• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.399-424
• /
• 2014

The main objective of this paper is to examine critically White's claim that there is a conflict between Perceptual Dogmatism and Bayesian Theory of Confirmation. For this purpose, this paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, I will introduce White's argument. Section 3 is dedicated to explaining some elements of Bayesian Theory of Confirmation. In particular, I will provide an explanation of confirmation measures and Bayesian Favoring. Using these two conceptual apparatuses, it will be shown that, contrary to what White has thought, there is a way of supporting Perceptual Dogmatism by means of Bayesian Theory of Confirmation - in particular, Bayesian Theory of Favoring.

• Philosophy of Medicine
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

Medicine and philosophy were very closely related in antiquity. The Pre-Socratics were interested in physiological and pathological aspects of human body. Their interests of human body was a part of interests on nature. Plato and Aristotle were fond of proposing their philosophical arguments using medical analogy. Medicine and philosophy were regarded as two disciplines which play a similar role in human being. Ancient philosophers thought that medicine and philosophy were similar on the ground that while philosophy eliminates passion from human soul, medicine eliminates disease from human body. Here, they regarded the similarity of medicine and philosophy only in terms of analogy. More comprehensive and systematic relationship between medicine and philosophy is realized by Galen. He manifestly declared that "The Best Doctor is also a Philosopher", which is also the title of one of his treatise. In this treatise, Galen regarded philosophy is a discipline consisted of physics, logic, and ethics according to the view s of Stoics. As a result, a good doctor for Galen is one who is well versed in physics, logic, and ethics. Furthermore, He regarded Hippocrates as the ideal model of a doctor-philosopher.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.32 no.5
• /
• pp.805-822
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to explore the patterns of group model development about blood flow in the heart and reasoning process by small group interaction. The subjects were 14, 8th graders in a Science Gifted Center. The group discussion was made possible by using triggering questions that can be answered based on experiences of hands-on activities such as a siphon pump analogy model activity and a dissection of pigs' hearts. Despite participating in same activities, the groups showed different model development patterns: unchanged, persuasive, and elaborated. Due to the critical revising, the group's explanatory model was elaborated and developed in the added and elaborated pattern. As critical revising is a core element of the developing model, it is important to promote a group interaction so that students become critical and receptive. The pedagogical analogy model and conflict situation enabled students to present elaborated reasoning. The Inquiry activity with the pedagogical analogy model promote students' spontaneous reasoning in relation to direct experience. Therefore offering a pedagogical analogy model will help students evaluate, revise and develop their models of concerned phenomena in science classroom. Conflict situation by rebuttal enable students to justify more solid and elaborate a model close to the target model. Therefore, teachers need to facilitate a group atmosphere for spontaneous conflict situation.

• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.31
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2011

This study intends to understand Kobong's thought, especially the problem of Self-cultivation. Kobong, along with Toegye(退溪), is a major figure to understand Confucian ideas of Chosun in the 16th century. There has been a lot of research centered on Kobong's Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情), but not much on the Self-cultivation of Kobong. Confucianism is basically to seek after actualization of Perfect Virtue(仁) and the way to be a sage, through the pursuit of self-discipline(修己 明明德) and social practice(安人 新民). The problems of Confucianism might be summarized as follows: interest and appreciation for the source of existence(知天/事天); harmony in relationships and practices(愛人/愛物); both of the above together. Therefore, Self-cultivation is to change the self, the subject of one's life, through the relationship between man and heaven. Kobong and Toegye had debated for about eight years(1559-1566) over the problem of human nature, especially emotion(情), and virtue and vice(善惡) fundamental position of Toegye is that the difference between Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情) can be understood as emotion with qualitative distinction. By contrast, Kobong sees the relationship between Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情) as that of total and partial. Discussion on the Four-beginnings(四端) and Seven-emotions(七情) is not restricted within the problem of logical analysis of concepts or theoretical validity, but come to a conclusion with the problem of Self-cultivation(修養). In this sense, Kobong tried to follow Neo-Confucian theory of human nature and self-cultivation, on the assumption of Confucian self-discipline and social practice.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.