La objeción de Aristóteles a la teoría platónica de la reminiscencia

During the course of their treatment and follow-up, women with breast cancer are likely to be asked to join a number of different clinical studies. Some local research ethics committees have expressed concerns about entry of individual patients into multiple research studies. A survey was undertaken to improve understanding of patients' own perceptions of participation in several clinical studies. A total of 96 patients who had previously undergone surgery for breast cancer from January to June 2000 were sent a questionnaire 6-12 months after completion of primary treatment. Eighty four per cent of questionnaires were returned of which 62% were from patients who had been approached to enter at least one clinical study. Sixty-four per cent of patients believed that there should not be a limit on the number of clinical studies offered to patients. Furthermore, three quarters of all patients would have considered entering more than one study if adequate explanation and written information were provided. Most patients felt that their participation in a clinical study was worthwhile and no patients surveyed regretted their decision to take part in a study. Almost two-thirds of patients who returned questionnaires believed there should not be a maximum number of studies offered to them. This survey suggests that the majority of patients are prepared to participate in more than one clinical study when adequate information and explanation are provided.

Objectives: While studies on satisfaction following medical procedures are well documented, but this is not so with dental procedures. Therefore, this study aims to determine the level of satisfaction in patient undergoing intraoral examination (IOE). Material and Methods: Consecutive patients attending the oral diagnosis clinic of University of Benin Teaching Hospital from April 2020 to September 2020 were interviewed using a questionnaire modified from the modified Group Health Association of America-9 questionnaire. Results: A total number of 103 consecutive dental patients were recruited as they all agreed to participate in the study. The age range was 18–77 years with a mean age of 35.8 ± 14.3 years. There were more males (51.5%). The overall satisfaction was 82.5%. The maximum satisfactory response was on doctor’s manner (93.2%), followed by staff ’s manner (89.3%), comfort during IOE (80.6%), adequate explanation (78.6%), and finally by waiting time (60.2%). There was association between occupation (P = 0.04) of the patients, type of dental condition (P = 0.03), waiting time (P = 0.01), doctor’s manner (P = 0.00), staff manner (P = 0.00), adequate explanation (P = 0.00), comfort during IOE (P = 0.00), and level of satisfaction. The problem rate was 16%. Conclusion: Although waiting time and adequate explanation ranked the highest in terms of unfavorable responses, the overall satisfaction of patients following IOE was generally good. The factors that influence satisfaction were occupation of the patients, type of dental condition, waiting time, doctor’s manner, staff manner, adequate explanation, and comfort during IOE.

Recent efforts have uncovered various methods for providing explanations that can help interpret the behavior of machine learning programs. Exact explanations with a rigorous logical foundation provide valid and complete explanations, but they have an epistemological problem: they are often too complex for humans to understand and too expensive to compute even with automated reasoning methods. Interpretability requires good explanations that humans can grasp and can compute. We take an important step toward specifying what good explanations are by analyzing the epistemically accessible and pragmatic aspects of explanations. We characterize sufficiently good, or fair and adequate, explanations in terms of counterfactuals and what we call the conundra of the explainee, the agent that requested the explanation. We provide a correspondence between logical and mathematical formulations for counterfactuals to examine the partiality of counterfactual explanations that can hide biases; we define fair and adequate explanations in such a setting. We provide formal results about the algorithmic complexity of fair and adequate explanations. We then detail two sophisticated counterfactual models, one based on causal graphs, and one based on transport theories. We show transport based models have several theoretical advantages over the competition as explanation frameworks for machine learning algorithms.

Recent efforts have uncovered various methods for providing explanations that can help interpret the behavior of machine learning programs. Exact explanations with a rigorous logical foundation provide valid and complete explanations, but they have an epistemological problem: they may be too complex for humans to understand and too expensive to compute even with automated reasoning methods. Interpretability requires good explanations that humans can grasp and can compute. We take an important step toward specifying what good explanations are by analyzing the epistemically accessible and pragmatic aspects of explanations. We characterize sufficiently good, or fair and adequate, explanations in terms of counterfactuals and what we call the conundra of the explainee, the agent that requested the explanation. We provide a correspondence between logical and mathematical formulations for counterfactuals to examine the partiality of counterfactual explanations that can hide biases; we define fair and adequate explanations in such a setting. We then provide formal results about the algorithmic complexity of fair and adequate explanations.

Research shows that organisational efforts to protect their information assets from employee security threats do not always reach their full potential and may actually encourage the behaviours they attempt to thwart, such as reactive computer abuse (CA). To better understand this dilemma, we use fairness theory (FT) and reactance theory (RT) to explain why employees may blame organisations for and retaliate against enhanced information security policies (ISPs). We tested our model with 553 working professionals and found support for most of it. Our results show that organisational trust can decrease reactive CA. FT suggests that explanation adequacy (EA) is an important factor that builds trust after an event. Our results also suggest that trust both fully mediates the relationship between EA and CA and partially mediates the relationship between perceived freedom restrictions related to enhanced ISPs and reactive CA. EA also had a strong negative relationship with freedom restrictions. Moreover, organisational security education, training and awareness (SETA) initiatives decreased the perceptions of external control and freedom restrictions and increased EA, and advance notification of changes increased EA. We also included 14 control variables and rival explanations to determine with more confidence what drove reactive CA in our context. Notably, the deterrence theory (DT)‐based constructs of sanction severity, certainty and celerity had no significant influence on reactive CA. We provide support for the importance of respectful communication efforts and SETA programmes, coupled with maximising employee rights and promoting trust and fairness to decrease reactive CA. These efforts can protect organisations from falling victim to their own organisational security efforts.

OBJECTIVE--To examine the psychological impact of surgical accidents and assess the adequacy of explanations given to the patients involved. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING--Subjects were selected from files held Action for...

abstractThose who think that general historical interpretations do no more than express a personal point of view deny that arguments over their credibility can have any point. They commonly believe that historians decide upon particular facts about the past in the context of a general interpretation of those facts. Consequently they deny that there is any independent basis for judging the credibility of general interpretations of the past, and conclude that each coherent account is as good as every other.Similarly, those who think causal explanations are arbitrary can make no sense of arguments about their adequacy. They assume that historians simply pick out causes that interest them, and that there is no objective basis for judging the adequacy of the explanations they provide.This essay defends the credibility of interpretations against the skeptics, and the adequacy of causal explanations too. It shows that historians do discover a mass of particular facts independently of the general interpretations they finally provide, facts that provide a basis for assessing the credibility and fairness of those interpretations. It will also show that there is an objective basis for judging the adequacy of causal explanations, as some causes of an event are far more influential in bringing it about than others.A much more difficult problem concerns the need for historical interpretations to provide not just a credible account of the past, but also one that is fair, balanced, not misleading. Historians frequently argue about the fairness of general interpretations. Does this mean that fairness is always required? Quite often historians produce partial interpretations, in both senses, with no apology. It would be wrong to call such interpretations “biased” because they do not pretend to be comprehensive. So long as they are credible, they are acceptable. On the other hand, many interpretations are intended to present a fair, comprehensive account of their subject. When judging the adequacy of interpretations, it is necessary to know whether they are meant to be fair or not.

To examine the psychological impact of surgical accidents and assess the adequacy of explanations given to the patients involved. Postal questionnaire survey. Subjects were selected from files held Action for Victims of Medical Accidents. 154 surgical patients who had been injured by their treatment, who considered that their treatment had fallen below acceptable standards. Adequacy of explanations given to patients and responses to standard questionnaires assessing pain, distress, psychiatric morbidity, and psychosocial adjustment (general health questionnaire, impact of events scale, McGill pain questionnaire, and psychosocial adjustment to illness scale). 101 patients completed the questionnaires (69 women, 32 men; mean age 44 (median 41.5) years. Mean scores on the questionnaires indicated that these injured patients were more distressed than people who had suffered serious accidents or bereavements; their levels of pain were comparable, over a year after surgery, to untreated postoperative pain; and their psychosocial adjustment was considerably worse than in patients with serious illnesses. They were extremely unsatisfied with the explanations given about their accident, which they perceived as lacking in information, unclear, inaccurate, and given unsympathetically. Poor explanations were associated with higher levels of disturbing memories and poorer adjustment. Surgical accidents have a major adverse psychological impact on patients, and poor communication after the accident may increase patients' distress. Communication skills in dealing with such patients should be improved to ensure the clear and comprehensive explanations that they need. Many patients will also require psychological treatment to help their recovery.

Collective behavior of mice passing through an exit under panic

I critically examine an evolutionary debunking argument against moral realism. The key premise of the argument is that there is no adequate explanation of our moral reliability. I search for the strongest version of the argument; this involves exploring how ‘adequate explanation’ could be understood such that the key premise comes out true. Finally, I give a reductio: in the sense in which there is no adequate explanation of our moral reliability, there is equally no adequate explanation of our inductive reliability. Thus, the argument that would debunk our moral views would also, absurdly, debunk all inductive reasoning.

This first part of the commentary on the panel decision in United States - Safeguard on Large Residential Washing Machines provides a summary and views on three issues addressed by the panel: the treatment of unforeseen developments (and the effect of obligations incurred under the GATT), the definition of the domestic industry, and the assessment of increased imports. The panel addressed these issues by relying extensively on the standard of review envisaged for the assessment of safeguard-related claims: the review of the existence of reasoned and adequate explanations. The panel also favoured consistency between the categories defined for the different instances of investigation. unforeseen developments, domestic industry, increased imports, reasoned and adequate explanation, safeguard on washers

This essay begins with a discussion of free will, and finally offers a more robust theory of ultimate freedom. My basic claim is that ultimate freedom is compatible with complete scientific explanation of human choice in terms of preference. Ultimate freedom is explained in terms of a special form of preference that I have called a power preference. Freedom is a consequence of a power preference that is the primary explanation of the choice. Preference is a fundamental concept in a scientific theory of choice in economics. My fundamental argument for the consistency of ultimate freedom and scientific explanation is based on a power preference being an adequate explanation, one that is self-sufficient. The power preference may be explained by remote events, but explanation is not transitive. So a power preference may be an adequate explanation that explains a choice that is not explained by the remote events that explain the power preference. That is my basic argument for the compatibility of ultimate freedom and scientific explanation.

The aim of this paper is to defend a novel characterization of epistemic luck. Helping myself to the notions of epistemic entitlement and adequate explanation, I propose that a true belief suffers from epistemic luck iff an adequate explanation of the fact that the belief acquired is true must appeal to propositions to which the subject herself is not epistemically entitled (in a sense to be made clear below). The burden of the argument is to show that there is a plausible construal of the notions of epistemic entitlement and adequate explanation on which the resulting characterization of epistemic luck, though admittedly programmatic, has several important virtues. It avoids difficulties which plague modal accounts of epistemic luck; it can explain the conflicting temptations one can feel in certain alleged cases of epistemic luck; it offers a novel account of the value of knowledge, without committing itself to any particular analysis of knowledge; and it illuminates the significance for epistemology of the phenomenon of epistemic luck itself.

Not all marketplace interactions are initially successful, and often customer expectations are not met, resulting in dissatisfaction, which leads to complaint and redress‐seeking behavior. In this process, the nature of the explanations and other aspects of the firm–customer interaction are critical. This study investigates the proposition that explanation adequacy plays a critical role in the resolution of unsatisfactory sales encounters. Data were collected from a sample of consumers and analyzed with the use of structural‐equation modeling. The findings indicate that explanation adequacy is influenced by the style and content of the explanation and the timeliness of an organization's reaction. However, explanation adequacy appears to only influence the final perceptions (indirectly) of the severity of the incident and emotional reaction to it, and the perceptions of the extent of the justice of the resolution and the assignment of blame to external factors were found to be intervening variables. The results also indicated that the assignment of blame to internal factors was unrelated to the adequacy of an explanation, but did influence emotional reactions and the perceived severity of the incident. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The general proposition that a salesperson's explanation adequacy plays a critical role in the resolution of unsatisfactory sales encounters for consumers is investigated in a cross‐sectional context. The findings indicate that explanation adequacy is influenced by both the style and content of the explanation, and the timeliness of an organization's reaction, whereas explanation adequacy only indirectly affects the final perceptions of the severity of the incident and emotional reaction to it. Importantly, the perceptions of the extent of the justice of the resolution and the assignment of blame to external factors were found to be intervening variables. The results also indicated that the assignment of blame to internal factors was unrelated to the adequacy of an explanation, but did influence emotion and the perceived severity on an incident.