DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemology in Uncertainty: Distinguishing Science and Faith in the Quantum Age

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

California Western Law Review Volume 53 Number 1 Article 6 12-31-2016 Epistemology in Uncertainty: Distinguishing Science and Faith in the Quantum Age Marvin Lim Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Lim, Marvin (2016) "Epistemology in Uncertainty: Distinguishing Science and Faith in the Quantum Age," California Western Law Review: Vol. 53 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol53/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lim: Epistemology in Uncertainty: Distinguishing Science and Faith in +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 53 Cal. W. L. Rev. 1 2016 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Jul 18 12:37:07 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 2016 1 California Western Law Review, Vol. 53 [2016], No. 1, Art. 6 CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW VOLUME 53 FALL 2016 NUMBER 1 EPISTEMOLOGY IN UNCERTAINTY: DISTINGUISHING SCIENCE AND FAITH IN THE QUANTUM AGE MARVIN LIM* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 2 I. SCIENCE VERSUS FAITH TRADITIONALLY .................... 4 II. QUANTUM AGE: UNCERTAINTY IN SCIENTIFIC EMPIRICISM..11 A. Quantum Mechanics and Probabilityin Spacetime......... 11 B. String Theory ..................... ......... 20 C. Multiverses and Human Consciousness .. ............ 24 III. IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND FAITH .................. ................... 28 A. Laudan, His Critics, and a Middle Ground.. ......... 29 B. CraftingA Legal Approach ............... ..... 33 C. The Implications ofNon-Empirical Theory Confirmation 39 CONCLUSION ........................................... 42 * Yale Law School, J.D.; Boston University, B.A. For meticulous and significant editorial guidance, many thanks to Jake Novack and the staff of the California Western Law Review. For inspiration, a special note of thanks to Ann Danforth. 1 https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol53/iss1/6 2 Lim: Epistemology in Uncertainty: Distinguishing Science and Faith in 2 CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 53 INTRODUCTION To answer Hamlet's famous question - to be or not to be - in the positive, requires for many a leap of faith. That leap represents the notion that there is something or someone worth living for, despite even the worst human suffering that makes the idea that human life possesses an inviolable dignity unbelievable.I For many, that something is God: an omnipotent and omniscient higher power that accords human beings with that inviolable dignity. Many, of course, question taking this particular jump. These skeptics believe not only that God does not exist, but also that the reasons for humans to live can easily be found in the non-divine realm, whether in the scientific, psychological, historical, or philosophical. These reasons, many believe, can be found even in the face of the worst possible human suffering. However, any such justifications must require taking some kind of jump. None of them can escape the cold, hard truth about the current - and, notwithstanding so far unimaginable advances in our epistemology, eternal - limits of human knowledge. For example, the simple fact is that humans cannot directly observe and experience the past or future. As such, the deceptively profound fact is that, even if we have experienced the same thing for many years, we can never say with absolute certainty that the same thing will hold as true for tomorrow. In this sense, even the most empirical and scientific observations require some jump, even if ultimately justified, to draw many of the conclusions we universally take for granted. The complex question undergirding this Article thus arises: what exactly does it mean for human beings to take these epistemological leaps? Of course, this is a vast question, one that has been explored, time and again, by others. Rather than tackling every aspect of this question, this Article has far less ambitious, yet somewhat novel goals: to explore how these leaps are taken in modern science, which has challenged traditional paradigms of scientific empiricism, and to see what. implications this field has for ascertaining the demarcation between science and faith - particularly in the eyes of the law. 1. See generally John Paul II, Evangelium. Vitae (Mar. 25, 1995), http://www.vatican.va/holy-father/john paul-ii/encyclicals/documents/hf jp- ii enc_25031995_evangelium-vitaeen.html. Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 2016 3 California Western Law Review, Vol. 53 [2016], No. 1, Art. 6 2016] EPISTEMOLOGY IN UNCERTAINTY 3 To compare the epistemological methods in science and faith is, of course, not a new endeavor. Indeed, before discussing how modem science should impact debates over demarcation, this Article will explore some of the primary vehicles through which the comparison between science and religion has traditionally been made: among them, debates over whether creationism and intelligent design qualify as bona fide sciences. But, rather than attempting to add anything to these specific debates, this Article instead purports to explore the less well- tread subject of how scientific acceptance of irresolutely non-religious, modem concepts, such as string theory and multiverse theory, impacts the so-called line of demarcation between science and (normally, faith- driven) pseudoscience. These are concepts for which experimental confirmation not only remains presently elusive, but also are forever outside the capability of human observation, regardless of technology. Narrowing its focus to this subject, this Article recognizes novel observations about making principled distinctions between science and faith. Contrary to advocating for religion as something in which human belief is somehow merited, this Article concludes that fundamental differences certainly remain between science and religion as traditionally conceived - differences for which the law must account. At the same time, in light of advances that arguably redefine science, this Article concludes that demarcation between science and faith should proceed in a different way - particularly when the law is called on to engage in such demarcation. In particular, the growing elision between the two recommends against a legal approach that attempts to determine wholesale whether an entire theory qualifies as "scientific." Instead, it recommends an approach that attempts to ascertain a religious purpose, which can involve a more nuanced analysis of an alleged theory's many constituent parts, in order to smoke out religious purpose. Such an approach, this Article concludes, is consistent with the purpose of the Establishment Clause, the central question of which remains whether something is religious, as opposed to scientific. But, perhaps even more importantly, it is also consistent with the desirability of leaving room for legitimate debates about all theories, secular or otherwise - including, hypothetically, theories that demonstrate more good-faith, global commitment to scientific principles than theories like creation science, but which still challenge the traditional paradigms of science. https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol53/iss1/6 4 Lim: Epistemology in Uncertainty: Distinguishing Science and Faith in 4 CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAw REVIEW [Vol. 53 Part I of this Article explores the basic distinction between science and faith through the lens of the debate and litigation surrounding creation science. Part II introduces a variety of modem scientific theories, including quantum mechanics and string theory, and discusses how these fields have more recently questioned our traditional perception of what counts as science. It speaks in depth about these debates within the scientific community itself, apart from any consideration of theories motivated by religion. Finally, Part III discusses how these ideas challenge how courts go about determining what is science and what is pseudoscience that, typically with a faith component, violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Article concludes with a note about how society should proceed in such oft-divisive, but fundamentally important, inquiries. I. SCIENCE VERSUS FAITH TRADITIONALLY To understand how a comparison and contrast of quantum mechanics and related' fields can illuminate how human beings take leaps of faith, it is helpful first to assume a bird's eye view of what distinguishes science and mathematics from other fields, including religion. As this Part of the. Article will discuss, what ultimately distinguishes these is how precisely they treat empiricism. Perhaps nothing is more useful for exploring the differences between science and faith than considering whether something traditionally associated with faith - creationism, or so-called creation science - should actually be considered scientific. This question has generated a great deal of controversy. But perhaps most illuminating here is the controversy within the group that
Recommended publications
  • What Is the Balance Between Certainty and Uncertainty?

    What Is the Balance Between Certainty and Uncertainty?

    What is the balance between certainty and uncertainty? Susan Griffin, Centre for Health Economics, University of York Overview • Decision analysis – Objective function – The decision to invest/disinvest in health care programmes – The decision to require further evidence • Characterising uncertainty – Epistemic uncertainty, quality of evidence, modelling uncertainty • Possibility for research Theory Objective function • Methods can be applied to any decision problem – Objective – Quantitative index measure of outcome • Maximise health subject to budget constraint – Value improvement in quality of life in terms of equivalent improvement in length of life → QALYs • Maximise health and equity s.t budget constraint – Value improvement in equity in terms of equivalent improvement in health The decision to invest • Maximise health subject to budget constraint – Constrained optimisation problem – Given costs and health outcomes of all available programmes, identify optimal set • Marginal approach – Introducing new programme displaces existing activities – Compare health gained to health forgone resources Slope gives rate at C A which resources converted to health gains with currently funded programmes health HGA HDA resources Slope gives rate at which resources converted to health gains with currently funded programmes CB health HDB HGB Requiring more evidence • Costs and health outcomes estimated with uncertainty • Cost of uncertainty: programme funded on basis of estimated costs and outcomes might turn out not to be that which maximises health
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

    Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
  • Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?

    Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?

    NOU^S 38:2 (2004) 197–232 Would ‘‘Direct Realism’’ Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction? MARC LANGE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I Recently, there has been a modest resurgence of interest in the ‘‘Humean’’ problem of induction. For several decades following the recognized failure of Strawsonian ‘‘ordinary-language’’ dissolutions and of Wesley Salmon’s elaboration of Reichenbach’s pragmatic vindication of induction, work on the problem of induction languished. Attention turned instead toward con- firmation theory, as philosophers sensibly tried to understand precisely what it is that a justification of induction should aim to justify. Now, however, in light of Bayesian confirmation theory and other developments in epistemology, several philosophers have begun to reconsider the classical problem of induction. In section 2, I shall review a few of these developments. Though some of them will turn out to be unilluminating, others will profitably suggest that we not meet inductive scepticism by trying to justify some alleged general principle of ampliative reasoning. Accordingly, in section 3, I shall examine how the problem of induction arises in the context of one particular ‘‘inductive leap’’: the confirmation, most famously by Henrietta Leavitt and Harlow Shapley about a century ago, that a period-luminosity relation governs all Cepheid variable stars. This is a good example for the inductive sceptic’s purposes, since it is difficult to see how the sparse background knowledge available at the time could have entitled stellar astronomers to regard their observations as justifying this grand inductive generalization. I shall argue that the observation reports that confirmed the Cepheid period- luminosity law were themselves ‘‘thick’’ with expectations regarding as yet unknown laws of nature.
  • Climate Scepticism, Epistemic Dissonance, and the Ethics of Uncertainty

    Climate Scepticism, Epistemic Dissonance, and the Ethics of Uncertainty

    SYMPOSIUM A CHANGING MORAL CLIMATE CLIMATE SCEPTICISM, EPISTEMIC DISSONANCE, AND THE ETHICS OF UNCERTAINTY BY AXEL GELFERT © 2013 – Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol. 3, No. 1 (2013): 167-208 Luiss University Press E-ISSN 2240-7987 | P-ISSN 1591-0660 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] A CHANGING MORAL CLIMATE Climate Scepticism, Epistemic Dissonance, and the Ethics of Uncertainty Axel Gelfert Abstract. When it comes to the public debate about the challenge of global climate change, moral questions are inextricably intertwined with epistemological ones. This manifests itself in at least two distinct ways. First, for a fixed set of epistemic standards, it may be irresponsible to delay policy- making until everyone agrees that such standards have been met. This has been extensively discussed in the literature on the precautionary principle. Second, key actors in the public debate may—for strategic reasons, or out of simple carelessness—engage in the selective variation of epistemic standards in response to evidence that would threaten to undermine their core beliefs, effectively leading to epistemic double standards that make rational agreement impossible. The latter scenario is aptly described as an instance of what Stephen Gardiner calls “epistemic corruption.” In the present paper, I aim to give an explanation of the cognitive basis of epistemic corruption and discuss its place within the moral landscape of the debate. In particular, I argue that epistemic corruption often reflects an agent’s attempt to reduce dissonance between incoming scientific evidence and the agent’s ideological core commitments. By selectively discounting the former, agents may attempt to preserve the coherence of the latter, yet in doing so they threaten to damage the integrity of evidence-based deliberation.
  • ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2012-0090 Demarcation

    ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2012-0090 Demarcation

    ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 Athens Institute for Education and Research ATINER ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2012-0090 Demarcation, Definition, Art Thomas Adajian Assistant Professor of Philosophy James Madison University USA 1 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 Athens Institute for Education and Research 8 Valaoritou Street, Kolonaki, 10671 Athens, Greece Tel: + 30 210 3634210 Fax: + 30 210 3634209 Email: [email protected] URL: www.atiner.gr URL Conference Papers Series: www.atiner.gr/papers.htm Printed in Athens, Greece by the Athens Institute for Education and Research. All rights reserved. Reproduction is allowed for non-commercial purposes if the source is fully acknowledged. ISSN 2241-2891 4/09/2012 2 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 An Introduction to ATINER's Conference Paper Series ATINER started to publish this conference papers series in 2012. It includes only the papers submitted for publication after they were presented at one of the conferences organized by our Institute every year. The papers published in the series have not been refereed and are published as they were submitted by the author. The series serves two purposes. First, we want to disseminate the information as fast as possible. Second, by doing so, the authors can receive comments useful to revise their papers before they are considered for publication in one of ATINER's books, following our standard procedures of a blind review. Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos President Athens Institute for Education and Research 3 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: PHI2012-0090 This paper should be cited as follows: Adajian, T.
  • Investment Behaviors Under Epistemic Versus Aleatory Uncertainty

    Investment Behaviors Under Epistemic Versus Aleatory Uncertainty

    Investment Behaviors Under Epistemic versus Aleatory Uncertainty 2 Daniel J. Walters, Assistant Professor of Marketing, INSEAD Europe, Marketing Department, Boulevard de Constance, 77300 Fontainebleau, 01 60 72 40 00, [email protected] Gülden Ülkümen, Gülden Ülkümen, Associate Professor of Marketing at University of Southern California, 701 Exposition Boulevard, Hoffman Hall 516, Los Angeles, CA 90089- 0804, [email protected] Carsten Erner, UCLA Anderson School of Management, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1481, [email protected] David Tannenbaum, Assistant Professor of Management, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, (801) 581-8695, [email protected] Craig R. Fox, Harold Williams Professor of Management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, Professor of Psychology and Medicine at UCLA, 110 Westwood Plaza #D511 Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1481, (310) 206-3403, [email protected] 3 Abstract In nine studies, we find that investors intuitively distinguish two independent dimensions of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty that they attribute to missing knowledge, skill, or information, versus aleatory uncertainty that they attribute to chance or stochastic processes. Investors who view stock market uncertainty as higher in epistemicness (knowability) are more sensitive to their available information when choosing whether or not to invest, and are more likely to reduce uncertainty by seeking guidance from experts. In contrast, investors who view stock market uncertainty as higher
  • The Demarcation Problem

    The Demarcation Problem

    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
  • The Flaw of Averages)

    The Flaw of Averages)

    THE NEED FOR GREATER REFLECTION OF HETEROGENEITY IN CEA or (The fLaw of averages) Warren Stevens PhD CONFIDENTIAL © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. Shimmering Substance Jackson Pollock, 1946. © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. / 2 CONFIDENTIAL 1 Statistical summary of Shimmering Substance Jackson Pollock, 1946. Average color: Brown [Beige-Black] Average position of brushstroke © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. / 3 CONFIDENTIAL WE KNOW DATA ON EFFECTIVENESS IS FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN WE LIKE TO REPRESENT IT n Many patients are better off with the comparator QALYS gained © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. / 4 CONFIDENTIAL 2 A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT CE threshold Mean CE Mean CE treatment treatment #1 #2 n Value of Value of Cost per QALY treatment treatment #2 to Joe #1 to Bob © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. / 5 CONFIDENTIAL A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT • Joe is receiving a treatment that is cost-effective for him, but deemed un cost-effective by/for society • Bob is receiving an treatment that is not cost-effective for him, but has been deemed cost-effective by/for society • So who’s treatment is cost-effective? © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. / 6 CONFIDENTIAL 3 HYPOTHETICALLY THERE ARE AS MANY LEVELS OF EFFECTIVENESS (OR COST-EFFECTIVENESS) AS THERE ARE PATIENTS What questions or uncertainties stop us recognizing this basic truth in scientific practice? 1. Uncertainty (empiricism) – how do we gauge uncertainty in a sample size of 1? avoiding false positives 2. Policy – how do we institute a separate treatment policy for each and every individual? 3. Information (data) – how we do make ‘informed’ decisions without the level of detail required in terms of information (we know more about populations than we do about people) © 2018 PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP.
  • The Naturalization of Natural Philosophy

    The Naturalization of Natural Philosophy

    philosophies Article The Naturalization of Natural Philosophy Joseph E. Brenner International Center for the Philosophy of Information, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’An 710049, China; [email protected] Received: 29 August 2018; Accepted: 4 October 2018; Published: 24 November 2018 Abstract: A new demarcation is proposed between Natural Philosophy and non-Natural Philosophy—philosophy tout court—based on whether or not they follow a non-standard logic of real processes. This non-propositional logic, Logic in Reality (LIR), is based on the original work of the Franco-Romanian thinker Stéphane Lupasco (Bucharest, 1900–Paris, 1988). Many Natural Philosophies remain bounded by dependence on binary linguistic concepts of logic. I claim that LIR can naturalize—bring into science—part of such philosophies. Against the potential objection that my approach blurs the distinction between science and philosophy, I reply that there is no problem in differentiating experimental physical science and philosophy; any complete distinction between philosophy, including the philosophy of science(s) and the other sciences is invidious. It was historically unnecessary and is unnecessary today. The convergence of science and philosophy, proposed by Wu Kun based on implications of the philosophy of information, supports this position. LIR provides a rigorous basis for giving equivalent ontological value to diversity and identity, what is contradictory, inconsistent, absent, missing or past, unconscious, incomplete, and fuzzy as to their positive counterparts. The naturalized Natural Philosophy resulting from the application of these principles is a candidate for the ‘new synthesis’ called for by the editors. Keywords: common good; contradiction; ethics; information; logic; naturalization; realism; science; synthesis 1.
  • The Problem of Induction

    The Problem of Induction

    The Problem of Induction Gilbert Harman Department of Philosophy, Princeton University Sanjeev R. Kulkarni Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University July 19, 2005 The Problem The problem of induction is sometimes motivated via a comparison between rules of induction and rules of deduction. Valid deductive rules are necessarily truth preserving, while inductive rules are not. So, for example, one valid deductive rule might be this: (D) From premises of the form “All F are G” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion of the form “a is G” follows. The rule (D) is illustrated in the following depressing argument: (DA) All people are mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. The rule here is “valid” in the sense that there is no possible way in which premises satisfying the rule can be true without the corresponding conclusion also being true. A possible inductive rule might be this: (I) From premises of the form “Many many F s are known to be G,” “There are no known cases of F s that are not G,” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion can be inferred of the form “a is G.” The rule (I) might be illustrated in the following “inductive argument.” (IA) Many many people are known to have been moral. There are no known cases of people who are not mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. 1 The rule (I) is not valid in the way that the deductive rule (D) is valid. The “premises” of the inductive inference (IA) could be true even though its “con- clusion” is not true.
  • Certainty and Uncertainty in Tax Law: Do Opposites Attract?

    Certainty and Uncertainty in Tax Law: Do Opposites Attract?

    laws Article Certainty and Uncertainty in Tax Law: Do Opposites Attract? Alexander V. Demin Law Institute, Siberian Federal University, 660075 Krasnoyarsk, Russia; [email protected] Received: 14 October 2020; Accepted: 26 November 2020; Published: 4 December 2020 Abstract: The principle of certainty of taxation is the dimension of a general requirement of certainty in the legal system. The purpose of this article is to argue the thesis that uncertainty in tax law is not always an absolute evil, sometimes it acts as a means of the most optimal (and in some cases the only possible) settlement of relations in the field of taxes. On the contrary, uncertainty and fragmentation in tax law are colossal problems subject to overcome by the efforts of scientists, legislators, judges, and practicing lawyers. Uncertainty in tax law is manifested in two ways: on the one hand, negatively—as a defect (omission) of the legislator and, on the other hand, positively—as a set of specific legal means and technologies that are purposefully used in lawmaking and law enforcement. In this context, relatively determined legal tools are an effective channel for transition from uncertainty to certainty in the field of taxation. A tendency towards increased use of relatively determined legal tools in lawmaking processes (for example, principles, evaluative concepts, judicial doctrines, standards of good faith and reasonableness, discretion, open-ended lists, recommendations, framework laws, silence of the law, presumptive taxation, analogy, etc.), and involving various actors (courts, law enforcement agencies and officials, international organizations, citizens, organizations and their associations) allow making tax laws more dynamic flexible, and adequate to changing realities of everyday life.
  • An Introduction to Philosophy

    An Introduction to Philosophy

    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.