353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"哲学研究:英文版\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"哲学研究:英文版\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1092\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5313/2022.06.003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"哲学研究:英文版","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5313/2022.06.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前有一场关于我们大学应该在多大程度上允许学术自由的辩论。一方面,我们有传统主义者,他们坚持认为学术自由应该是不受限制的:应该允许具有适当资格和成就的人发展他们认为合适的关于世界是什么或应该是什么的理论。另一方面,我们有后传统哲学家反对这种程度的学术自由。我认为后传统哲学的保守版本只允许在满足以下条件的情况下限制学术自由,概率“,pr(e/h)为1。我考虑了各种可能的方法来摆脱这种困境,没有一种是没有困难的,得出的结论是,允许不受限制的学术自由的研究政策可能是我们所能期望的最好的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Academic Freedom, Feminism and the Probabilistic Conception of Evidence
There is a current debate about the extent to which Academic Freedom should be permitted in our universities. On the one hand, we have traditionalists who maintain that Academic Freedom should be unrestricted: people who have the appropriate qualifications and accomplishments should be allowed to develop theories about how the world is, or ought to be, as they see fit. On the other hand, we have post-traditional philosophers who argue against this degree of Academic Freedom. I consider a conservative version of post-traditional philosophy that permits restrictions on Academic Freedom only if the following conditions are met, probabilities”, pr(e/h) are 1. I consider various possible ways to escape this quandary, none of which are without difficulties, concluding that a research policy allowing for unrestricted Academic Freedom is probably the best that we can hope for.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
665
期刊最新文献
Pencil in the Hand of the Creator? An Igbo Hermeneutic Rebuttal of Wale Adenuga’s Concept of the Human Person The Logical Premise and Methodological Basis of Marx’s Machine Production Theory Ethical Criteria in Research in Music Education in Brazil Educational Process as Something Dynamic The Haitian Revolution and Jean-Jacques Dessalines: The End of History and the Last Man Standing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1