Inconsistent Arguments Research Articles

What's Wrong with Restrictivism?

Emily Carroll and Parker Crutchfield propose a new inconsistency argument against abortion restrictivism. In response, I raised several objections to their argument. Recently Carroll and Crutchfield have replied and seem to be under the impression that I'm a restrictivist. This is puzzling, since my criticism of their view included a very thinly veiled, but purposely more charitable, anti-restrictivist inconsistency argument. In this response, I explain how Carroll and Crutchfield mischaracterize my position and that of the restrictivist.

Is God a Substance? Avicenna on Essence, Being, and the Categories

Avicenna scholars unanimously agree that Avicenna takes the position that God is not classifiable according to the Aristotelian scheme of the ten categories. However, Avicenna scholars are in little agreement about precisely why God evades categorial classification. Scholars report numerous and, at times, mutually inconsistent arguments purportedly made by Avicenna. In this study, I argue that Avicenna has only one argument as to why God is not in the category of substance—the Essence-Being Distinction Argument—and that he makes this argument consistently throughout his major philosophical encyclopediae. Having clarified this argument, two consequences follow. First, we can study this argument to learn not only about God in Avicenna’s philosophical theology but also about the nature and structure of the categories in Avicenna’s metaphysics. I argue that Avicenna’s Essence-Being Distinction Argument reveals a route by which one may arrive at a real distinction between essence and being from a philosophical, rather than a theological premise. Second, Avicenna’s Essence-Being Distinction Argument, along with the prevalence and consistency thereof, suggests that God has an essence for Avicenna and that texts, wherein Avicenna denies that God has an essence, are exceptional and should not govern our broader interpretation of Avicenna’s philosophical theology.

Is an Imitation Strategy an Enabler or a Hindrance for Exploitative or Exploratory Innovation?—The Moderating Effect of Embeddedness in Knowledge Networks

The present open innovation environment provides firms with considerable opportunities to imitate and learn from one another and makes them deeply embedded in knowledge networks, where the structural position has a great influence on firms’ R&D activities. However, the relationship between imitation and innovation, as two primary R&D approaches that firms follow in technological development, remains inconclusive. To address the inconsistent arguments concerning the appropriate role of imitation, this article explores the effects of imitation and its interaction with embeddedness in knowledge networks on two types of technological innovation: exploitative and exploratory innovations. Empirical analyses based on patent data from 175 Chinese biopharmaceutical firms from 2008 to 2018 show a prominent promoting effect of imitation on exploitative and exploratory innovation. However, the positive effects of technological imitation strategies on two types of innovation will be weakened as firms are increasingly central in the knowledge network, whereas occupying many structural holes has the opposite effect. These results offer new theoretical and practical implications to the technological imitation and innovation research domains.

Kettle logic in abstract argumentation

Abstract Kettle logic is a colloquial term that describes an agent’s advancement of inconsistent arguments in order to defeat a particular claim. Intuitively, a consistent subset of the advanced arguments should exist that is at least as successful at refuting the claim as the advancement of the set of inconsistent arguments. In this paper, we formalize this intuition and provide a formal analysis of kettle logic in abstract argumentation, a fundamental approach to computational argumentation, showing that all of the analysed abstract argumentation semantics (inference functions)—with the exception of naive semantics, which is considered a mere simplistic helper for the construction of other semantics—suffer from kettle logic. We also provide an approach to mitigating kettle logic under some circumstances. The key findings presented in this paper highlight that agents that apply the inference functions of abstract argumentation, are—similarly to humans—receptive to persuasion by agents who deliberately advance inconsistent and intuitively ‘illogical’ claims. As abstract argumentation can be considered one of the most basic models of computational argumentation, this raises the question to what extent and under what circumstances kettle logic-free argumentation can and should be enforced by computational means.

Unintended Intrauterine Death and Preterm Delivery: What Does Philosophy Have to Offer?

AbstractThis special issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy focuses on unintended intrauterine death (UID) and preterm delivery (both phenomena that are commonly—and unhelpfully—referred to as “miscarriage,” “spontaneous abortion,” and “early pregnancy loss”). In this essay, I do two things. First, I outline contributors’ arguments. Most contributors directly respond to “inconsistency arguments,” which purport to show that abortion opponents are unjustified in their comparative treatment of abortion and UID. Contributors to this issue show that such arguments often rely on a grossly oversimplified picture of abortion opponents’ views. Furthermore, contributions in this issue weigh in on issues regarding UID with theoretical import and therapeutic implication beyond the inconsistency argument debate. These papers can be mined for principles that better inform us about anembryonic pregnancies (i.e., nonviable pregnancies in which a gestational sac exists but no embryonic pole can be seen via transvaginal ultrasound), UID-prevention research, the law concerning UID (especially post-Dobbs), policies for handling embryonic remains, and moral psychology as it relates to UID, emotion, and empathy. In each case, conceptual philosophical analysis might bring about therapeutic benefits for those affected by UID. Philosophers, therefore, are in position not only to provide clarity—careful analysis and discussion of UID and related phenomena—but are also in position to genuinely help people affected by UID.

Non-propositionalism and the Suppositional Rule

It can often seem like the attitude we hold towards a conditional should be our attitude in the consequent on the supposition of the antecedent. Following by Williamson (Suppose and Tell: The Semantics and Heuristics of Conditionals. Oxford University Press, 2020), we call this The suppositional rule (SR). The Adams-style non-propositional theories of indicatives upholds some key implications of SR, allowing, for instance, our credence in a conditional to be the probability of the consequent given the antecedent. Williamson (Suppose and Tell: The Semantics and Heuristics of Conditionals. Oxford University Press, 2020) has recently provided a series of inconsistency arguments against SR. He thereby intends to undermine non-propositional views as well as other rivals to his favoured material conditional account. I outline a strategy which theorists of all stripes can employ to avoid Williamson’s arguments. I then show how non-propositionalists can implement this strategy. I show how they can uphold SR when it is intuitively compelling, whilst allowing it to fail when it is not.

Reconciling Conflicting Results of Cultural Diversity’s Effect on Project Team Performance: A Quasi-Experimental Examination

Guided by the Categorization-Elaboration Model, we developed and tested a model to reconcile the conflicting results of cultural diversity’s influence on team performance. Previous theory and studies have inconsistent arguments and evidence regarding cultural diversity’s effects on team performance. We recognize that member cultural diversity is one possible influence on the variety and meanings of messages generated within groups, and the messages’ meanings may then affect performance. Work-related information sharing, including information sharing openness and uniqueness, is proposed as an underlying mechanism that translates the effect of cultural diversity to project team performance. Additionally, team cultural intelligence may moderate the relationship between cultural diversity and the information sharing processes. Participants constituted three types of teams: all American ( N = 32 teams), all Chinese ( N = 34 teams), and mixed ( N = 38 teams), in which team members finished a business problem identification task collectively. Results showed that in culturally diverse teams, high levels of cultural intelligence amplified the positive relationship between cultural diversity and information sharing uniqueness, which in turn led to higher team performance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Why inconsistency arguments fail: a response to Shaw

Opponents of abortion are commonly said to be inconsistent in their beliefs or actions, and to fail in their obligations to prevent the deaths of embryos and fetuses from causes other than induced abortion. We have argued that these ‘inconsistency arguments’ conform to a pattern which is susceptible to a number of objections, and that consequently they fail en masse. In response, Joshua Shaw argues that we misrepresent inconsistency arguments, and that we underestimate the extent to which our opponents have anticipated and addressed counterarguments. In this essay we draw on aspects of Shaw’s alternative formulation of inconsistency arguments to present an improved inconsistency argument structure. While we agree with Shaw that inconsistency arguments must each be examined on their merits, we reject Shaw’s assertion that our objections are dependent on misrepresentations. Our initial objections remain largely successful, therefore, in dealing with the inconsistency arguments of which we are aware.

Kosher and Halal Slaughtering Before the Court of Justice: A Case of Religious Intolerance?

In December 2020 the Court of Justice of the EU approved the legality of a decree, adopted by the Flemish Region in Belgium, which introduced an outright ban on slaughtering of animals by means of traditional Jewish and Muslim rites. The Court, which did not adopt the opinion of Advocate General Hogan, effectively nullified an express derogation for ritual slaughtering found in the EU’s regulation on slaughtering. This article will critically examine the Judgment, arguing that it has not only misinterpreted EU regulations, but also compromised the rights of European minorities to religious freedom under the Charter on the basis of questionable and inconsistent arguments of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, Kosher Slaughtering, Halal Slaughtering, Religious Freedom, Religious Minorities in Europe, European Court of Justice

Why Inconsistency Arguments Matter

Abortion opponents are sometimes accused of having inconsistent beliefs, actions, and/or priorities. If they were consistent, they would regard spontaneous abortions to be a greater moral tragedy, or they would adopt more frozen in vitro fertilization embryos, or they would support more robust social welfare programmes for children and single parents, or so on and so forth. Nicholas Colgrove, Bruce Blackshaw, and Daniel Rogers have recently argued that such inconsistency arguments ‘fail en masse.' They propose three main objections: The Diversity Objection, The Other Beliefs Objection, and The Other Actions Objection. This paper argues that they are incorrect. First, Colgrove et al.’s objections rely on misrepresentations of inconsistency arguments, their structure and the extent to which their proponents have addressed counterarguments to them. Second, none of their objections show that these arguments fail as a whole.

The Moral Significance of Abortion Inconsistency Arguments.

Most opponents of abortion (OA) believe fetuses matter. Critics argue that OA act inconsistently with regards to fetal life, seeking to restrict access to induced abortion, but largely ignoring spontaneous abortion and the creation of surplus embryos by IVF. Nicholas Colgrove, Bruce Blackshaw, and Daniel Rodger call such arguments inconsistency arguments and contend they do not matter. They present three objections to these arguments — the other beliefs, other actions, and hypocrisy objection. Previously, I argued these objections fail and threaten to undermine ethical inquiry. Colgrove et al. have recently replied, but here, I argue their reply fails as well and raises a new criticism of the other actions’ objection. This essay sets out to show, as well as any philosophical argument can, that inconsistency arguments are morally significant.

An MSI-VAR Approach on investigating the broad money supply and consumer price index in Malaysia

According to monetarism, the money supply is the leading cause of increasing price level in the short and long run. Previous works investigated the effect of money supply on inflation in several countries; however, inconsistent arguments from these studies resulted in the exploration of the correlations between money supply and inflation via a different approach in this work. This study investigates the broad money supply and consumer price index (CPI) using the Markov switching vector autoregressive model. The CPI, with 2010 as its base year, was used as a proxy for Malaysia's inflation. The broad money supply is defined as the sum of money and quasi-money. Other countries use different measurements; therefore, M3 was selected based on the monetary authority measurement of the money supply in this study. The transition probabilities and expected duration of the recession and upturn/normal states were examined using a two-regime switching VAR model. Furthermore, the Augmented Dickey-Fuller test, Johansen cointegration, and intercept adjusted MS-VAR model with the first-order Markov process was also used in this study to estimate the observables variables. The results confirmed significant transition probabilities in the state shifting and an asymmetric economic model representing broad money and inflation correlations in Malaysia. Keywords: Broad Money; Consumer Price Index, Malaysia, Regime Switching, MS-VAR

User participation, knowledge management capability and service innovation: e-commerce enterprises in the digital age

PurposeDespite the fact that user participation (UP) has been highlighted as an important aspect in innovation, previous findings on its relationship with service innovation performance (SIP) are inconsistent. This study aims to investigate the relationships among UP, knowledge management capability (KMC) and SIP, especially in the digital age, inspired by the theories of knowledge-based and absorptive capacity.Design/methodology/approachBased on a sample of 252 Chinese e-commerce enterprises, this study adopts a hierarchical regression analysis and bootstrap method to test the theoretical framework and research hypotheses.FindingsUP and KMC have positive effects on SIP, respectively. KMC plays a mediating role in the effect of UP on SIP. Furthermore, the intermediary role of KMC varies in different sub-paths between UP and SIP.Originality/valueFirst, this study provides some explanations for inconsistent arguments on the relationship between UP and service innovation. Second, with the consideration of specific dimensions of UP and SIP, the mediation role of KMC varies in different sub-paths has been recognized, which provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between UP and SIP. Third, this study opens the discussion about how to realize SIP more effectively in the digital age, advancing theoretical and practical developments on service innovation.

Miscarriage Can Kill … But it Usually Does Not: Evaluating Inconsistency Arguments

Recent publications debate the value of inconsistency arguments. Here, I argue that ‘Cause of Death Arguments’ — inconsistency arguments that claim miscarriage causes death far more often than induced abortion — are unsound or invalid. ‘Miscarriage’ ambiguously refers both to intrauterine death, an outcome that does not itself cause death, and preterm delivery, which only sometimes causes death. The referential ambiguity also obscures actions people do take to prevent ‘miscarriage.’ When using the most plausible versions of each premise, these arguments equivocate. Thus, they cannot prove anything. However, missing the equivocation also causes those responding to Cause of Death Arguments to make unconvincing arguments; they inadvertently make or grant false claims themselves. To avoid such mistakes and expose the merely rhetorical power of Cause of Death Arguments, philosophers should replace ‘miscarriage’ with disambiguated terms. Doing so should lead people across the abortion debate to finally abandon the Cause of Death Argument.

The inconsistency argument: why apparent pro-life inconsistency undermines opposition to induced abortion

Most opposition to induced abortion turns on the belief that human fetuses are persons from conception. On this view, the moral status of the fetus alone requires those in a...

The nature of innovation in global value chains

Global value chains (GVCs) have revolutionized production processes and many companies no longer produce goods and services entirely in one single country or within their own organizational boundaries. Through offshoring and outsourcing, value chains are sliced up and activities are dispersed to locations and actors where they can be produced or executed most efficiently. The fine slicing of GVCs also implies that innovation activities can be geographically dispersed and separated from other GVC activities. However, there have been inconsistent arguments on the impact of this dispersion on innovations and on the effect of innovations on GVC activities, as research on the topic has been sporadic, inconclusive, and fragmented. Thus, this paper conceptually discusses the nature of innovation in GVCs by reviewing literature and raises important questions that should be addressed. It also outlines a variety of possible research directions and future research foci that can and should be taken to develop the field.

Blameworthiness, willings, and practical decisions

What kinds of things can we be morally responsible for? Andrew Khoury offers an answer that includes (i) an argument for the impossibility of blameworthiness for overt action, and (ii) the assertion that “willings are the proper object of responsibility in the context of action”. After presenting an argument for the inconsistency of Khoury’s answer to our focal question, I defend the following partial answer that resembles, but differs importantly from, Khoury’s answer: one can be blameworthy for a practical decision—that is, an essentially intentional momentary mental action of forming an intention to do something that resolves prior felt unsettledness about what to do.

When more is better: a contingent view of alliance partner multiplicity and a focal firm’s product innovation performance in China

ABSTRACT Whereas strategic alliances have been widely used to foster product innovation, the extant literature offers inconsistent arguments and inconclusive empirical evidence regarding how the number of partners (i.e., partner multiplicity) in an alliance affects a focal firm’s product innovation performance. The resource-based view (RBV) posits that having more partners in an alliance should benefit a focal firm’s product innovation because of more diverse and a large shared knowledge pool among partners, whereas transaction cost economies (TCE) holds that alliance partner multiplicity may hurt a focal firm’s product innovation due to highex-ante and ex-post costs, and increased governance difficulty and coordination complexity. Building on the RBV and TCE, this study examines the contingent roles of partner-, alliance-, and industry-level factors (i.e., alliance foreignness, alliance duration, and industrial competition). Drawn from multi-informant survey data, the findings reveal that alliance partner multiplicity does not significantly affect a focal firm’s product innovation performance in an emerging market. However, such an effect becomes positive in alliances that involve only domestic partners, operate for relatively short durations, or operate in highly competitive industries. These findings yield new insights with which to disentangle inconsistent arguments in the existing literature and offer important implications for firms seeking innovation benefits from multilateral partnerships.

Kosher and Halal Slaughtering Before the Court of Justice: A Case of Religious Intolerance?

In December 2020 the Court of Justice of the EU approved the legality of a decree, adopted by the Flemish Region in Belgium, which introduced an outright ban on slaughtering of animals by means of traditional Jewish and Muslim rites. The Court, which did not adopt the opinion of Advocate General Hogan, effectively nullified an express derogation for ritual slaughtering found in the EU’s regulation on slaughtering. This article will critically examine the Judgment, arguing that it has not only misinterpreted EU regulations, but also compromised the rights of European minorities to religious freedom under the Charter on the basis of questionable and inconsistent arguments of animal welfare.

Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter

Opponents of abortion are often described as ‘inconsistent’ (hypocrites) in terms of their beliefs, actions and/or priorities. They are alleged to do too little to combat spontaneous abortion, they should...