POISONING THE WELL AND SILENCING IN ARGUMENTATION: ONLINE WORKSHOP - Student Commentators Needed!

WE ARE LOOKING FOR STUDENT COMMENTATORS FOR THE ONLINE WORKSHOP ON POISONING THE WELL AND SILENCING IN ARGUMENTATION.

The expressions of interest from student commentators deadline is November 15^th (the submission deadline for the associated Topoi issue is 15^th February) PLEASE SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS!

 

What is this about?

Among the fallacies traditionally regarded as particularly dangerous, poisoning the well stands out. The literature describes poisoning the well as an argumentative move that consists in providing information about an interlocutor to diminish the credibility of what they have already said, or will say, thereby “poisoning” their ability to contribute - silencing them. Despite the fallacy’s importance, work on it and on silencing in argumentation is limited. 

 

The Poisoning the Well and Silencing in Argumentation Online Workshop (and the associated call for papers at Topoi) will contribute to filling this gap.

 

Student Commentators Needed!

We are now looking for student commentators! Student commentators will receive the paper they comment on two weeks before the workshop. Commentaries will be ten minutes long.

 

Look here (scroll down a little) to find the papers that will be presented at the workshop: 
Critical Thinking and Civic Engagement Lab.

 

If you are interested in commenting, please contact Amalia Haro Marchal/Katharina Stevens under 
ahmarchal AT fcsh.unl.pt and katharina.stevens AT uleth.ca by November 15th!

 

Make sure to state your first, second and third choice for papers to comment on with a short explanation, we will assign based on interest and compatibility!

 

My source (and via KS): Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/ Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html.

Argumentation - Journal: Informal Logic

Early evening (UK) yesterday, I joined a further webinar on argumentation. Through the speaker, and discussion, I was led to a journal

INFORMAL LOGIC

It is in informal logic that I see a role for Hodges' model. The model's structure providing a universal foundation of knowledge domains to be applied in practice. The bonus of this journal, is its being open access, a search revealed the following paper:

Mark Weinstein. Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking. XII.3, Fall 1990.
https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2609

'This paper recommends that the recent concern with informal logic and critical thinking be redirected from its general philosophical focus and towards a greater appreciation of the particulars of practice in the various domains of human understanding. The redirection recommended is prompted by the central role that critical thinking and informal logic can be seen to play in meaningful educational reform, especially at the undergraduate level.' 

'Critical thinking, similarly, should be redirected from concerns typical of philosophers and towards issues and approaches more representative of critical thinking both within and across the wide range of disciplines represented by the course of undergraduate studies.' p.121.

'The sense that there is an internal relationship between arguments, argumentation and domains of knowledge persists despite attempts to show relevant and useful notions of critical thinking that are generally available for instruction and neutral in respect of the disciplines. The resolution of the issues generated by these competing views, requires that reflective practitioners of the disciplines, students of the history of ideas, methodologists and specialists in teaching increasingly engage in the task of generating and organizing the data upon which an informed and adequate notion of critical thinking across the disciplines must be based.' p.125.

I believe that the structure of Hodges' model provides a basis for Weinstein's ordinary argumentation and stylized argumentation.

For me (at present) ordinary argumentation, is 'open' argumentation. That is, without differentiation in (using) Hodges' model. I might (well, I would) have Hodges' model in mind, but choose not to apply it. As per the paper, stylized argumentation is using Hodges' model and doing so in a multidisciplinary manner - within my discipline. 

The problem and challenge for nurses and other health professionals is the need, if:

• person/patient-centred;
• integrated;
• and holistic - having regard for parity of esteem (mind - body)

- not to stray, extend the disciplinary scope, while working within one's professional scope.

In highly effective multidiscioplinary teams that touch on being transdisciplinary (hybrid?), can experienced team members have insight into the stylized argumentation of their colleagues?

Ack. ​Argumentation network of the AMERICAS - https://www.argnet.org/ethics-of-arg.html

Previously: 'critical thinking'

"Readers! Where exactly does this go?"

Individual

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

Group

?	?
?	?

Frankfurt, H. G. (2025). On bullshit. Anniversary Edition. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691276786/on-bullshit

Reflective equilibrium and equipoise

I can't believe, or don't want to, that it's nearly 15 years since I posted - 

h2cm and clinical equipoise in 2010. 

The post didn't try to be 'technical', but perhaps demonstrates the journey here.

In a post to follow, in London 4-7th July I came across a book by Edouard Machery and upon return up north, found a paper which refers to reflective equilibrium. This, one again technical or not, is a purpose of Hodges' model.

Machery, Edouard, Philosophy Within Its Proper Bounds (Oxford, 2017; online edn, Oxford Academic, 24 Aug. 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198807520.001.0001, accessed 24 June 2025.

Reflective equilibrium has an entry in the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

'If you believe that conduct in some case is right or wrong, you have a moral judgment or intuition. Perhaps you have many such judgments about different cases. You might, nevertheless, consider that judgments alone do not justify the moral views they express. You and your moral interlocutors might be concerned that “what we actually accept is fraught with idiosyncrasy and vulnerable to vagaries of history and personality” (Elgin 1996: 108) or displays “irregularities and distortions” (Rawls 1971: 48).

John Rawls proposed to address these concerns through the method of reflective equilibrium.We first ensure that our judgments are considered, being made in circumstances appropriate for moral deliberation. We are then to consider general principles that might accommodate our set of considered judgments—and more than that, explain and extend them. On the standard wide reflective equilibrium, we are to consider

all possible descriptions to which one might plausibly conform one’s judgments together with all relevant philosophical arguments for them. (Rawls 1971: 49)

This requires that we reflect on a wide range of principles, arguments, and theories. Equilibrium is reached where principles and judgments have been revised such that they agree with each other. In short, the method of reflective equilibrium is the mutual adjustment of principles and judgments in the light of relevant argument and theory.'

The encyclopaedia entry is informative for studies here. I will revisit clinical equipoise in the near future; and bring in the idea of 'holistic bandwidth'.

Knight, Carl, "Reflective Equilibrium", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/reflective-equilibrium/>.

Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Joint-carving - 'The First Cut is the Deepest' c/o Traldi

Last Friday I joined in another online session of the Argumentation network c/o Andrew Aberdein and Kat Stevens. 

The subject was “The Epistemology and Politics of Redefinition” by Oliver Traldi.

As ever, it was interesting, technical, relevant and a prompt to concepts new, briefly encountered previously. I can't remember if in the talk, or Q&A, but mention was made of 'joint-carving' but I checked some sources:

'Because properties are so abundant, they are undiscriminating. Any two things share infinitely many properties, and fail to share infinitely many others. That is so whether the two things are perfect duplicates or utterly dissimilar. Thus properties do nothing to capture facts of resemblance. That is work more suited to the sparse universals. Likewise, properties do nothing to capture the causal powers of things. Almost all properties are causally irrelevant, and there is nothing to make the relevant ones stand out from the crowd. Properties carve reality at the joints -- and everywhere else as well. If it's distinctions we want, too much structure is no better than none.' p.346.

Lewis, D. 1983. New Work for a Theory of Universals, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(4): 343–377. doi:10.1080/00048408312341131

'Though the facts or truths that the realist judges mind-independent are most commonly put in terms of a kind’s ‘naturalness’ (or lack thereof), they may be formulated in alternative locutions, such as the ‘reality,’ ‘non-reality,’ or ‘artificiality’ of a kind or kinds. For example, that human races are not real, or that protons form a natural kind, both express such facts. Equivalently, Plato’s famous carving metaphor may be used to do so, as when it is asserted that the classifications of the DSM-5 do not carve nature at the joints. For the sake of expository simplicity I will exclusively use the language of ‘naturalness’ here, but translations into alternative terminology are straightforward.'

Franklin-Hall, L. 2015. Natural kinds as categorical bottlenecks. Philosophical Studies 172 (4):925-948.

Further, Sass writes:

'The goal is to have a consistent and informative test for what counts

as a realist versus an anti-realist view about natural kinds. Bird’s(2018) taxonomy,

building on Hawley and Bird(2011), focuses on the questions of whether natural

kinds exist, and if so, what sort of entity kinds are. Franklin-Hall’s (2015) taxonomy

focuses instead on whether kinds are individuated by a mind-independent principle,

or whether kinds “carve at the joints”.1 This paper focuses mainly on the issues raised

by Bird’s (2018) taxonomy.' p.11862.

Sass, R. 2021. An ontology of weak entity realism for HPC kinds. Synthese, 198(12), 11861–11880. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48692794 [ homeostatic property cluster (HPC) theories of kinds ].

In the past, I've written about the (nursing, IT, psychological...) models muddle. At the risk of adding to my muddle, Traldi's presentation is a timely prompt. Timely, because trying to looking at Hodges' model as a mathematical object, it needs to be stripped down to its bare components (and purposes?). Is redefinition the order of the day? I will leave defining the components to one-side at present (in drafted notes). But even from Hodges' model as a template, with its (two) axes and (four) domains we can (must) consider:

1. The two axes taken as a whole - do they intersect, or not?*

Relationally, the axis between:

INTERPERSONAL | SCIENCES

SOCIOLOGY | POLITICAL

INTERPERSONAL - SOCIOLOGY

SCIENCES - POLITICAL

2. Each axis (treated independently) to the centre of Hodges' model. (See 1.)

The conjoining of axes (do they?):

The INDIVIDUAL - HUMANISTIC and INDIVIDUAL - MECHANISTIC.

The HUMANISTIC - GROUP and GROUP - MECHANISTIC.

                                

Hodges' model

I won't continue now, but I have wondered if one axis is primary? Which one comes first? Faced with a blank piece of paper, or flipchart ... which axis gets drawn first?

In guided discovery workshops, teaching sessions I have been directed by the context and duty of care. Given that this is clinical then the I-G is where I start, or lead the discussion.

Perhaps, (as per the previous post) there is a safety dividend in having to consider this question more formally (forcibly)?

I remember Rod Stewart's rendition of  'The First Cut is the Deepest' - even as governments work to make this cut as shallow as possible.

The INDIVIDUAL - GROUP cut: has it every time.

Previously: 'argumentation'

Understanding Mathematics + Domains towards Corridors

It is for others to judge - whether it is helpful or distracting; but I find concepts defined by other disciplines, or professions illuminating and insightful. Especially so, when it comes to 'domain'. In Hodges' model - all four of them. Five! When (not if), we include the spiritual:

'Greeno (1991) argued that students develop understanding when

"a domain is thought of as an environment, with resources at various places in the domain. In this metaphor, knowing is knowing your way around ir the environment and knowing how to use its resources. This includes knowing what resources are available in the environment as well as being able to find and use those resources for understanding and reasoning. Knowing includes interactions with the environment in its own terms - exploring the territory appreciating its scenery and understanding how its various components interact. Knowing the domain also includes knowing what resources are in the environment that can be used to support your individual and social activities and the ability to recognize, find, and use those resources productively. Learning the domain, in this view, is analogous learning to to live in an environment: learning your way around, learning what resources are available, and learning how to use those resources in conducting your activities productively and enjoyably. (p. 175)"

In particular, in chapter 8, Nemirovsky et al. use the metaphor of becoming familiar with a new place (e.g., a town, a train station) and the process of learning a new mathematical concept.' p.7.

Greeno, J. (1991), Number sense as situated knowing a conceptual domain.,Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 170-2 18. 

Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters. Edited by Thomas A. Romberg Thomas P. Carpenter Fae Dremock University of Wisconsin-Madison. EA LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS 2005 Mahwah, New Jersey London. (I hope there is a 2nd edition?)

(I will try to add the Nemirovsky et al. reference when I can.)

Previously: 'territory' : 'map' : 'vocabulary'

ii Comparison and Contrasting the Meikirch Model and Hodges' model

Meikirch Model

Quite some time has passed since June 1st and part 1. I don't think this post can wait 18 years like that preceding! It is good to see '(Biologically given) potential' emphasized in the Meikirch Model; and the arrows which refer to:

'Whenever the five components and the ten complex interactions (double arrows) cooperate in a purposeful way, health may result. More specifically, a person is healthy, if by the two potentials she or he is in a position to respond satisfactorily to the demands of life.'

The interactions are explained in more detail. Mental health (illness) is there in 'personally acquired potential', but I wonder if it needs to be more explicit? Although, is this a welcome 'break' from the mind-BODY Cartesian divide and its legacy? A shift that enables a more constructive (less stigmatizing) formulation?

Given the climate crisis and experience of COVID, we can hopefully retain a sense of our individual proximity to the environment and green spaces. The importance of access to 'green spaces' seems to be sustained, even if action on air quality (and plastics in the environment) is still playing catch up with WHO air quality recommendations. The interdependence of nations and geography crystallizes more each month. The need for international cooperation apparent in cities, such as Lahore (1). Pollution and smog in Pakistan depends on what happens in India. Water flows, the how, when and whether is noted as a potential trigger for future conflicts.

Both models, the Meikirch, and Hodges' are of course idealizations. As such there are inevitable limitations, assumptions, pros and cons. Like many concepts, environment is a compound or expansive term. Simultaneously, from a primary meaning, we can proceed from the physical environment, to the social, political and the mental environment that these invoke or foster. 

In the SCIENCES domain of Hodges' model we are in 'a' - the environment. Physical reality presents itself in raw and fundamental terms. Across the world climate change is threatening many homes and places a stress the importance of 'shelter' and the homeless. Natural disasters, and acute local weather events which are now repetitive disrupt life and population. Conflicts continue to displace people, climate refugees will follow: (https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics). Contrast this with the ideals of housing design that is sustainable and also enables occupants and communities to feel the environment. 

'Ecosystem' is being applied in ways beyond its original articulation. This past N. summer-autumn reading and reviewing -

Capra and Luisi's (2014) The Systems View of Life - A Unifying Vision.

(i) https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2024/09/i-systems-view-life.html

- there was much emphasis on complexity, ecosystems, emergence, education, and obviously systems.

In their model, Bircher and Hahn incorporate Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS).

https://meikirch-modell.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Health-and-diease-as-CAS.pdf

This is helpful as the ecosystem is transformed, before our eyes. Clearly, there isn't one ecosystem, but several and they are all dynami: even if, outdoor clothing and car manufacturers want us to believe that we can create our own private ecosystem that is trans-portable. Systems are like the whirls in moving water, they come and go. Ironically there are now more opportunities to study them - if we so choose. Now weather events reveal the risks of people trying to sustain these mindsets when a local catastrophe strikes. The website for the Meikirch Model includes the table below. 

Theories Concerning
Health and Disease

Type of thinking	Epistemology	Means for comprehension
Prescientific	Personal experience	Intuition
Scientific: Meikirch-Model	Scientific argumentation	Rational mind

This is constructive as models should encompass what can be presented as 'knowledge' and from there: data, information, facts, myth, wisdom and folk theory. Intuition is listed as a prescientific 'means for comprehension'. Intuition is highly subjective, in contrast to the (supposed) objectivity of the sciences. Intuition is nonetheless significant in mental health care - psychotherapy, and in truth more generally (interpersonal skills); even if it remains 'unscientific' and an enigmatic phenomena. 

On twi/X and here on W2tQ, I've suggested that the bio-medical, and the biopsychosocial models are inadequate as conceptualisations for healthcare and education. We need to fully encompass the subjective and humanistic dimensions of health care and lived experience, giving more attention, if not credence to 'personal experience'. In England and Wales these past months and to follow our parliament has been debating assisted dying for people with terminal illness. Both sides acknowledge the sorry state of palliative care. Policy and ethics - hence the politics of health needs to be explicit in a model of/for healthcare.

Working in mental health you quickly understand how critical it is being able to relate to others, and  develop therapeutic relationships. Get this wrong, and problems may follow. If interpersonal - communication are essential to a health professional's knowledge then awareness and competence in relational skills are also key. In the past two years or so, I've realised the importance of this for Hodges' model and trying to develop a theory to underpin Hodges' model. I believe that this is a strength of Hodges' model. So we need to extend the table above. 

Individual
   |

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

Group

choice - life style reasoning - rationality my literacy - responsibility mental illness - fear of stigma intuition / subjectivity	geography - environment air pollution - smog & plastics traffic regulation - metrics Planetary health 'truth' objectivity
community - relationships culture social systems family social (all) determinants	international cooperation transparency / accountability policies - funding determinants of health reporting - citizen science

As part 1 started, I will finish with the title of the paper that prompted these reflections:

Bircher J. und Hahn E. G., (2017). Will the Meikirch Model, a New Framework for Health, Induce a Paradigm Shift in Healthcare? Cureus 9(3): e1081. DOI 10.7759/cureus.1081 

The Meikrich model is not alone in seeking to facilitate and deliver a paradigm shift in healthcare; and, at individual, collective, planetary levels, across social care and education and the disciplines - old and new.

 

(1) https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/pakistan-lahore-air-pollution-schools-shut-aqi-b2640783.html

i Comparison and contrasting the Meikirch Model and Hodges' model

ERCIM News No. 132 Special theme: "Cognitive AI and Cobots"

Dear ERCIM News reader,

ERCIM News No. 132 has just been published. This issue features a special theme "Cognitive AI and Cobots" showcasing remarkable achievements from research teams in Europe.  

This special theme was coordinated by our guest editors Theodore Patkos (ICS-FORTH) and Zsolt Viharos (SZTAKI).

Thank you for your interest in ERCIM News. Please forward this message to anyone who might be interested. We also appreciate you following and talking about us on Twitter @ercim_news and other social media.

[ Includes:

Cognitive Mimetics and Human Digital Twins – Towards Holistic AI Design
by Antero Karvonen (VTT) and Pertti Saariluoma (Jyväskylä University). p.17.

"Industry is just one example. AI will gradually change the way
people live and work and how society operates. Therefore, it
makes sense to develop AI design as a holistic process in
which social and technical aspects of intelligent technologies
can be simultaneously considered. Such new design practice
can be called holistic AI design. Cognitive mimetics and HDTs
provide key elements in such AI design." p.18.*

Cognitive Machine Argumentation
by Antonis Kakas (University of Cyprus). p.21.

Personalisation of Humanoid Robots: Serious Games for Older Adults Based on Biographical
Memories
by Benedetta Catricalà, Marco Manca, Fabio Paternò, Carmen Santoro and Eleonora Zedda (ISTI-CNR). p.28.

Food Waste Reduction in Healthcare – Challenges in Integrating Usage Data with Scorings
by Johann Steszgal (Steszgal Informationstechnologie GmbH), Peter Kieseberg (St. Pölten UAS) and, Andreas Holzinger (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna). p.37.
Additional note PJ ]

Next issue:
No. 133,  April 2023
Special Theme: "Data infrastructures and management". Submissions are welcome!

---

About ERCIM

ERCIM - the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics - aims to foster collaborative work within the European research community and to increase co-operation with European industry. Leading European research institutes are members of ERCIM. ERCIM is the European host of W3C.

Subscribe to the ERCIM News quarterly alert

Peter Kunz                      	
ERCIM Office
2004, Route des Lucioles
BP93
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex

https://www.ercim.eu
https://ercim-news.ercim.eu 
--------------------------------
@ercim_news
http://twitter.com/ercim_news

join the ERCIM Linkedin Group
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/81390/

*Hodges' model is ideal for initial scoping, planning, and holistic assurance throughout research, study processes and (case) formulation. The model provides ready-to-mind access to conceptual inter- multi- transdisciplinary bridges (even as we struggle to define the latter), e.g. socio-technical. 

Immediately preceding the above quotation, Karvonen and Saariluoma write:

"Arriving at this point via the cognitive mimetic route yields a deep and rich picture of human-technology co-agency in industrial processes." p.17.

A 'rich picture' (Checkland) is a feasible output of Hodges' model (extending Karvonen and Saariluoma's context). Clinically, this might comprise a 'comprehensive' assessment, or case formulation. It is bounded, guided by being situated, while the clinician's experience and patient's is built up across several encounters (appointments/home visits...). Unpopulated, initially (please see the template in the sidebar) the model serves as an aide-mémoire, an inner critical friend, helping to sustain values, and person-centredness. At a one-to-one(-group) level  integrated care, that is, parity of esteem across physical and mental health, a professional attitude and disposition to practise through unconditional positive regard remain key competencies. Each contact can act as its own 'reset', another blank sheet/slate: what can we learn together on this occasion? In some contexts this 'pause' can assist in risk management and safety - ensuring that the rich picture, and the knowledge gained thus far, does not mean things are taken for granted.

Books: Psychiatry and Technology - Phillips, ed. (2008)

Despite the necessity of new (inc. secondhand when possible) titles, the overall push is to reduce the shelf and box count. This means that:

Phillips, James (ed.) (2008). Philosophical Perspectives on Technology and Psychiatry. Oxford University Press.

- will soon have a new home. Before that another look to support the effort here:

"It hardly needs stating that treatment algorithms, the evidence-based approach, and treatment manuals are useful tools in psychiatric practice. What issue is then being addressed in referring to them as examples of technical reason? The issue is that they, and other examples of the technical approach, can at their worst turn psychiatric treatment (or medical treatment for that matter) into a mechanical procedure. The patient becomes an instance of a diagnostic category, and the treater becomes a generic treater. Follow the technicized approach too literally, and one schizophrenic becomes interchangeable with the next, and one psychiatrist with another. In this situation of the fungible patient and the fungible treater, the individuality of both is lost, and the need for individual judgement on the part of the psychiatrist is rendered obsolete." p.9. Introduction.

Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model
Axes and Care (knowledge) Domains

"Qualified users [of technology] have a professional responsibility to be reflective users. They should be 'thinkers'. Reflective use means being able to step back and become more conscious of one's professional activity." p.46. Chapter 2 Examples from Psychiatry.

"A concern for objective truth is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. An unfortunate consequence of the rigid dichotomies associated with a scientistic epistemology is that objective truth is defined in opposition to subjective values. The result is the 'Either/Or' thinking characteristic of the 'science wars' where science is either reduced to a relativistic exercise of political power or characterized as a value-neutral exercise progressing in an inevitable fashion determined solely by the facts." p.120. Chapter 6 Rational Argumentation.

ERCIM News No. 131 Special theme: "Ethical Software Engineering and Ethically Aligned Design"

Dear ERCIM News reader,

ERCIM News No. 131 contains a special theme "Ethical Software Engineering and Ethically Aligned Design" - see https://ercim-news.ercim.eu/

This special theme was coordinated by our guest editors Georgia Kapitsaki (University of Cyprus) and Erwin Schoitsch (AIT Austrian Institute of Technology).

Thank you for your interest in ERCIM News. Please forward this message to anyone who might be interested. We also appreciate you following and talking about us on Twitter @ercim_news and other social media.

Next issue:
No. 132,  January 2023
Special Theme: "Cognitive AI & Cobots". Submissions are welcome! See call for contributions.

Announcements in this issue:

---

Call for Proposals: Dagstuhl Seminars and Perspectives Workshops Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik is accepting proposals for scientific seminars/workshops in all areas of computer science, in particular also in connection with other fields. 

---

ERCIM "Alain Bensoussan" Fellowship Programme - postdoctoral fellowships available at leading European research institutions.
Simple application procedure. Next application deadlines: 30 April and 30 September 2022

---

ERCIM News is published quarterly by ERCIM, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics. With the printed and online edition, ERCIM News reaches more than 10000 readers.
All 131 issues published published to date are available online. The last four issues have focused on  Quantum Computing, Smart and Circular Cities, Privacy Preserving Computation and Assistive Technologies for a More Accessible and Inclusive Society

About ERCIM

ERCIM - the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics - aims to foster collaborative work within the European research community and to increase co-operation with European industry. Leading European research institutes are members of ERCIM. ERCIM is the European host of W3C.

Subscribe to the ERCIM News quarterly alert

Peter Kunz                      	
ERCIM Office
2004, Route des Lucioles
BP93
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex

https://www.ercim.eu
https://ercim-news.ercim.eu 
--------------------------------
@ercim_news
http://twitter.com/ercim_news

join the ERCIM Linkedin Group
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/81390/

Includes:
Plausible Reasoning that Mimics Human Argumentation
by Dave Raggett (W3C/ERCIM)

Why Might We fail to Develop Ethical AI/AS?
by Philippe Valoggia (Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology)

Ethics and Human Aspects in Pandemic Management
by Karin Rainer (AGES), Viktoria Fischer (AGES), Alois Leidwein (AGES), and Georg Neubauer (AIT)

 
My source: Peter Kunz, ERCIM News quarterly alert.

#HelloMyNameIs ... Socrates^

INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

The Last Days of Socrates*
	Cancelling Socrates

Overview

“They say Pericles caught democracy from you in bed.”

Today, Socrates is revered as the founding father of Western philosophy. But in 399BC Athens, he was a pain in the neck. The plague is over, democracy is (just about) restored, and everyone would like to get back to normal. How hard is it for one ageing firebrand to stop asking questions? It’s time to shut him up…

Based on eyewitness accounts, Cancelling Socrates is a provocative, witty and dangerous world premiere from Howard Brenton, one of our foremost dramatists, whose acclaimed plays have been staged at the National Theatre, RSC, Shakespeare’s Globe, and worldwide. He reunites with our Artistic Director, Tom Littler.

My sources: 'Front Row' BBC Radio 4, 9 June 2022.

Images - c/o Penguin and Nick Hern Books (https://www.nickhernbooks.co.uk/cancelling-socrates)

Jermyn Street Theatre - text (as per links).

*(Just) A philosopher.

^You can play here too.

There is a play in #h2cm

#HelloMyNameIs #aPlay too,

PhD position on "Analyzing the Interactions Between Spaces of Argumentation in Different Contexts"

We are seeking applicants for a PhD position on «Analyzing the Interactions Between Spaces of Argumentation in Different Contexts» at LAMSADE (University Paris-Dauphine).

The Covid19 crisis shows us that arguments can circulate between different social worlds, as they have done between scientific and academic worlds, media, and social media, in different directions. However, the way people discuss in these different environments is very different and rely on different standards to recognize proofs.

How can different groups advance in a debate when sharing information, evidence on a complex issue, refer to different notions of arguments and proof standards?

For example, in recent months we could observe some ideal-typic description of the shape of the argumentation:

1. in the mediatic world: repeat, follow, approve/disprove, exaggerate, attack ad hominem;
2. in the scientific world: decide paradigm, decide hypothesis, test, revise, purify, consolidate, invalidate, give examples, give counter-example.

The literature on argumentation theory has elaborated several defeasible argumentation schemes, which are abstract argument forms that do not necessarily fall into the classical deductive or inductive argument structures, and that capture also what traditionally is classified as a fallacy.

For a detailed description see:

https://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/lamsade/documents/propositions_theses_2020/pigozzi.pdf

*Required Profile*

- Master degree in Computer Science (or equivalent) with good GPA
- Knowledge in Computer Science, Mathematics, Economics and Logic
- Minimal programming skills
- Strong interest for multidisciplinary research
- Autonomy and ability to work in a team
- Good writing skills in English

*Application procedure and deadline*

Interested candidates should send the following PDF documents to Juliette Rouchier (juliette.rouchier AT dauphine.fr) and Gabriella Pigozzi (gabriella.pigozzi AT dauphine.fr) before 11 April 2021:

- CV
- Scan of transcripts of marks with their ranking
- A letter of motivation
- One letter or recommendation

A first selection will be performed amongst eligible applications, and selected candidates will be interviewed.

PS: Please forward this email to potential candidates.

My source: 

Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/

Call for papers - Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio - Rhetoric and Health

Call for papers - Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio www.rifl.unical.it

Vol. 15, N. 1/2021 Rhetoric and health

Edited by Maria Grazia Rossi

Deadline: 20.01.2021

Words can act as a pharmakon, becoming a remedy or a poison. Considering both theoretical tenets and empirical findings, we have convincing evidence on the power of language and words in changing minds and fostering behavioural change.

In the context of health, it has been underlined how the quality of communication affect (clinical) outcomes, at the individual level (on patients) and the collective or societal level (on citizens). During the current COVID-19 pandemic, it has become even more clear that such communication effect is indirect and mediated by factors such as understanding, motivation, social assistance, trust in the system, etc. Words that are well-spoken but also, obviously, well understood can have a strong impact on the quality of our lives, concerning the clinical, emotional and social spheres. This is why the proper and effective use of words should be considered as a common ethical responsibility: it is an ethical responsibility for healthcare providers that directly take care of patients, but it is also a responsibility of public and private institutions working to promote behaviours favouring the adoption of a healthier life and the building of healthier societies, respectful of other people and more environmentally friendly. What happened from a communicative point of view to justify the need to activate a state of emergency and maintain lockdown restrictions is exemplary in this respect, also to discuss the conflict between values that is pervasive in our complex and interconnected societies. Even beyond the pandemic, many examples can be mentioned to discuss the importance of both the effectiveness and quality of communication. Take as examples social campaigns and/or advertisements on health issues related to cases such as the public debate on vaccination or antibiotic resistance, the social campaigns to combat pollution or against smoking in public spaces.

However, it is not obvious to find a consensual framework to define what counts as communication of quality, even if rhetoricians investigated heavily on this issue. Not necessarily a successful communication is also desirable from an ethical perspective. Obtaining persuasion – to be able to change attitudes and/or behaviours, it is not necessarily equivalent to do it in an ethically way. For example, implicit persuasion strategies often (but not always) can be described in terms of manipulation tools attempting to manipulate people and to change their habits. Again, this applies at the individual level within the interactions between patients and healthcare providers, with therapeutic recommendations described as genuine persuasive acts. At the collective level, it also applies to public communication, including the communication made on social networks, where fake news and misinformation spread even more quickly.

The links between rhetoric and health can be therefore analysed from two different points of view. From a linguistic point of view, the main problem is to figure out which communicative strategies are effective to persuade patients (and citizens) in changing a given behaviour and/or accepting the treatment more appropriate to a specific medical condition. From an ethical point of view, the main problem is to figure out which effective communicative strategies are legitimate, meaning they respect values defining both the patient (citizen) agenda and the doctor (political/health system) agenda. The discussions concerning the frameworks of value-based medicine and patient-centered medicine fit in this context, as well as fall in this debate the current attention given to the frameworks of narrative medicine and persuasive technology (applied to telemedicine, mobile apps, social networks, etc.).

Vol. 15, N. 1/2021 of RIFL expects to explore the links between rhetoric and health, accepting papers aim at considering the role of communication in the context of health, and papers considering persuasion from an ethical point of view – at the individual level (between patients and providers) and the collective/societal one (between institutions and citizens, between media and citizens).

Papers should be theoretical or empirical. All fields will be considered (Philosophy of Language, Classic studies, Literary studies, Linguistics, Psychology, etc.) if they are relevant to discuss the persuasive and/or the ethical dimension of communication in the context of health. Papers exploring the following areas are very welcome:

• Words and language as pharmakon
• Communicating science, communicating the COVID-19 pandemic
• Doctor-patient communication
• Persuasion, argumentation and manipulation in the context of health
• Ethic of the medical discourse and ethics for health
• Ethical relevance and effectiveness of narrative medicine
• Shared decision-making between patients and providers
• Social campaigns and advertisement for health
• Persuasive technology and health
• Social networks and seeking information on the web
• Value-based medicine
• Patient-based medicine
• Public opinion and health
• Visual persuasion and the role of images in the context of health
• Linguistic strategies developed for healthcare providers
• Emotions and interpersonal relations in the context of health
• Language and placebo effect

We call for articles in Italian, English and Portuguese. All manuscripts must be accompanied by an abstract (max 250 words), a title and 5 keywords in English.

The manuscript must be prepared using the journal template Download template. All submissions must be prepared by the author for anonymous evaluation. The name, affiliation to an institution and title of the contribution should be indicated in a file different from that which contains the text. The contribution must be sent in electronic format .doc or .rtf to segreteria.rifl AT gmail.com.

Instructions for authors:

Maximum contribution length:

40000 characters (including spaces) for articles (including bibliography and endnotes).

Deadline 20.01.2021

Publication: June 2021

CFP Full text: http://rifl.unical.it/index.php/rifl/announcement/view/23

My source:

Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/ Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html. Recent posts can also be read in a Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosL/ Follow the list on Twitter @PhilosL. Follow the Department of Philosophy @LiverpoolPhilos