Widespread Disagreement Research Articles

Time, space, and identities of place. Chronotopic identities in Cornwall

abstract: Cornwall's dynamic social history has led to Cornish identity being perpetually reinvented (Payton 1992). Fundamental socioeconomic and cultural changes are taking place, yet, there is widespread disagreement on how to respond to these changes—to reject or to embrace? Many Cornish people want to revert back to a 'golden age' when Cornwall was perceived to be more distinctly Celtic and was sustained by traditional industries. Other Cornish people feel that Cornwall's Celtic and industrial pasts add to the rich tapestry of Cornwall's history, but reject the notion that these pasts should be central to Cornwall's future. Instead, they favour capitalising on the demand for tourism and hospitality and exploring alternative future directions for development. Using data collected from ethnographic participant-observation and interviews with 87 Cornish people, I describe two chronotopic identities: the 'Industrial Celt' and 'Lifestyle Cornwall'.

The Widespread Ethical Disagreement of CRISPR-Cas9

In the early 21st century, gene therapy, specifically CRISPR-Cas9, was developed as a viable option to prevent heritable diseases and treat genetic disorders in somatic and germline cells. However, the advancement of this technology has led to misuse, as genetic “engineers” aim to alter the DNA of future generations to conform to an idealistic set of standards. The abuse of technology, coupled with the ability to reconstruct an individual’s genetic makeup, leads to the societal question about the best way to regulate this software. This paper addresses three key factors in preventing misuse while maximizing medical benefits: the public’s role, physician-patient relationships, and diversity in healthcare. This paper analyzes how the public should engage with national organizations and participate in formal discussions to express their views regarding CRISPR-Cas9 governance; without explicit expression of their views, their beliefs will likely be undermined by professionals. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes transparency and communication within physician-patient relationships: physicians must offer the comprehensive health benefits and drawbacks of gene editing to ensure patients considering gene editing operations are aware of its implications. Additionally, this paper asserts the need to bridge the socioeconomic gap within healthcare to extend access to gene editing to a larger group and also gain deeper insight into CRISPR-Cas9’s long-term impacts on people of various backgrounds. This paper states that the resolution of these three components is essential to reach a societal consensus of the appropriate regulations on gene editing, thereby halting the temporary ban on the technology.

Do Not Risk Homicide: Abortion After 10 Weeks Gestation.

When an abortion is performed, someone dies. Are we killing a human person? Widespread disagreement exists. However, it is not necessary to establish personhood in order to establish the wrongness of abortion: a substantial chance of personhood is enough. We defend The Do Not Risk Homicide Argument: abortions are wrong after 10 weeks gestation because they substantially and unjustifiably risk homicide, the unjust killing of a human person. Why 10 weeks? Because the cumulative evidence establishes a substantial chance (a more than one in five chance) that preborn human beings are persons after 10 weeks (if not before then). We submit evidence from our bad track record, widespread disagreement about personhood (after 10 weeks gestation), problems with theories of personhood, the similarity between preborn human beings and premature newborns, miscalculations of gestational age, and the common intuitive responses of women to their pregnancies and miscarriages. Our argument is cogent because it bypasses the stalemate over preborn personhood and rests on common ground rather than contentious metaphysics. It also strongly suggests that society must do more to protect preborn human beings. We briefly discuss its practical implications for fetal pain relief, social policy, and abortion law.

The Use of Zebrafish in Transcriptome Analysis of the Early Effects of Mutations Causing Early Onset Familial Alzheimer's Disease and Other Inherited Neurodegenerative Conditions.

The degree to which non-human animals can be used to model Alzheimer's disease is a contentious issue, particularly as there is still widespread disagreement regarding the pathogenesis of this neurodegenerative dementia. The currently popular transgenic models are based on artificial expression of genes mutated in early onset forms of familial Alzheimer's disease (EOfAD). Uncertainty regarding the veracity of these models led us to focus on heterozygous, single mutations of endogenous genes (knock-in models) as these most closely resemble the genetic state of humans with EOfAD, and so incorporate the fewest assumptions regarding pathological mechanism. We have generated a number of lines of zebrafish bearing EOfAD-like and non-EOfAD-like mutations in genes equivalent to human PSEN1, PSEN2, and SORL1. To analyze the young adult brain transcriptomes of these mutants, we exploited the ability of zebrafish to produce very large families of simultaneous siblings composed of a variety of genotypes and raised in a uniform environment. This "intra-family" analysis strategy greatly reduced genetic and environmental "noise" thereby allowing detection of subtle changes in gene sets after bulk RNA sequencing of entire brains. Changes to oxidative phosphorylation were predicted for all EOfAD-like mutations in the three genes studied. Here we describe some of the analytical lessons learned in our program combining zebrafish genome editing with transcriptomics to understand the molecular pathologies of neurodegenerative disease.

The Informativeness Norm of Assertion

AbstractAlthough assertions are often characterised as essentially informative speech acts, there is a widespread disagreement concerning how the informativeness of assertions should be understood. This paper proposes the informativeness norm of assertion, which posits that assertions are speech acts that essentially deliver new information. As a result, if one asserts something that is already commonly known, one’s assertion is improper. The norm is motivated by appealing to unique conversational patterns associated with informative and uninformative uses of assertions, an analogy between assertions and inquiries, and a distinction between assertions and uninformative speech acts. By focusing on the normative approach to speech acts, the paper discusses how particular norms of assertion deal with the data supporting the norm of informativeness. To be informative, the speaker must consider the epistemic position of the audience. Since the majority of norms proposed in the literature are speaker-centred, they fail to explain the submitted data. Looking more broadly, focusing on the informativeness of assertions underscores the crucial role of the audience in construing adequate speech act accounts.

The whitewashing of blame

AbstractI argue that influential recent discussions have whitewashed blame, characterizing it in ways that deemphasize or ignore its morally problematic features. I distinguish “definitional,” “creeping,” and “emphasis” whitewash, and argue that they play a central role in overall endorsements of blame by T.M. Scanlon, George Sher, and Miranda Fricker. In particular, these endorsements treat blame as appropriate by definition (Scanlon), or as little more than a wish (Sher), and infer from blame's having one useful function that it is a good practice overall (Fricker). I use an analogy with revenge to illustrate the mechanisms of whitewashing, including broadening a concept to include available alternatives to it and inference from one feature of a practice to an overall conclusion about that practice. Several features of blame make it particularly prone to whitewashing, including blamers' personal or emotional stake in blaming and widespread disagreement about the nature of blame. I argue that a non‐whitewashing treatment of blame must pay closer attention both to blame's harms, and to comparisons between blame and alternative, non‐blaming reactions.

The views of psychiatrists on proposed changes to the England and Wales Mental Health Act 1983 legislation for people with intellectual disability: A national study.

The Draft Mental Health Bill proposes removal of both intellectual disability and autism from Section 3 of the Mental Health Act for England and Wales (MHA). This would lead to people with intellectual disability (PwID) and/or autism could not be detained beyond 28 days, in the absence of diagnosed co-occurring mental illness. To obtain views of psychiatrists working with PwID in England and Wales regarding the proposed MHA changes. This study focusses specifically on the impact on PwID. A cross-sectional online mixed methodology survey of Likert and free-text response questions was developed, to ascertain perceptions of proposed legislative changes to the MHA. A non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling was used to disseminate the survey. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests. Thematic analysis was conducted on free text responses. A total of 82 psychiatrists (33%) from approximately 250 eligible completed the survey. Nearly two-thirds (64%) reported good awareness of the proposed changes, with over half (55%) reporting disagreement with the changes. Psychiatrists working in inpatient settings for PwID reported increased awareness of the changes, less agreement with the reforms, and increased expectations of the reforms having negative unintended consequences, compared to their peers working exclusively in the community. Consultants reported greater disagreement with the changes compared to their non-consultant peers. Qualitative analysis identified five main themes: impact on diagnosis and treatment, seeking alternative options, introducing inequities, resources, and meeting holistic care goals through the Care, Education and Treatment Reviews (CETR) process. Psychiatrists working with PwID report widespread disagreement with the proposed changes to the MHA for PwID, with greater levels of disagreement among those working in inpatient services. Caution with respect to the proposed changes, and monitoring of the impact of the changes if implemented, is advised.

Moral Disagreement and Moral Education: What’s the Problem?

Although initially plausible, the view that moral education should aim at the transmission of moral knowledge has been subject to severe criticism. In this context, one particularly prominent line of argumentation rests on the empirical observation that moral questions are subject to widespread and robust disagreement. In this paper, I would like to discuss the implications of moral disagreement for the goals of moral education in more detail. I will start by laying out the empirical and philosophical assumptions behind the idea that widespread and robust moral disagreement undermines the prospects of transmitting moral knowledge in educational settings. Having thus provided a specific interpretation of the epistemic dynamics behind this so-called ‘challenge of disagreement’, I will proceed by discussing its didactical implications. More specifically, I will defend two claims: first, I will argue that the challenge of disagreement is not an effective challenge, because it undermines the possibility of knowledge transfer only with respect to a limited set of moral propositions. Second, I will argue that the challenge of disagreement is not a specific challenge, because the epistemically destructive effects of moral disagreement also pose a challenge for other prominent accounts of moral education that were originally proposed as promising alternatives to knowledge transmission accounts. If convincing, my arguments show that knowledge transmission accounts of moral education are in a much better position than is usually expected to incorporate the fact that moral questions are notoriously controversial.

Examining the differential risk from high-level artificial intelligence and the question of control

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the most transformative technologies of the 21st century. The extent and scope of future AI capabilities remain a key uncertainty, with widespread disagreement on timelines and potential impacts. As nations and technology companies race toward greater complexity and autonomy in AI systems, there are concerns over the extent of integration and oversight of opaque AI decision processes. This is especially true in the subfield of machine learning (ML), where systems learn to optimize objectives without human assistance. Objectives can be imperfectly specified or executed in an unexpected or potentially harmful way. This becomes more concerning as systems increase in power and autonomy, where an abrupt capability jump could result in unexpected shifts in power dynamics or even catastrophic failures. This study presents a hierarchical complex systems framework to model AI risk and provide a template for alternative futures analysis. Survey data were collected from domain experts in the public and private sectors to classify AI impact and likelihood. The results show increased uncertainty over the powerful AI agent scenario, confidence in multiagent environments, and increased concern over AI alignment failures and influence-seeking behavior.

Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism.

Research into cyber-conflict, public opinion, and international security is burgeoning, yet the field suffers from an absence of conceptual agreement about key terms. For instance, every time a cyberattack takes place, a public debate erupts as to whether it constitutes cyberterrorism. This debate bears significant consequences, seeing as the ascription of a "terrorism" label enables the application of heavy-handed counterterrorism powers and heightens the level of perceived threat among the public. In light of widespread conceptual disagreement in cyberspace, we assert that public opinion plays a heightened role in understanding the nature of cyber threats. We construct a typological framework to illuminate the attributes that drive the public classification of an attack as cyberterrorism, which we test through a ratings-based conjoint experiment in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel (N = 21,238 observations). We find that the public (1) refrains from labeling attacks by unknown actors or hacker collectives as cyberterrorism; and (2) classifies attacks that disseminate sensitive data as terrorism to a greater extent even than physically explosive attacks. Importantly, the uniform public perspectives across the three countries challenge a foundational tenet of public opinion and international relations scholarship that divided views among elites on foreign policy matters will be reflected by a divided public. This study concludes by providing a definitive conceptual baseline to support future research on the topic.

Disagreement, progress, and the goal of philosophy

Modest pessimism about philosophical progress is the view that while philosophy may sometimes make some progress, philosophy has made, and can be expected to make, only very little progress (where the extent of philosophical progress is typically judged against progress in the hard sciences). The paper argues against recent attempts to defend this view on the basis of the pervasiveness of disagreement within philosophy. The argument from disagreement for modest pessimism assumes a teleological conception of progress, according to which the attainment of true answers to the big philosophical questions, or knowledge of them, is the primary goal of philosophy. The paper argues that this assumption involves a misconception of the goal of philosophy: if philosophy has a primary goal, its goal is the understanding of philosophical problems rather than knowledge of answers to philosophical questions. Moreover, it is argued that if the primary goal of philosophy is such understanding, then widespread disagreement within philosophy does not indicate that philosophy makes little progress.

A Qualitative Exploration of Undergraduate Student Perspectives of Sexual Consent Within a Sexual Script Framework

There appear to be widespread misunderstandings and disagreement regarding the definition and execution of sexual consent among postsecondary students. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes sexual consent, navigating consent-related situations can be challenging for individuals. Sexual script theory may explain gaps in consent knowledge by highlighting the social normative references, or sexual scripts, individuals may rely on when knowledge of consent is insufficient or challenging to apply. The goal of the current study was to qualitatively explore Canadian undergraduate students’ perceptions and experiences of sexual consent within the framework of sexual script theory. Using focus groups, N = 56 undergraduates discussed perceptions of sexual consent, under what circumstances they perceive it to be required, potential “grey areas” of sexual consent and how they are navigated, and how gender may intersect with sexual consent. Transcripts were analyzed within a framework of sexual script theory using inductive coding and thematic analysis. Although participants understood Canadian legally codified scripts well, they seemed to rely on socio-cultural and gendered sexual consent scripts when legal scripts were insufficient or challenging to apply, particularly in ambiguous consent scenarios. The findings suggest that beyond providing educational opportunities and interventions within formal school settings that encompass a wider range of sexual consent scenarios, there is a need to address socio-cultural norms/sexual scripts regarding consent within the broader population.

Does "Fortress Europe" have an alternative? EU member states between solidarity and national interests

This paper examines the repercussions of the 2015 European migrant/refugee crisis, which culminated with the 2018 dispute between Italy and France. It is concerned with the Dublin Regulation and the New Pact on Asylum and Migration, which are critical to the division and consequent polarizations across the EU. The Member States’ failure to show solidarity and agree to share the burden in relation to the distribution of immigrants and asylum seekers has brought the European integrationist project into question. In addition to considering the general theoretical explanations, the paper also looks into the African-origin migration/displacement as a proper trigger of widespread disagreements among European governments. The deliberate and systematic impoverishment of the local inhabitants – largely through the use of the French Treasury tied Communauté Financière Africaine (CFA) franc – exposes the neo-colonial nature of the current practices and thus jeopardizes all those discourses and policy initiatives focused on the provision of peace and stability.

Bioethics and the Contours of Autonomy

AbstractThe principle of respect for autonomy often dominates the bioethical discourse. Yet despite its prominence, the exact contours are not always well defined. Widespread disagreement about the nature of autonomy has led some to conclude that autonomy is hopelessly vague and therefore ought to be abandoned in contemporary bioethics. Despite calls to move beyond it, autonomy remains at the center of bioethical reflection. The challenge, then, if autonomy is to function as a bedrock of contemporary bioethics, is to define more clearly the shape of autonomy, to mark more precisely its conceptual boundaries, and to delineate more carefully how best autonomy is put into practice in medical ethics. In this article, I raise questions about the ways autonomy is used in theory, as well as the ways that it is operationalized in practice.

Deep Disagreement (Part 1): Theories of Deep Disagreement.

Some disagreements concern our most fundamental beliefs, principles, values, or worldviews, such as those about the existence of God, society and politics, or the trustworthiness of science. These are 'deep disagreements'. But what exactly are deep disagreements? This paper critically overviews theories of deep disagreement. It does three things. First, it explains the differences between deep and other kinds of disagreement, including peer, persistent, and widespread disagreement. Second, it critically overviews two mainstream theories of deep disagreement, the Wittgensteinian account and the Fundamental Epistemic Principle account, before introducing a Hybrid account. Finally, it explores the notion that deep disagreements can be deeper than others.

Characterizing Competing Viewpoints in Stormwater Governance: An Urban Honolulu Case Study

Stormwater management is a fundamental public service in urban areas that has wide-ranging implications on water supply, public safety, and ecosystem health. This paper examines stormwater management priorities expressed by community leaders and residents, educators, industry professionals, and water managers. It uses Q-methodology, a mixed-method approach, to understand prevalent narratives around stormwater management that comprise the public discourse. The purpose of this research is to elucidate points of agreement and disagreement in the context of a contentious flood risk management project. In total, 18 participants ranked an identical set of 25 idea statements relative to one another. Through principal component analysis, I identify four distinct narratives that prioritize different aspects of stormwater management objectives. The narrative analysis shows broad agreement that decentralized, soft infrastructure (e.g., green infrastructure) should be part of stormwater management solutions. However, there is widespread disagreement over funding mechanisms, the community's responsibilities, and the underlying planning approach to stormwater management. There was no discernable pattern in sector affiliation with any of the narratives. I summarize the dimensionality of stormwater governance and the potential spectrum of ideas about infrastructure, responsibilities, and planning approaches in a framework that characterizes competing viewpoints. The results of this study are useful in understanding underlying sources of conflict regarding stormwater management that may not be readily apparent in public discourse.

Reflections on the Use of Evidence in Child Welfare: A Commentary on Barth et al.

To create a child welfare system that meets the needs of abused and neglected children, it is essential to critically evaluate core claims and assumptions about how the current child welfare system operates and its impacts on children and families. Yet, misleading and false claims are frequently repeated in academic, professional, and media outlets. Barth and colleagues (2021) sought to name and evaluate some of these claims, reasserting the central role of research evidence in policy and practice debates. In this commentary, I argue that a commitment to “consider the evidence” may do little to improve the quality of policies or practices in the child welfare system. Rather, I assert that because research findings are commonly mischaracterized and overgeneralized, we are left with widespread disagreement about what to conclude from existing research and how certain those conclusions are.

What Causes Harmful Algal Blooms? A Case Study of Causal Attributions and Conflict in a Lakeshore Community.

Environmental management involves the complex interaction between identifying the causes of problems and implementing solutions. Our exploratory study draws on attribution theory to analyze the causal attributions among community members experiencing frequent and intensifying harmful algal blooms in a lake of western New York State. Our interviews (n = 21) revealed that causal attributions were grounded in observation but that scientific observations led to very different causal attributions than direct observations among a subset of the lay public. Some community members also developed causal attributions based on their social relationships. Differences in causal attributions became the basis of widespread intracommunity disagreement, which in turn hampered management efforts. Our work demonstrates the need for meaningful public engagement in water management-engagement that addresses causal beliefs within the community, even if those beliefs may not align with scientific understandings.

Should the State Teach Ethics? A Schematism

Should the state teach ethics? There is widespread disagreement on whether (and how) secular states should be in the business of promoting a particular moral viewpoint. This article attempts to schematize, and evaluate, these stances. It does so by posing three, simple questions: (1) Should the state explicitly promote certain ethical values over others? (2) Should the state have ultimate justifications for the values it promotes? (3) Should the state compel its citizens to accept these ultimate justifications? Logically, each question in this series is a prerequisite for considering those questions further down the list. The result is that responses can be categorized into one of four possible permutations or ‘camps.’ These are: (1) The Libertarian (“No” to all three questions) (2) The Pluralist (“Yes” to question 1; “No” to questions 2 and 3) (3) The Rationalist Republican (“Yes” to questions 1 and 2; “No” to question 3) (4) The Rigorous Republican (“Yes” to all three questions) It will be shown that just one of these positions, the ‘rationalist republican,’ stands out from all the rest. For only the rationalist republican can account for a normative politics while also safeguarding the individual’s freedom of conscience.

The impact of estimator choice: Disagreement in clustering solutions across K estimators for Bayesian analysis of population genetic structure across a wide range of empirical data sets.

The software program STRUCTURE is one of the most cited tools for determining population structure. To infer the optimal number of clusters from STRUCTURE output, the ΔK method is often applied. However, a recent study relying on simulated microsatellite data suggested that this method has a downward bias in its estimation of K and is sensitive to uneven sampling. If this finding holds for empirical data sets, conclusions about the scale of gene flow may have to be revised for a large number of studies. To determine the impact of method choice, we applied recently described estimators of K to re-estimate genetic structure in 41 empirical microsatellite data sets; 15 from a broad range of taxa and 26 from one phylogenetic group, coral. We compared alternative estimates of K (Puechmaille statistics) with traditional (ΔK and posterior probability) estimates and found widespread disagreement of estimators across data sets. Thus, one estimator alone is insufficient for determining the optimal number of clusters; this was regardless of study organism or evenness of sampling scheme. Subsequent analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) did not necessarily clarify which clustering solution was best. To better infer population structure, we suggest a combination of visual inspection of STRUCTURE plots and calculation of the alternative estimators at various thresholds in addition to ΔK. Disagreement between traditional and recent estimators may have important biological implications, such as previously unrecognized population structure, as was the case for many studies reanalysed here.