Thursday, December 26, 2019

Trans Pacific Partnership A Free Trade Agreement

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, also known as the TPP is a free trade agreement that is among 12 countries including Canada. This trade agreement is for the 21st century. The deal is between Australia, United States, Brunei, Peru, Singapore, New Zealand, Japan, Mexico, Chile, Malaysia, and Vietnam. According to this, the agreement covers 40% of the world’s economy. The TPP’s effective goals are to improve trade, investment, economic growth, job creation, development, and innovations through the partnership with the countries. However, in Canada, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is known to be the largest trade but also larger than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) yet, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the most impressive free†¦show more content†¦The Trans-Pacific Partnership provides many benefits for people, one being it opens paths for employment opportunities. However, many trade economists consider trade agreements do not change the number of job s although they change for the types of jobs. The TPP would determine to create over 650,000 new jobs with increased income. Hence, as the income increases, there will be a reduction in prices on purchased goods. Despite that, the more productive the trade is it would lead to more effective jobs with raised incomes yet, not increasing the number of less effective jobs. In addition, the TPP is expected to lower trade and investment boundaries that will permit competitive corporations to move into new markets, hire workers at better but lower wages, reduce prices, and improve the range of quality of goods and services that is accessible to households and other companies. This free trade agreement compromises with the most preferred significance in every state that are involved in the TPP by considerately creating more jobs offshore with lower wages. Thus, this will be better at reflecting values along with protecting workers. The TPP will spread the incentives to offshore more employm ent opportunities in foreign countries. Hence, this agreement would make it no trouble for businesses to offshore jobs and push down earnings through forcing to compete

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Affordable Care Act ( Aca ) Shift American Health Care

Affordable Care Act (ACA) shift American health care system.The Institue of Medicine (IOM) report recommends the future of nursing are one of the important workforces leading the change. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) sponsored the Initiative on the Future of Nursing (IFN) research in America (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of... n.d.). In this essay, the student will discuss the IOM report on the IFN leading healthcare system reform. And Acknowledge the significance of nursing workforce development related to the nursing shortage, nursing education, leadership and nursing practice. Also, interduce the goals of State of Arizona action coalitions on future of nursing campaigns and how to overcome the†¦show more content†¦Nurses also can Redesign nursing education (Nursing s role in health care reform - American Nurse Today. n.d.). According to the IOM Report, nursing is the heart of the American health care system.And the nurses should continue their education to match the needs of the future people s health needs (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of...n.d.). Nurses play and important role in the health care system. Nurses have excellent inherent to manage change to improve the health care system (The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. n.d.). They can be as innovators to lead changes. Nurses understand how to approach care and enhance quality at the lower cost (Nursing s role in health care reform - American Nurse Today. n.d.). They can engage in research to Generate evidence-based practice and help shape the quality and safety through collecting and tracking data to enhance care. Nursing research benefits create the logical framework for clinical usage, prevention, and improved patient outcomes. Nurses can Redesign nursing education (Nursing s role in health care reform - American Nurse Today. n.d.). All nurses should to maintain necessary competencies to match the requirements of the population aging and various culture and community health care needs, (Nursing s role in health care reform - American Nurse Today. n.d. ). The IOM report, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, is the blueprint

Monday, December 9, 2019

Acute and Mental Health Crisis Care

Question: Describe about the Acute and Mental Health Crisis Care. Answer: Introduction: The acute and mental health crisis care is an agreement between the agencies and services who are involved in providing support and care to the people who are suffering from the mental crisis. With the help of this process, the mentally ill people get benefit in the time of their urgency (mind.org.uk/media. 2016). In the words of Bernstein (2014), the effectiveness and quality of this procedure and responses create a great impact on the way of recovery and the willingness to live the life again of those people who faced this type of crisis. In this context, it is founded that in Wales and England, a huge number of people experiences the mental health crisis and they are forced to go to the psychiatric hospital during the time of vulnerability (Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat 2016). As per the theoretical concept of consequentiality ethics, the action of restraint may be ethical or unethical during the time of treating a mental patient. It depends on the circumstances of the situation. Discussion: TAQ 1: The essay question is based on the critical evaluation of restraint treatment policy which is ethical or not during the times of treating the mental health patients. With the help of theoretical concepts of ethical theories the above argument can be done along with survey result of NHS which is an alarming issue in Wales and England. The survey report of the charity mind of mental health depicted the result that in every four people one people has faced a mental problem without consulting a proper psychiatric in Britain. A major portion of people approximately in every 1000 people, 300 people suffer from mental health diseases every year not only in Britain but also in England and Wales. Among them near about 230 numbers of people visit in GP and 102 numbers treated as a mental health issues; whereas, 24 numbers of people transferred to a specialist psychiatric center and six become admitted in a psychiatric hospitals (mind.org.uk/media. 2016). This type of action is ethical or not solely depends on the consequences and circumstances as in many situations it is beneficial for the patients. The word count for the essay is 1500 words. It can be explained with an example that sometimes a patient can be restrained with vulnerability and anger without any negative consequences. On the contrary, Noddings (2013) discussed that the motivation may be ethical by making the consequences unethical. Thus, the consequences cannot be considered as a root cause of ethics. The motivation needs to be discussed in this perspective as it is intangible. TAQ 2: Figure: Mind Map of the essay (Source: As created by author) The plan of the essay includes two types of ethical theories such as Situation Ethics and Utilitarianism has been used in this research analysis. With the help of these two theories and survey result of National data and NHS, the assessment of this system can be done along with the suitable suggestions of restraint treatment policy is ethical or not. 3: In this essay, two conceptual frameworks of ethical theories namely Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics have been used for the aspect of discussion. According to Niebuhr (2013), the theoretical concept of Situation Ethics depicts the principle of acting in love. As per this theory, love is the appropriate and best thing for any human being as it shortens the distance between the neighbors, friends, and enemies. In this perspective, in the words of Shafer-Landau (2012), Situation Ethics suggest to do the work practically by concerning to agape as there is no limitation. In addition, during the time of value judgment, love is the priority and morality and ethics is considered here instead of laws of the society. As a result, it is more applicable in this scenario as with the help of this policy; different situations can be taken into account along with flexibility (Andrews 2014). On the contrary, as commented by Peters (2015), love is not considered as a universal understanding in every situation, and it is impossible to understand that the outcome of any action should be love which is appropriate for this situation. Thus, in this consequence, another consequentialist theory of Act Utilitarianism is critically assessed as it concentrated on the acts of the people of greatest number (Bernstein 2014). This ethical theory judges the consequences of appropriate or wrong decisions which solely depend on the utility. In general, it inferred the amount of happiness or pleasure they cause as it is a quantitative theory. By comparing to the Situation Ethics, it is more flexible and efficient to take the required action depending on the circumstances, and it emphasizes on the greatest number of happiness which is acquired by the largest number of people (Leff et al. 2015). On the other hand, the taken action is judged over evaluating the situation whether it is ethical or not. Sometimes the action may be ethical in one scenario; whereas, it may be considered as unethical in another situation. However, in the words of Thoits (2013), it is impractical to evaluate the morality in every consequence and it only focuses on the majority numbers which is not appropriate for all actions. Due to the problems of above-stated ethical theory, the theoretical concept of Rule Utilitarianism is applied here to judge the restraint procedure of treatment for mentally ill patients is ethical or not as this theory focuses on the quality of happiness instead of quantity. According to Noddings (2013), as per this ethical theory, happiness or pleasure over pain is measured according to the quality of happiness which ensures the more utility whether the action is good or bad for the society by following the pre-determined rules. However, this theory is irrelevant as it only concentrates on the majority portion of happiness instead of minority along with the concept of s ociety accomplish the well-being of people first (Niebuhr 2013). Moreover, if the people strictly follow this rule, then it would obey it; whereas, according to the weak rule, the people have the liberty to break the pre-determined rules for acquiring happiness over sorrow (LaFollette and Persson 2013). In this scenario, the Act of Mental Health in the year 2007 explored the issues and root cause of approximate thirteen numbers of deaths which are related to the restraint in the cities of Wales and England. With the help of this act, the procedure of treatment in case of acute and crisis disease is ethical or unethical can be analyzed along with the concept of above-stated ethical theories (Shafer-Landau 2012). The survey report of the Act of Mental Health of 2007 inferred the result that a huge number of inpatients are admitted in the hospitals whereas, the available number of beds has decreased. Moreover, as per this act, near about 39% of inpatients are absorbed in the mental care hospitals and the percentage is higher in mainly urban areas whi ch are approximately 80 to 90% (Digital.nhs.uk. 2016). This result would suggest that the psychiatric hospitals of NHS are continuously increasing to serve a better treatment and care for mentally ill patients and the patients of acute and crisis diseases. Furthermore, most of the inpatients are transferred to the custodial, and almost every acute ward is closed (Digital.nhs.uk. 2016). In this perspective, to critically evaluate the treatment process of restraint in case of acute and crisis care, the mental health of charity Mind organized an inquiry about the acute care and the mental health of crisis healthcare of 2010 which is well known as an Experience of Learning (Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat. 2016). The survey report of the inquiry showcases the information that most of the hospitals are inefficient and lack of proper treatment and care in Wales and England in which the data is collected from the family and friends of the patients and associated staffs and advocates. In this context, the result would highlight more information regarding this issue that sometimes the life in the ward is terrible and become violent to exist and the associated nurses do not bother about the patients. In addition, due to the lack of wards and relevant nurses, the staffs and members has faced a stress and over-worked (mind.org.uk/media. 2016). Furthermore, the atmosphere of these types of hospitals provides a relaxing and homely environment which is supportive and effective during the time of treatment the mentally ill patients. In this scenario, in the words of LaFollette and Persson (2013), the Nursing department of Royal College (2008) stated the different types treatment related to restraint which is sometimes ethical or unethical depending on the consequences. According to Andrews (2014), the physical restraint treatment procedure is generally used in the psychiatric hospitals to control the abusive, violent and aggressive patients by blocking, holding or moving the patients by the staffs. Thus, it may be considered that the ethics and morality of physical treatment related to the mentally ill patients are not maintained properly and become violated. Since the statement is partially true as this process is used concerning the importance of the situation and the aggressiveness of the patients (Peters 2015). However, as stated by Bernstein (2014), in the chemical restraint process treatment can be done by using medicine; whereas, in the mechanical restraint procedure, the aggressive patients can be controlled by using equipment such as belts or ties to tie up the patient in the chair or bed. In addition, the staffs of the hospitals lock the doors and keypads to stop the patients leave from the rooms which do not bother about their freedom (Niebuhr 2013). On the contrary, the psychological and technological surveillance is not so strict types of restraint as in this process the patients would guide by the doctor about what and when to do in a great care (Leff et al. 2015). The patients are observed through the CCTV by which the required action should be taken against any violent patient, but their personal things are detached from them. By concerning the above research analysis, it can be inferred that Utilitarianism theory specifically Rule Utilitarianism theory is more applicable to prove the statement that restraint policy of treatment to the mentally ill patients is partially ethical as it considers the current situations of the patients (Thoits 2013). Furthermore, the physical restraint process may be considered as an unethical as the patients are controlled physically during the times of their anger and agitation. On the contrary, the other process of restraint treatment can be applied on the inpatients in an ethical manner (Andrews 2014). Conclusion: From the above discussions, it can be concluded that the restraint policy of treatment to the mentally ill patients is considered as partially ethical and unethical which depends on the current circumstances. In this perspective, the ethical theory of Utilitarianism is more appropriate than Situation Ethics to critically analyze the ethical and morality of the treatment restraint policy. As per the Utilitarianism theory, the main emphasize is given to the highest utility of happiness of the people over pain with or without Obeying and breaking the pre-determined rules. This ethical theory is more flexible and relevant compare to the Situation Ethics. Moreover, the survey report of the mental health of charity Mind showcases the information that most of the hospitals are running out of order along with the lack of proper facility of staffs, separate rooms, care and food which indicates the inefficient structure and ineffective treatment environment to the mental patients suffered from acute and crisis. On the other hand, while the chemical, psychological and technological surveillance of restraint treatment can be done in an ethical manner; the physical and mechanical treatment procedures are considered as an unethical restraint treatment procedure. Thus, the overall restraint policy of treatment to the mental ill patients are accomplished as an partially ethical and unethical measures as sometimes the policy is very tough for the acute and crisis care inpatients whereas, the another part of policy is suitable towards them. Reference list: Andrews, K., 2014. Personhood, Ethics, and Animal Cognition: Situating Animals in Hares Two-Level Utilitarianism, by Gary E. VarnerThe Philosophy of Animal Minds, edited by Robert W. Lurz.Mind, p.fzu128. Bernstein, J.M., 2014.Recovering ethical life: Jurgen Habermas and the future of critical theory. Routledge. Digital.nhs.uk. (2016).Mental Health Services Data Set - NHS Digital. [online] Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/mhsds [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016]. LaFollette, H. and Persson, I. eds., 2013.The Blackwell guide to ethical theory. John Wiley Sons. Leff, H.S., Chow, C.M., Pepin, R., Conley, J., Ph, B., Allen, I.E. and Seaman, C.A., 2015. Does one size fit all? What we can and can't learn from a meta-analysis of housing models for persons with mental illness.Psychiatric Services. Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat. (2016).About - Mental Health Crisis Care Concordat. [online] Available at: https://www.crisiscareconcordat.org.uk/about/ [Accessed 2 Sep. 2016]. mind.org.uk/media. (2016).listening_to_experience_web.pdf. [online] Available at: https://www.mind.org.uk/media/211306/listening_to_experience_web.pdf [Accessed 2 Sep. 2016]. Niebuhr, R., 2013.Moral man and immoral society: A study in ethics and politics. Westminster John Knox Press. Noddings, N., 2013.Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. Univ of California Press. Peters, R.S., 2015.Psychology and Ethical Development (Routledge Revivals): A Collection of Articles on Psychological Theories, Ethical Development and Human Understanding. Routledge. Shafer-Landau, R. ed., 2012.Ethical theory: an anthology(Vol. 13). John Wiley Sons. Thoits, P.A., 2013. Self, identity, stress, and mental health. InHandbook of the sociology of mental health(pp. 357-377). Springer Netherlands.

Monday, December 2, 2019

Theory Observation Distinction free essay sample

Quine advocates semantic ascent, the shift in which the language we use to refer to the world becomes something we talk about in its own right. Semantic ascent is a shift from questions about objects to questions about words or statements. He says we should ‘drop the talk of observation and talk instead of observation sentences, the sentences that are said to report observations’ (The roots of Reference). So obviously Quine thinks the two questions are equivalent. They have often been treated as equivalent questions, or at least not distinguished too carefully. I agree with Van Fraassen that we should at least note and respect the differences between the two ways of talking about what might be the same issue, and not make the category mistake of talking about theoretical entities, just for clarities sake. At any event Paul M Churchland disagrees with Quine that the two debates are parallel , He says â€Å"we agree (Churchland and Van Fraassen) that the observable/unobservable distinction is entirely distinct from the nontheoretical/theoretical distinction†. We will write a custom essay sample on Theory Observation Distinction or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This disagreement / confusion as to the very terrain, layout of the questions of the debate, arises because there is the ordinary language question of how do we naturally apply the terms ‘observed’ and ‘observation’, as well as the question of whether a principled O/T distinction can or should be drawn; as Gerry Fodor’s Granny says: â€Å"True there is an epistemologically important distinction, that it’s reasonable to call ‘the’ observation inference distinction, and that is theory relative. And, also true, it is this theory-relative distinction that scientists usually use the terms ’observed’ and ‘inferred’ to mark. But that is quite compatible with there being another distinction, which it is also reasonable to call ‘the’ observation /inference distinction which is also of central significance to the philosophy of science, and which is not theory relative. † It is this second principled O/T distinction that I will focus on as opposed to the ordinary language distinction, I do not think ordinary language arguments bear on the question of whether there is or should be a principled distinction. Although examining what inclines us one way or another in ordinary language usage may clarify factors that also influence us in an overall distinction, such as naturalness, entrenchment, flexibility and plasticity. After semantic ascent the question of whether there is an O/T dichotomy becomes one of whether all observation reports presuppose some theory. This slightly ignores the question of the ontological status of the entities, whether observed or unobserved, but this will come up when I tackle the subsidiary part of each question the â€Å"why make a distinction, for what purpose? †or â€Å"why does it matter if a distinction presents itself? I think the strategy of semantic ascent is useful and justified since the debate takes place in at least two domains, the perceptual/cognitive (internal) and the observational/inferential (public)â€Å"The strategy of semantic ascent is that it carries the discussion into a domain where both parties are better agreed on the objects (viz. , words) and on the main terms connecting them. Words, or their inscriptions, unlike points, miles, classes and the rest, are tangible objects of the size so popular in the marketplace, where men of unlike conceptual schemes communicate at their best. The strategy is one of ascending to a common part of two fundamentally disparate conceptual schemes, the better to discuss the disparate foundations. No wonder it helps in philosophy. † Quine word and object. But it is a bit confusing and difficult to translate debates or points between the two, and certain debates are clearer at the ground level rather than the meta-level. There are three classes of arguments that bear on the T/O distinction: 1. Meaning holism arguments. Which tend to work against the distinction 2. Ordinary language arguments. Which tend to work for the distinction 3. Psychological arguments. Which can work for or against As well as a specific argument by Grover Maxwell from the continuity of observation with inference which works against the T/O distinction. There are two extant modes for making the theory observation distinction – Fodor’s and Van Fraassen’s. Fodor defends the distinction against the implication from cognitive science that perception is continuous with cognition. Van Fraassen defends the distinction against Maxwell’s challenge that it is impossible to draw the line between what is observable and what is only detectable in some more roundabout way. Fodor and Van Fraassen have different reasons for drawing a distinction, Fodor, to defend realism, Van Fraassen to attack realism, strangely enough. Fodor to defend realism against Kuhnian relativism, and Van Fraassen to defend constructive empiricism, a form of anti-realism, against incoherence, and so pit it against realism. As Andre Kukla notes â€Å"It is not surprising that a realist and an anti-realist should agree on something; but it is curious that van Fraassens and Fodor’s defenses of the theory-observation distinction play diametrically opposite roles in their philosophical agenda’s. † Andre Kukla the theory observation distinction. But should we be driven by a philosophical agenda in debating a question? Or should we resolve the question and then decide on a position which accords with our answer? Shouldn’t we be neutral when we make philosophical decisions? Unfortunately in philosophy there is so little ‘evidence’ making up your mind is more a matter of achieving coherence, it is legitimate to allow justification to flow in all directions. The question of whether there is a T/O distinction is relevant to the debate between realists anti-realists and relativists in the following manner. So far as realists debate with anti-realists is concerned, the T/O distinction is optional for realists. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by making it unravel. They have everything to gain, because the constructive empiricist position is incoherent without a T/O distinction. But so far as realists debate with relativists goes, realists have conversely everything to gain and nothing to lose by defending a distinction, they would defeat relativists. Kuhnain Relativism requires the lack of a theory neutral language with which to adjudicate our differences, so we get incommensurability, incommensurability leads to the irrationality of theory choice thus we get relativism. But realists cannot have an easy victory against both parties. I suggest that the realist denies the T/O distinction and so wins against the constructive empiricist. The lack of a T/O distinction does not entail relativism; a theory laden observation can still test a theory. To return to the question of whether we should be driven by a philosophical agenda in deciding a point, it must be remembered that we are concerning ourself with the question of whether there is a significant or principled O/T distinction. Its significance comes from its position within a larger debate. Frankly, everyone can admit there is some sort of distinction or difference between direct and indirect observation, the question really is how significant the difference is, whether a distinction can be drawn at a position significant enough to support any theory, the significance depends on the work it is made to do by larger theories. Paul M. churchland defines his scientific realism as a realism entirely in terms of his attitude towards the T/O distinction. He believes any attempt to draw the distinction, particularly Van Fraassen’s, is arbitrary. By any skepticism â€Å"our observational ontology is rendered exactly as dubious as our non-observational ontology† He is not an orthodox scientific realist; he is skeptical about the overall truth of our beliefs, the reference of scientific terms, and the convergence of theory towards truth. But he is skeptical about the success of all our theories, cognition at large, from a low to a high level not just scientific theories, and thus does not distinguish between the integrity of observables and the integrity of unobservables. He states that â€Å"global excellence of theory is the ultimate measure of truth and ontology at all levels of cognition†. Although churchland has exactly the same attitude to observables and unobservables, a cautious skeptical attitude, relative to his peers he has a slightly pro attitude to unobsevables, and a negative attitude to observables. This pro – attitude to the unobservables of science makes him a realist and his slightly negative attitude to the observables of everyday life make him a scientific realist â€Å"the function of science, therefore, is to provide us with a superior and (in the long run) perhaps profoundly different conception of the world, even at the perceptual level†. I agree with Churchland as to the theoretical character of perceptual judgments, I agree that â€Å"perception consists in the conceptual exploitation of the natural information contained in our sensations or sensory states† . Having done part of a module on â€Å"the brain as a statistician† I know that our perceptual judgments are statistical decision problems akin to gambling or any decision based on uncertain evidence. Because inputs are noisy – the external world and inefficient transduction creates noise- the question of whether a signal is present or not will reflect the relative probability that a signal is drawn from distribution A(noise only) or distribution B(signal + noise). Biasing factors are the probability of occurrence of a member of each category, information on which is drawn from memory. Perceptual decisions rely on perception and memory, or evidence and prior knowledge, prior knowledge being essentially a theory about the world. However I disagree with Paul Churchland as to the possibility of our being trained to make systematic perceptual judgments in terms of theories other than the common sense theory we ‘learnt at our mothers knee’ For one, I don’t think we learn our common sense theory rather it is built into our genetics. I do not think we are nearly as plastic as he makes out, on this point I go with Gerry Fodor, perception and cognition are not continuous, and perception can never make judgments in terms of grand theories which we can barely conceive. The boundary between what can be observed and what must be inferred is largely determined by fixed architectural features of an organisms sensory / perceptual psychology† Gerry Fodor Observation Reconsidered. Paul Churchland directly contradicts this saying â€Å"our current modes of conceptual exploitation (perception) are rooted, in substantial measure, not in the nature of our perceptual environment, nor in the innate featu res of our psychology, but rather in the structure and content of our common language†. How plastic the brain may be is an empirical point, and I think Gerry Fodor wins the debate with his analysis of the muller-lyer illusion. Fodor says the robustness of the muller lyer illusion attests to the imperviousness of perception by cognition. There are both perceptual plasiticities and implasticities. Kuhn was impressed by the plasticities, but it is time to dwell more on the implasticities. â€Å"To the best of my knowledge, all the standard perceptual illusions exhibit this curious refractory character :knowing they are illusions doesn’t make them go away† However I don’t think Fodor is being entirely empirically accurate. Some illusions such as the concave – convex illusion, in which heavily shaded circles appear as concave when the shadow is at the top of the circle, and convex when the shadow is at the bottom of the circle, which occurs because we have a strong prior belief / prior assumption that light falls from above, can be reversed or at least nullified if you really try. The famous duck rabbit can definitely be flipped at will. And the old hag, young girl illusion, personally I can never see the old hag unless it is explained to e, then I can. But anyway Fodor makes his point, we cannot always see just what we want to see or think we should see. I agree with Gerry Fodor that perception is fairly modular, and is not (probably) affected (much) by conscious explicit knowledge. Certainly the muller lyer illusion is fairly robust And I think far too much is made of the duck rabbit illusion – Kuhn says â€Å"it is as elementary prototypes for these transformations of the scientists wo rld view that the familiar demonstrations of a switch in gestalt prove so suggestive†. But I do not think they are anything more than just that – suggestive – because a scientist, does not, cannot form an image or representation of quarks and leptons in any way analogous to a duck or a rabbit, so this image cannot ‘flip’. Paul Churchland seems to think we can form such images, but personally I cannot. I see the western sky redden as the sun sets not â€Å"the wavelength distribution of incoming solar radiation shift towards the longer wavelengths†. However I would say our inability to alter our perception does not damage churchland’s essential point which was that perception relies on theory, implicit theory. A very entrenched embedded theory, but theory all the same. Churchland thinks the distinction between the theoretical and the non-theoretical is just a distinction between freshly minted theory and thoroughly thumb-worn theory whose ‘cultural assimilation is complete’. I think some ‘thumb-worn theory’ is actually entrenched in our biology. But maybe individual differences come into play here, maybe some people are more plastic than others, or innately sensitive to some aspects of reality than others, maybe our biology is not universal. Paul Churchland says that the person with perfect pitch is not a physiological freak but a practiced observer. But I think it most likely that there is something unique about them. Maybe I am closed minded in the sort of visualization Churchland encourages, maybe that’s just me, I had no luck with seeing in the fourth dimension even after reading ‘Flatland’ and ‘speculations on the fourth dimension’ whereas other people (the authors) claim to have, still I’m a bit skeptical. Paul Churland’s thought experiments where he gets us to imagine various other beings, with radically different physiology, beings that can visually see infra-red heat for example, raises the idea of the possibility of other sensory modalities. And although we cannot communicate with them, so they are not part of our epistemic community, there are animals on our planet who presumably sense different things to us, such as bats and dolphins. Van Fraassen insists that is ‘observable’ must be observable to us unassisted, and as we currently are, an anthropocentric conception; â€Å"the limitations to which the ‘able’ in observable refers are our limitations qua human beings. † It could be argued that Van Fraassens anthropocentric conception of the observable is not just anthropocentric, but parochial. Alternatively it could be argued that van fraassen draws the line arbitrarily: according to Van Fraassen we can observe planets using a telescope, but we cannot observe viruses using a microscope, because planets are something we could observe without any augmentation of the senses, where we close enough to them, and indeed some of them we can observe from earth, our natural position, (venus) whereas under normal conditions viruses cannot be seen. I do not agree with this objection to Van Fraassen, I think where he draws the line is one natural place to draw it if it has to be drawn, but it is just that I don’t agree with him that the drawing of the line here is very significant. I am a realist and I believe unobservables are generally as real as observables. From his drawing of the line, van Fraassen only believes in observables. Fodor lightly passes over the fact that â€Å"perceptual analyses are undetermined by sensory arrays† and are only resolved by Bayesian reasoning from previous evidence / experience, and that â€Å"the appeal to background theory is inherent to the process of perceptual analysis† Fodor Observaiton reconsidered. I think this fact is indisputable, and it is in this respect that perception and cognition are similar as Paul churchland maintains, both are theories and â€Å"global excellence of theory is the ultimate measure of truth and ontology at all levels of cognition† . The impossibility of our being trained to make systematic perceptual judgments in terms of theories other that the common sense theory we ‘learnt at our mothers knee’, the implasticity of actual human perception, is irrelevant in drawing a theory observation distinction, both perception and cognition are theory dependent. But Granted as Fodor points out against Kuhn scientific knowledge doesn’t actually percolate down to affect the perceptual. Kuhnian perceptual theory loading does not occur. There is some natural barrier. Is this barrier the location of the O/T distinction? I think it probably is if there is one. It is significant, but not significant for the anti-realist, it does not decide our ontology. It is significant in the realists fight with relativism since observations are theory laden, but are not necessarily laden with the high level theories that they must adjudicate between. So perceptions are laden with perceptual theory, but not laden with quantum theory. Fodor makes the O/T distinction in such a way that it is significant for realists against relativism, but not significant for anti-realists. â€Å"Fodor isn’t looking for a notion of observationality that underwrites our granting epistemic privilege to observation statements. He’s looking for a notion that will ward off the incommensurability arguments. And for that purpose anything that produces consensus will do† Andre Kukla The theory observation distinction. Now to explicitly tackle the questions, â€Å"why make a distinction, for what purpose? †or â€Å"why does it matter if a distinction does or does not present itself? †. I have already touched on the answer to these questions when outlining the role of the distinction (or lack of) in larger debates between anti-realists, and relativists. The question of the O/T distinction has epistemological significance; it concerns the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on theories it is used to evaluate. This is part of the debate between realists and relativists. The relativists holding that observation is an inadequate basis for choosing between rival theories, the realists claiming it is an adequate basis, or there is at least something which is an adequate basis. Observational evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery and the application of scientific theories to practical problems. But we will concentrate on theory testing. It seems that if all observations are theory laden then there is no objective bedrock against which to test and justify theory. The classic or common view of science is that scientific knowledge is derived from the ‘facts’ or observations. Two schools of thought that involve attempts to formalize this common view of science are the empiricists and the positivists. An extreme interpretation of the claim that science is derived from the facts implies that the facts must first be established, and subsequently a theory built to fit them. This is the baconian method building a case from the ground up. This is not how science actually proceeds. â€Å"our search for relevant facts needs to be guided by our current state of knowledge, which tells us for example that measuring the ozone concentration at various locations in the atmosphere yields relevant facts whereas measuring the average hair length of the youths in Sydney does not† A F chalmers What is this thing called Science?. But the fact that science is guided by paradigms does not support kuhnian relativism. Kuhnian relativism can only be established if incommensurability is, that is if high level theory-loading of observation were established. As I have already argued along with Fodor, observation may be loaded with low level perceptual theory but not with high level conscious and elaborate theory. Proponents of competing theories often produce impressively similar observational data, this indicates perceptual theory loading is not that great. If science were blinded by paradigms that would be a different matter. Against semantic theory loading; Often observations reported non-linguistically, pictorially with tables of numbers etc. Late 20th century philosophers may have exaggerated the influence of semantic loading because they thought of theory testing in terms of inferential relations between observational and theoretical sentences. Against Salience or attentional loading scientists under different paradigms attend to different things. Yes, but doesn’t always happen. And scientists may appreciate the significance of data that is brought to their attention that had not been noticed. Attentional loading is not inevitable and not irredeemable. So observation is and adequate basis for adjudicating between theories (unless the theories are underdetermined by data). In conclusion I would say there is no absolute T/O distinction, but there is enough of a difference, enough bottom up flow of justification, to defeat relativism. A. F. chalmers: what is this thing called science? Paul M Churchland: Scientific realism and the plasticity of the mind Paul M churchland: The ontological status of obsservables: In praise of superempirical virtues Gerry Fodor: observation reconsidered Andre Kukla: the theory observation distinction W. V. O Quine: Word and Object Bas Van Fraassen: the scientific image