Ragnar Van Der Merwe

Principlism appears to be the prevailing applied ethical framework in bioethics. Despite the view’s various strengths, critics point out that since the principles are ad hoc, conflicts indubitably emerge leading to inconsistency. There is debate around whether principlism can provide definitive action-guiding moral prescriptions or only help structure intelligent analyses and justifications of moral choices. In this paper, I contend that applying concepts of moral symmetry and moral asymmetry allows us to modify one of principlism’s principles—the principle of beneficence—into what I will call the principle of compassion. I argue that the principle of compassion can function as an arbitrating or primary principle within the principlist framework. The result is a view we might call compassionate principlism. Arguably, compassionate principlism leads to fewer inconsistencies and provides more acceptable action-guiding moral prescriptions than traditional principlism.

This paper reviews how research on the demarcation problem has developed, starting from Popper’s criterion of falsifiability and ending with recent naturalistically oriented approaches. The main differences between traditional and contemporary approaches to the problem are explicated in terms of six postulates called the traditional assumptions. It is argued that all of the assumptions can be dismissed without giving up on the demarcation problem and that doing so might benefit further discussions on pseudoscience. Four present-day research movements on evaluating the boundaries of science are introduced: (1) philosophy of pseudoscience, (2) social epistemology of dissent, (3) agnotology, and (4) evaluation of expertise. Researchers working within these areas have abandoned some or all traditional assumptions.

In this book K. Brad Wray provides a comprehensive survey of the arguments against scientific realism. In addition to presenting logical considerations that undermine the realists' inferences to the likely truth or approximate truth of our theories, he provides a thorough assessment of the evidence from the history of science. He also examines grounds for a defence of anti-realism, including an anti-realist explanation for the success of our current theories, an account of why false theories can be empirically successful, and an explanation for why we should expect radical changes of theory in the future. His arguments are supported and illustrated by cases from the history of science, including a sustained study of the Copernican Revolution, and a study of the revolution in early twentieth century chemistry, when chemists came to classify elements by their atomic number rather than by their atomic weight.