THERE is no trap that is easier to stumble into than that of trying to show whether one philosopher did or did not answer the problem of another philosopher. The trap consists in the tendency to think that both philosophers handled the problem in precisely the same way, even though they represent two quite different traditions. This is especially true of thinkers like David Hume and Charles Sanders Peirce. John Smith has shown quite convincingly that we cannot understand the American (...) pragmatists by limiting discussion to the epistemological questions of the British empiricist tradition stemming from Hume, Mill, and Russell. And A. J. Ayer can be faulted for attempting to do just that. However, it is possible for one to treat of Peirce's answer to Hume on necessary connection without falling into the trap. First of all, both philosophers raised the same kind of question. It is clear that Peirce had Hume specifically in mind when on many an occasion he attacked nominalism and defended real connections. But they differed in that Peirce defended his position from a broader perspective enabling him to arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion. To establish this thesis, it will be necessary to focus on several aspects of their thought that bear upon the topic under discussion. Undoubtedly the task of selection and interpretation of details has many a trap of its own, but it is hoped that the more obvious ones can be avoided. (shrink)

BackgroundLittle is known about the ethical situations which physiotherapists encounter internationally. This lack of knowledge impedes the ability of the profession to prepare and support physiotherapists in all world regions in their ethical practice. The purpose of the study was to answer the following research questions: What types of ethical issues are experienced by physiotherapists internationally? How frequently are ethical issues experienced by physiotherapists internationally? Can the frequency and type of ethical issue experienced by physiotherapists be predicted by sociodemographic, educational (...) or vocational variables?MethodsAn observational study was conducted in English using an online survey from October 2018 to May 2019. Participants were 1212 physiotherapists and physiotherapy students located internationally which represented less than 1% of estimated number of physiotherapists worldwide at that time. The survey questionnaire contained 13 items requesting demographic detail and knowledge of ethical codes and decision-making, and 46 items asking what frequency participants experienced specific ethical issues in four categories: Physiotherapist and patient interaction, Physiotherapist and other health professionals including other physiotherapists, Physiotherapists and the system and Professional and economic ethical situations.ResultsThe two most frequently experienced ethical issues were ‘Scarce resources and time affecting quality of physiotherapy treatment’ and ‘Physiotherapy not accessible to all people in society who need it’. These items were experienced, on average, more often than monthly. Interprofessional practice also presented frequent ethical issues for participants. Ethical issues related to the context of ‘Physiotherapists and the system’ were most frequently experienced for all world regions. Working longer years in physiotherapy and learning about ethics in basic physiotherapy education was associated with participants reporting lower frequencies of ethical issues across all contexts.ConclusionThis study provides the first global profile of ethical issues experienced by physiotherapists. Societal and cultural systems are key influences on physiotherapists’ ethical practice. Physiotherapists globally need support from their work organisations, academic institutions and professional associations, and robust ethical training, to assist them to be active moral agents in their practice. (shrink)

This volume contributes to the remarkable resurgence in interest for American pragmatism and its proponents by focusing on the influence of British empiricism, ...

This volume traces the influence of the British Empiricists--John Locke and David Hume--upon the American pragmatists--Charles S Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. But there are significant differences between the two traditions so that it can be said that the pragmatists gave the classical empirical tradition new directions. Heretofore these lines of influence and divergence have been recognized but not sufficiently developed. This movement is illustrated in chapters on experience, necessary connection, personal identity, and moral, social, and political theory. A (...) final chapter indicates the challenges that are still to be addressed by pragmatism. (shrink)

This text features a novel, hands-on approach to the study of rhetorical devices. The student will become more engaged in the study of critical thinking by seeing its direct application to current events, student life, and decision-making."--P. [4] of cover.