Argument From Design Research Articles

Informing healthy urban policy making through quantitative health impact appraisal – a co-designed approach

Abstract Quantitative health impact appraisal for land use development is currently challenging. We show how a co-designed process between urban decision makers and academics can help to improve ways of deriving evidence for creating healthier cities. The Health Appraisal of Urban Systems (HAUS) economic valuation model was developed with local partners to inform a strategic framework for a UK urban regeneration site. HAUS is a comparative risk assessment model which allows the user to understand mechanisms for change through applying an impact-pathway approach to quantify changes in health. It is informed by systematic reviews of epidemiology and societal costs of 85 individual health end-points. Scenarios combined a range of characteristics including air and noise pollution, green space, crime, walkability, food environment and transport. Health outcomes include morbidity and mortality impacts. Results show the value of a holistic approach to comparing health risks in designing urban living. By monetising outcomes, practitioners were able to understand the relative magnitude of risk within a specific area and compare alternate urban development scenarios. Compared to an unmanaged development, the Strategic Framework can mitigate health risks by improving safety and quality of the public realm and add health benefits by encouraging activity and active commuting. Flood risks are managed, and green infrastructure improved and extended. These benefits extend to communities outside the site boundaries. Over 25 years, the PV benefits are £60 - 80 million in averted health costs. Strategic planning for urban areas can unlock the potential of the public realm to tackle health inequalities and mitigate serious risks to public health. Timely access to quantitative information on health can help inform understanding of unhealthy environments, strengthen arguments for good design, reinforce capacity of planning teams and so improve the quality of urban developments. Speakers/Panelists Odile Mekel NRW Centre for Health, Bochum, Germany

Kantian Naturalism

ABSTRACT I offer a qualified defence of Kant’s natural teleological argument, that is, his inference from the (un)naturalness of an act to its (im)morality. Though I reject many of Kant’s conclusions, I think the form of argument he uses to support these conclusions is not as wrong-headed as it might at first appear. I consider and answer two objections: first, that the argument is inconsistent with Kant’s moral rationalism; and second, that the argument is inconsistent with post-Kantian developments in science. I argue that both objections rest on a common mistake, namely, the assumption that the account of (human) nature on which Kant’s argument relies is theoretical. On the contrary, the relevant account is practical: informed by science, but not determined by it. Once we appreciate the practical character of Kant’s naturalism, we can see not only that Kant can be a naturalist and a rationalist, but contemporary Kantians can be as well.

Пифагорейский аргумент разумного замысла Вселенной и его критика. Статья 5: «Атеизм» современных физиков

One of the objections to the Pythagorean argument is the reference to the authority of modern physicists, most of whom call themselves atheists or agnostics. Even if there had not been any atheists among the founding fathers of physics, something is wrong with the argument of the intelligent design of the Universe, since so many physicists of the last half-century do not believe in God, the critique goes. To answer this sort of objections, we discuss here the views of Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg, and Stephen Hawking, each of whom called himself an “atheist”. We attempt to show in what sense they indeed were atheists and in what sense they were not. Roger Penrose, the eminent physicist and thinker, called himself “rather agnostic”, but he was convinced of the universe’s purpose, and explained what this conviction was based on: not blind faith but the very special character of the physical laws and the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Penrose illustrated his metaphysical views by means of graphic images, one of which we discuss in a dedicated chapter. Our review of contemporary physicist-philosophers would be very incomplete without the “practicing but unbelieving Christian” Freeman Dyson, with his concept of “the most interesting of all possible worlds”, and so we talk about him too. We also consider Max Tegmark’s mathematical multiverse hypothesis and show that it does not stand up to criticism in light of the cognitive self-consistency of the universe. Is it rational to reject the hypothesis of intelligent design when all other hypotheses about the cause of the highly refi ned nature of physical laws fail? The chapter “Absurdity and Skepticism” is devoted to this question. At the end of this essay and the whole series, we familiarize the reader with the view of the mass man in science and the nature of his “atheism” that was expressed by Jose Ortega y Gasset, supported by Erwin Schrödinger, and commented on by Steven Weinberg.

Reflective and reflexive research participants: Growing the scope for engaging the expertise of frontline workers for policy change

A key value of reflexive research is the constant attentiveness to the forces that produce the way we think about the world. Yet, the researcher constantly grapples with the risk of making him or herself too central to the research. In this article I argue that the risk of researcher-centred research can be mitigated while enhancing the benefits of reflexive practice by incorporating the methodological practice of reflexivity on the part of research participants. This research develops a theoretical argument for a research design that values the expertise of frontline workers understood as whole and complex people rather than simply as agents of the state. I demonstrate that putting their expertise into a reflexive methodological framework can realise effective policy, institutional and systemic change.

A Plea to Thomists: Will the Real Darwinian Please Stand Up? On Some Recent Defenses of the Fifth Way

In this paper, we discuss with some contemporary Thomists the possibility of re-actualizing Thomas’s fifth way to God in the science–theology dialogue. We start with a reference to Spinoza’s critique of teleology in light of some recent Spinoza studies, and after summarizing several Thomistic defenses of Aquinas’s teleological argument, we interpret that critique as targeting the fifth way as well. We then focus on Darwin’s impact on biological design arguments. We argue that his naturalistic explanation of biological teleology also affects the fifth way. The distinction between internal-Aristotelian and external-Platonic conceptions of teleology does not seem to be able to protect the teleological argument from a Darwinian critique. We conclude by stressing the importance and fruitfulness of Thomas’s thought for contemporary interdisciplinary dialogue, provided that Darwin’s impact on the biological version of the fifth way is taken into due account.

Perceiving Design? Reid's Design Discourse

abstract: Thomas Reid, I argue in this paper, holds that the belief that the works of nature are the effects of an intelligent cause is an instinctive or natural belief that may also be rational. After presenting the details of Reid's design argument, I turn to his account of human perception of the inner states of other human beings. I argue that perceptual beliefs of inner states, and hence beliefs in mental qualities such as intelligence and wisdom, involve natural signs that are both instinctive and rational. Natural signs of this sort include behaviors, artifacts, or facial expressions, which lead to belief in intelligence or design in a mind. These natural instinctive/rational beliefs are of the same kind as those that arise when one considers order in nature, and they receive support both from a general principle about causal inferences, and from the conclusion of a design argument.

Why is the Teleological Argument so Popular?

Abstract Why are teleological arguments based on biological phenomena so popular? My explanation is that teleological properties are presented in our experiences of biological phenomena. I contrast this with the view that the attribution of teleological properties to biological phenomena takes place at an intellective level – via inference, and as belief or similar propositional attitude. I suggest five ways in which the experiential view is the better explanation for the popularity of such teleological arguments. Experiential attributions are more easy, impactful, and implastic. The experiential view accommodates cases of conflicting attributions, and it makes sense of the readiness with which we follow such teleological arguments. I respond to objections and explain how my view builds on existing answers to this question found in the philosophical literature.

Divine Design and the Creation-Evolution Debate as Questions for Christian-Muslim Dialogue

ABSTRACT Inter-religious discussion on science and religion can help focus on neglected theological and metaphysical aspects. Here, I consider two examples of this: (1) the effect of models of divine action on design arguments, and (2) the effect of theological hermeneutics on the creation-evolution debate. Regarding design arguments, I analyze and respond to Shoaib A. Malik’s four Ashʿari criticisms of the design argument. Regarding theological hermeneutics, and building on Malik’s analysis, I use the debates over the Age of the Earth and the Flood as a test case of the differences between Christian and Muslim ways of interpretation.

Encouraging engineering design teams to engage in expert iterative practices with tools to support coaching in problem‐based learning

AbstractBackgroundTo create design solutions experienced engineering designers engage in expert iterative practice. Researchers find that students struggle to learn this critical engineering design practice, particularly when tackling real‐world engineering design problems.Purpose/HypothesisTo improve our ability to teach iteration, this study contributes (i) a new teaching approach to improve student teams' expert iterative practices, and (ii) provides support to existing frameworks—chiefly the Design Risk Framework—that predict the key metacognitive processes we should support to help students to engage in expert iterative practices in real‐world engineering design.Design/MethodIn a 3‐year design‐based research study, we developed a novel approach to teaching students to take on real‐world engineering design projects with real clients, users, and contexts to engage in expert iterative practices.ResultsStudy 1 confirms that student teams struggle to engage in expert iterative practices, even when supported by problem‐based learning (PBL) coaching. Study 2 tests our novel approach, Planning‐to‐Iterate, which uses (i) templates, (ii) guiding questions to help students to define problem and solution elements, and (iii) risk checklists to help student teams to identify risks. We found that student teams using Planning‐to‐Iterate engaged in more expert iterative practices while receiving less PBL coaching.ConclusionsThis work empirically tests a design argument—a theory for a novel teaching approach—that augments PBL coaching and helps students to identify risks and engage in expert iterative practices in engineering design projects.

The God of Chance and Purpose: Divine Involvement in a Secular Evolutionary World

The God of Chance and Purpose: Divine Involvement in a Secular Evolutionary World

On the Relationship between Design and Evolution

A longstanding question in science and religion is whether standard evolutionary models are compatible with the claim that the world was designed. In The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, theologian E. V. Rope Kojonen constructs a powerful argument that not only are evolution and design compatible, but that evolutionary processes (and biological data) strongly point to design. Yet Kojonen’s model faces several difficulties, each of which raise hurdles for his understanding of how evolution and design can be harmonized. First, his argument for design (and its compatibility with evolution) relies upon a particular view of nature in which fitness landscapes are “fine-tuned” to allow proteins to evolve from one form to another by mutation and selection. But biological data run contrary to this claim, which poses a problem for Kojonen’s design argument (and, as such, his attempt to harmonize design with evolution). Second, Kojonen appeals to the bacterial flagellum to strengthen his case for design, yet the type of design in the flagellum is incompatible with mainstream evolutionary theory, which (again) damages his reconciliation of design with evolution. Third, Kojonen regards convergent evolution as notable positive evidence in favor of his model (including his version of design), yet convergent evolution actually harms the justification of common ancestry, which Kojonen also accepts. This, too, mars his reconciliation of design and evolution. Finally, Kojonen’s model damages the epistemology that undergirds his own design argument as well as the design intuitions of everyday “theists on the street”, whom he seeks to defend. Thus, despite the remarkable depth, nuance, and erudition of Kojonen’s account, it does not offer a convincing reconciliation of ‘design’ and ‘evolution’.

THE DESIGN ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE: Ayatullâh Ja’far Subḥânî’s Criticism of David Hume’s Thoughts

The design argument is one of the strongest arguments to prove God's existence. It has been analyzed by various thinkers throughout the history in defense of God’s existence. However, some empiricist philosophers who do not believe in God’s existence criticized and questioned this argument. David Hume (1711-1776) is one of those who made a tremendous effort to deny God’s existence. He also criticized the design argument. Hume’s critiques have always been challenged by philosophers and God-believing theologians. This article is made to criticize Hume’s critiques on the design argument from Ayatullâh Subḥânî’s perspective using descriptive-analytical method. Hume’s objection was due to misunderstanding of the argument’s purpose and function. It should be acknowledged that this argument can easily prove God’s essence along with other arguments such as ḥudûth, necessity, and possibility. The design argument pushes us to the supernatural limits. Also, this argument is supported by experimental sciences because every new discovery made in natural sciences provides us with a new sign to prove God.

Physicotheology in Kant’s Transition from Nature to Freedom

AbstractThis article examines Kant’s treatment of the design argument for the existence of God, or physicotheology. It criticizes the interpretation that, for Kant, the assumption of intelligent design satisfies an internal demand of inquiry. It argues that Kant’s positive appraisal of physicotheology is instead better understood in terms of its polemical utility for rebutting objections to practical belief in God upon which Kant’s ethicotheological argument rests, and thus as an instrument in the transition from theoretical to practical philosophy. Kantian physicotheology plays this role (a) by criticizing alternative speculative accounts of the ground of nature, and (b) by analogizing from the structure of finite rational agency in order to represent more clearly the action of an ideal agent.

Control of myeloid cell functions by nociceptors.

The immune system has evolved to protect the host from infectious agents, parasites, and tumor growth, and to ensure the maintenance of homeostasis. Similarly, the primary function of the somatosensory branch of the peripheral nervous system is to collect and interpret sensory information about the environment, allowing the organism to react to or avoid situations that could otherwise have deleterious effects. Consequently, a teleological argument can be made that it is of advantage for the two systems to cooperate and form an "integrated defense system" that benefits from the unique strengths of both subsystems. Indeed, nociceptors, sensory neurons that detect noxious stimuli and elicit the sensation of pain or itch, exhibit potent immunomodulatory capabilities. Depending on the context and the cellular identity of their communication partners, nociceptors can play both pro- or anti-inflammatory roles, promote tissue repair or aggravate inflammatory damage, improve resistance to pathogens or impair their clearance. In light of such variability, it is not surprising that the full extent of interactions between nociceptors and the immune system remains to be established. Nonetheless, the field of peripheral neuroimmunology is advancing at a rapid pace, and general rules that appear to govern the outcomes of such neuroimmune interactions are beginning to emerge. Thus, in this review, we summarize our current understanding of the interaction between nociceptors and, specifically, the myeloid cells of the innate immune system, while pointing out some of the outstanding questions and unresolved controversies in the field. We focus on such interactions within the densely innervated barrier tissues, which can serve as points of entry for infectious agents and, where known, highlight the molecular mechanisms underlying these interactions.

A Theological Appraisal of the Notion of Divine Aseity

There are times when a shadow could be a reflection of reality. The existence of man denotes that the Supreme Being creates humankind and from the writer's perspective, over the years, the logical questions centre on the existence of God. Verifiably, man's existence is traceable to the biological evidence at birth, and the question is who is God and how does He come into being? The thrust of the paper is to discuss the rationale behind a Christian's faith in God, attempting to answer the question of the self-existence of God from philosophical and theological perspectives as a means of authenticating the doctrine of God concerning biblical justifications on the self-existence of God. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent. The paper argues and alludes that the Word aseity comes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning ‘from’ or ‘by himself’. Aseity is arguably the most fundamental divine characteristic of God; the Church fathers acknowledged the role of philosophy in the doing of theology; this is established by discussing the interplay of philosophy and theology, with many considering that philosophy is significant to the theological appraisal of aseity. Philosophical arguments on the existence of God revolve around four major arguments, including the ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments and moral arguments. Theological assessment of the notion of divine aseity from a Christian perspective in the African context is traceable to the Africans' knowledge of God and the existence of God. This paper concludes that God is the most powerful being; it is only in God's existence that all things are meaningful and explainable; the paper also admits that God is self-sufficient and self-existent because He exists from nothing but His power and wisdom are eternal. Admittedly there are notable arguments for God's existence, including cosmological and ontological arguments. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent, meaning that He depends on no one to survive. The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof that substantiates man's conviction about the divine aseity of God, and objectively, the concept of the doctrine God depicts that God's attribute has been defined as the core of a theological system of God.

Kant’s Favorite Argument for Our Immortality

Kant’s claim that we must postulate the immortality of the soul is polarizing. While much attention has been paid to two standard arguments in its defense (one moral-psychological, the other rational), I contend that a favorite argument of Kant’s from the apogee of his critical period—namely, the teleological argument—deserves renewed attention. This article reconstructs the argument and exhibits what makes it unique (though not necessarily superior) in relation to the other arguments. In particular, its form (as third-personal or descriptive, beginning from observations) and related force of assent (as a subjectively universal reflective judgment) set it apart from the other arguments. My goal is to establish that any engagement with Kant’s immortality postulate must include equal consideration of the teleological argument to be complete.

Designing Systems with Care: Responding to Inequality in an Online Course in South Africa

Contemporary South Africa is a highly unequal society, emerging from a history of racial segregation, characterized by diversity along dimensions such as class, race, ethnicity, linguistic background, religion, culture and rural-urban locations (Czerniewicz et al., 2020). Informed by this diversity, higher education institutions attempt to “balance the pursuit of equity, quality and development goals” (Badat, 2020, p. 26). Over the last few years, in particular during COVID-19, care-oriented approaches that emphasise student wellbeing and belonging, such as humanizing online teaching, intentional hospitality, liberating structures,and trauma-informed design have gained traction in higher education. Drawing on three dimensions of human relations, namely affect, reciprocity and power associated with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, we reflect on how adopting a care approach and working with trauma-informed pedagogies in a postgraduate course on blended and online course design was experienced by course participants. In this paper, we draw on voluntary participant interviews and our own reflections as course facilitators to make an argument for a caring learning design that intentionally creates caring learning experiences for a highly diverse group of students. Participants in this course come from geographically diverse locations, from secondary or corporate environments with differently positioned home institutions and diverse access to resources. Also, participants’ positionality and disciplinary backgrounds require different forms of care. We found that Tronto’s concepts of paternalistic and parochial care useful to reflect on our own care practices, as they highlight the importance of creating spaces where students can co-create the care relationship, while understanding how their different positionalities impact their voice and agency, but also remind us how important it is to understand how students’ context differ from our own and to set up caring relationships that suit their contexts.

An Overview of the Design Argument and its Opponents

An Overview of the Design Argument and its Opponents

Джонатан Эдвардс о доказательствах бытия Бога

This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as "Miscellanies" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term "nothingness." The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept "there is non else besides him". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.

Wragge-Morley, Alexander. Aesthetic Science: Representing Nature in the Royal Society of London, 1650–1720

Wragge-Morley, Alexander. <i>Aesthetic Science: Representing Nature in the Royal Society of London, 1650–1720</i>