Category Archives: Rationalism

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan greets litterateur M K Sanu at the Yukthivadi M C Joseph Award presentation function in Kochi on Saturday | K Shijith

KOCHI:Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Saturday said those who came to power after swearing allegiance to the Constitution are now propagating superstitions, ill-practices, myths and fabricated tales. He was speaking after presenting the Yukthivadi M C Joseph Award to litterateur M K Sanu here. Calling for a joint fight against the covert moves to revive casteism as part of the wider goal to establish a theocracy, the Chief Minister said the rationalists should join hands with socio-political movements to rid society of ill-practices and superstition.The rationalists cannot take people into confidence unless their initiative reflects on the socio-political sphere.

The role of rationalism should not be limited to discussions on the existence of God, Pinarayi said. What the Communist movement suggested is rationalism should not be merely an idea, but it should have a socio-political impact.What human beings need is not a foolproof theory to substantiate the non-existence of God, but his daily bread, he said.

Pinarayi said M C Joseph had the capability to provide logical answers and establish his point of view on questions related to rationalism. He was one of those who fearlessly fought superstitions and ill- practices of his time. Such bravado energises posterity also, the CM said.

Dr K S David presided over the function. K V Thomas MP, CPM district chief P Rajeev, GCDA chairman C N Mohanan, Sreeni Pattathanam, P Raghavan and Jacob Laser spoke.

Original post:

Kerala Chief Minister presents MC joseph award to litterateur MK Sanu - The New Indian Express

I have talked before about the empiricism vs rationalism debate that has taken place historically and presently in philosophical circles. Today, I am going to explore this a little further.

As I said before

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophystatesthat rationalists adopt at least one of three statements:

The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

The Innate Knowledge Thesis: We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

The Innate Concept Thesis: We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature.

We eitherknowthings to be true intuitively, or as part of being rational agents, or the empirical may trigger concepts already embedded within our nature. Of course, one weakness here is in establishing what intuitionactually is.

Whilst other ideas and theses are closely connected to rationalism, or are often associated with it, I will keep it simple by only involving the above three.

One question that is often touted about such rationalism is the epistemic warrant: if someone uses intuition about a certain proposition, then it can be seen as lacking reason, and is thus potentially less justifiable, lacking in being warranted. How does an intuitive claim become a warranted claim?

For the empiricist, the following must be true in some way:

The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.

The source of knowledge for us is claimed to bea posteriori(from the latter)in its entirety, at source. Things may become intuitive, and even lacking reason, but they are as a result of us using our senses over time to formulate our propositional knowledge, and our systems that we use to navigate through the world. As the SEP continues:

Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge isa posteriori, dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas. They reject the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis. Since reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give us superior knowledge. Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of Reason thesis, though they need not. The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained,if at all, by experience. Empiricists may assert, as some do for some subjects, that the rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is that we do not know at all.

The thing is, we can sit here and wax lyrical about how wonderful rationality is, and how great it is to use logic, but unless these things have a pragmatic use then they are kind of meaningless. The question that we really need to ask is, How doI measure how good or useful logic is? or How doI evaluate a rational argument?

The answer, it appears, alwaysdefers to some kind of empirical appeal.

Take this as an example.

Its me and you, reader, and were living together. I write something really nasty about you on a post-it note. We might say that this has some moral value. However, now imagine that I put that post-it in my pocket where it disappears. You never find out about it, and I instantly forget I wrote it, and no one else in the world is any the wiser. What this means is that that terribly nasty note has no impact, no empirical legacy, on the world. There are no consequences whatsoever to writing that. As a moral action, the writing of that note now becomes a-moral it has no moral value. It seems to me that something can only have moral value if it has some kind of effect on reality. The only way we can know the effect something has on reality is to experience it in some way, to empirically sense it.

The same can be said of logic. Why is it good that a proposition adheres to logical rules such that it is rational? Well, the goodness of logic s surely measured in how we can use it. If it has no application to reality then it is rather meaningless. Rationality is only reveredbecause of what it can achieve. If rationality had no effect on reality, then it could not be seen as good (in a sense that good means to work well or have use).

If things only have exist in abstraction without any ramification on the world in any way, then they become impotent or meaningless. At the very minimum, beliefs and propositions and rational arguments have n effect on the psychology of the thinker.

It appears to me that empiricism lies at the heart of the consideration and evaluation of all things.

Original post:

Empiricism as Foundational - Patheos (blog)

Photo Amrita Acharia plays a doctor in The Good Karma Hospital, beginning Monday on AcornTV. Credit Chris Burgess/Acorn TV

No fancy tests are needed to map the pop-cultural DNA of The Good Karma Hospital, a British dramedy whose six-episode first season arrives Monday on AcornTV.

Its about 50 percent postcolonial escape fantasy, in which an uptight Briton moves to a tropical outpost of the former empire and learns to balance Western rationalism with Eastern superstition, emotion and ease. The markers include crazy drivers, brightly dressed crowds and nervousness about hygiene. Comparables are The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (note the similarity in the titles) and the Caribbean detective series Death in Paradise.

Its also about 50 percent medical melodrama, with a young doctor arriving at a new hospital and having to prove herself. Here the tropes include the grouchy chief, the conceited and sexist male surgeon, the sudden and difficult childbirth. And the precedents are Greys Anatomy and Northern Exposure. (Like the protagonist in Northern Exposure, the physician here is misinformed about where shell be working.)

Good Karma plays a small variation on these formulas by making its hero, Dr. Ruby Walker (Amrita Acharia), Anglo-Indian rather than white. After a bad breakup, she flees Britain for a struggling hospital in southern India shes both going somewhere exotic and coming home. She speaks the language (with an accent) but can still be surprised by the local dilemmas, such as the question of whether to let a female baby with a heart defect die.

There is no clash of cultures that cant be mitigated through pure sentimentality. If Good Karma Hospital is your kind of drug, youll want to mainline it. The coastal locations (filmed in Sri Lanka) are picturesque, the Bollywoodish music is catchy and the performers, including Amanda Redman of New Tricks as the hospitals overseer, are ingratiating.

As a bonus, two much-loved actors show up as the parents at a destination wedding and stick around for the season. The father is Philip Jackson, Inspector Japp in Agatha Christies Poirot, and the mother is Phyllis Logan, in her first role since Mrs. Hughes in Downton Abbey. The hospital may be in India, but if you look past the palm trees you could just as well be in the English countryside.

The Good Karma Hospital Beginning Monday on AcornTV

A version of this review appears in print on August 21, 2017, on Page C2 of the New York edition with the headline: A Doctor Proves Her Mettle.

The rest is here:

Review: In 'Good Karma Hospital,' Some Familiar TV Templates - New York Times

August 17, 2017, 12:05 am As fact and fiction become blurred meaning and truth disappear.

Arguably the factor that militates against the sound and reasonable examination of issues on a global scale is a postmodern view that truth does not exist. In an age of internet exchanges opinions are as true as facts. Here is the efflorescence of John Paul Sartres view that intention is all that counts. If you think you are right, nothing else counts. Facts be damned.

Media ecology has converted illusions into a form of reality that houses the self-appointed arbiters of truth. If intellectual freedom encourages everyone to believe anything he wishes, limits based on objectivity and empirical data are unneeded. The new norm is no norm.

The 9/11 attacks were conducted by the CIA; vaccines lead to autism; extraterrestrials landed in the Nevada desert. These are merely a few of the bizarre claims in the anything goes universe. Two-thirds of Americans believe angels and demons are active in the world. Fifteen percent think the media or government add secret mind-controlling technology to broadcast signals. A quarter of Americans believe in witches.

Moreover, much of this fantasy has been promoted by institutions that once held the keys to objective thought: institutions of higher education; newspapers; television news. In fact, their embrace of the postmodern view has allowed the irrational to become respectable with courses on campus like mysticism and magic.

For most of American and European history a balance had been struck between credulity and skepticism. But now we are living with the great unravelling: Do your own thing means do whatever you want to do. With instant internet communication opinions can float around the globe before I have tied my shoe laces, making any manner of fantasy seem real.

If there are antecedents for the current trend they can be found in the sixties, a decade that reordered American society. Psychology and philosophy were turned on their heads leading to hot tub therapy, sexual experimentation, shamanism, Chinese medicine, and a host of narcissistic therapeutic approaches. Even madness was not mad according to the therapists who argued mental illness doesnt exist.

But despite the sixties assault on rationalism, the peaceful utopia with hearts and minds converted didnt quite pan out. It turns out reality is more than a social construct. Nonetheless, the cultural upheaval has influenced the present. Fantasyland is not only found in Disney World. Relativism is entrenched in the Academy. The distinction between fact and fiction is crumbling. Everyone seated before a computer can create his own reality for himself and others.

In our culture, there is a Greshams Law in which the bad drives the good out of circulation. Fantasy is on the rise as reality has tipped into decline. An admixture of opinion and an occasional dose of fact and wisdom do not invoke great hope for the future. This crisis goes to the essence of meaning, of how we conduct our lives and raise our children. Postmodernists are winning these battles, which leads me to wonder if the few realists left in society can hold back the tide of truth deniers.

Ernesto Che Guevara reunited with Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, in Cuba. 1960 (Wikimedia Commons)

Continue reading here:

Postmodern Assumptions - American Spectator

By U.S. Rep. Ryan Costello, Pennsylvanias 6th District

Ryan Costello

A man drove a car into a crowd of people, killing one and injuring 19 others. It was a despicable act committed by someone motivated by hate.

Some of the commentary on this incident and the Presidents myriad responses misses the mark on what is the bigger picture relating to the character of our country and what we aspire to have our culture nurture for our kids, grandkids, and future generations. No one can take that character and identity from us unless we allow them to.

We should all take pause and acknowledge that hate does not rest solely in a few certain individuals who happen to be really conservative, or really liberal, or agnostic, or faithful to one particular religious affiliation, or that it is rooted solely in one ideology or another. Hate is rooted in a personal decision to decide to be intolerant and cruel toward another individual or group of individuals based on anothers skin color, religion, gender, ethnicity, or other similar type characteristic.

Hate is a dangerous thing, in many, many ways. Hate removes rationalism, temperance, and the ability to forgive, replacing it with emotionalism, anger, and irrational blame. Reason and tolerance get lost and are replaced with a debased sense of good and bad. Hate slowly replaces common decency with disgust. In a civil society we lose our identity when we lose these collective personal values as being the foundation from which relationships and discourse emanate. Hate can fester, and can spread.

And Im really very concerned that it is spreading. The Presidents most recent statement was intended to include other groups as spreading hate on that tragic day. This was wrong. Hate groups are relishing at what is occurring right now. We now find some arguing over whether it was just alt-right hate groups or whether alt-left hate groups were also to blame such a debate is a false debate because no conclusion will actually solve or resolve anything. We are at a very divisive time in the history of our country where some people are so emotional and angry to the point where a bad situation is becoming worse.

We now find ourselves with a horrific death that exposes deeper, more ugly truths about what still festers in the deep and dark underground of our country. I would suggest the best way to move forward is to give hate no mind, no time, and no audience. One of the best things we can do is take a deep collective breath and find wisdom and solace in those preaching kindness and patient resolve in getting beyond the past few days so that we can focus on the challenges and opportunities we have in this country.

Such wisdom and clarity need not come from the words of a President, and at this point they cannot given how unbelievably poorly our President has failed. Such wisdom and clarity need not derive from any politician for that matter, or a clergy member or media figure it can come from within you. We need to do this because we owe it to ourselves and our loved ones, to the men and women who sacrificed to make this Country what it is, and to future generations who rely on us to create opportunity for them to live under the pillars of equality and dignity for all in America.

Our country is way bigger, better, and wiser than to allow the hateful few to rob us of our kindness, tolerance, and essence. So lets not allow those few to do it to us by letting them. This means refusing to parse the words of others to assign them blame for a murder perpetrated by one and instead find truth and meaning in the message of someone whose belief you are proud to stand by, and use those words as your guidance.

U.S. Rep. Ryan Costello (R., Pa.) represents the Sixth Congressional District, which includes parts of Berks, Chester, Lebanon, and Montgomery Counties

Continue reading here:

Op/Ed: Hate is a dangerous thing - The Times of Chester County

NoSQL business MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO, according to reports.

The document database company started life as 10gen in 2007 and has secured a total of $303.4m in equity funding to date.

According to Crunchbase, its last round, for an undisclosed amount, was in August 2015, having gained $80m in the January of that year.

MongoDB was last valued at $1.2bn in October 2016, when it pulled in $150m from investors that included Red Hat, Salesforce Ventures, EMC, Intel Capital and Sequoia Capital.

There have been rumours of a potential IPO from MongoDB, which has previously stated its aim to take on Oracle, for some time.

During an interview with The Reg last year, CEO Dev Ittycheria indicated the company was at a scale where the option could be acted upon quickly.

Ittycheria told The Reg that, with revenues between $100m and $200m annually, "there's companies who've gone public who are smaller and going slower than us."

The firm is now thought to have moved one step closer, with TechCrunch reporting that it has submitted an S-1 filing in recent weeks and plans to go public before the end of the year.

Under the US JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) Act, introduced in 2012, companies are now allowed to confidentially submit initial statements like this, which them weigh interest from investors before alerting the public to the filing. The idea is to encourage more companies to IPO.

The companies must reveal their financials at least 15 days before they embark on their investor roadshow.

TechCrunch reports that a number of companies that have filed confidentially for IPO will go public between September and the end of November.

Commenting on the reports, Greg Henry, CFO of Couchbase (a competitor of MongoDB's in the NoSQL space), said: "In confidentially filing its S-1, MongoDB is on track to become the first IPO in the non-Hadoop big data space, which stands as a pivotal milestone for the industry and provides more validation that there is life beyond analytical and relational databases."

MongoDB has gained some positive publicity last week, when CTO Eliot Horowitz emailed staff condemning the now infamous "Google memo".

"This manifesto, however, is not part of a healthy dialogue at all," Horowitz wrote.

"It advances a false equivalence between diversity efforts and discrimination built on a substrate of reasonable statements and context-free references to research. It is just another attempt to disguise prejudice in the clothing of rationalism."

Sponsored: The Joy and Pain of Buying IT - Have Your Say

See the original post:

Pssst, wanna know a secret? MongoDB has confidentially filed for IPO, reports suggest - The Register

In addition to the Lefts affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females, wrote James Damore, in his now infamous anti-diversity Google memo. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more co-operative and agreeable than men. Since the memo was published, hordes of women have come forward to say that views like these where individuals justify bias on the basis of science are not uncommon in their traditionally male-dominated fields. Damores controversial screed set off discussions about the age old debate: do biological differences justify discrimination?

Modern science developed in a society which assumed that man was superior over women. Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolutionary biology, who died before women got the right to vote, argued that young children of both genders resembled adult women more than they did adult men; as a result, woman is a kind of adult child.

Racial inequality wasnt immune from this kind of theorising either. As fields such as psychology and genetics developed a greater understanding about the fundamental building blocks of humanity, many prominent researchers such as Francis Galton, Darwins cousin, argued that there were biological differences between races which explained the ability of the European race to prosper and gather wealth, while other races fell far behind. The same kind of reasoning fuelled the Nazi eugenics and continues to fuel the alt-right in their many guises today.

Once scorned as blasphemy, today "science" is approached by many non-practitioners with a cult-like reverence.Attributing the differences between races and gender to scientific research carries the allure of empiricism.Opponents of "diversity" would have you believe thatscientific research validates racism and sexism, even though one'sbleeding heart might wish otherwise.

The problemis that current scientific research just doesnt agree.Some branches of science, such as physics, are concerned with irrefutable laws of nature.But the reality, as evidenced by the growing convergence of social sciences like sociology, and life sciences, such as biology, is that science as a whole will, and should change. The research coming out of fields like genetics and psychology paint an increasingly complex picture of humanity.Saying (and proving) that gravity exists isn't factually equivalent to saying, and trying to prove, that women are somehow less capable at their jobs because of presumed inherent traits like submissiveness.

When it comes to matters of race, the argument against racial realism, as its often referred to, is unequivocal. A study in 2002, authored by Neil Risch and others, built on the work of the Human Genome Project to examine the long standing and popular myth of seven distinct races. Researchers found that 62 per cent of Ethiopians belong to the same cluster as Norwegians, together with 21 per cent of the Afro-Caribbeans, and the ethnic label Asian inaccurately describes Chinese and Papuans who were placed almost entirely in separate clusters. All that means is that white supremacists are wrong, and always have been.

Even the researcher Damore cites in his memo, Bradley Schmitt of Bradley University in Illinois, doesnt agree with Damores conclusions. Schmitt pointed out, in correspondence with Wired, that biological difference only accounts for about 10 per cent of the variance between men and women in what Damore characterises as female traits, such asneuroticism. In addition, nebulous traits such as being people-oriented are difficult to define and have led to wildly contradictory research from people who are experts in the fields. Suggestingthat women are bad engineers because theyre neurotic is not only mildly ridiculous, but even unsubstantiated by Damores own research. As many have done before him, Damore couched his own worldview - and what he was trying to convince others of - in the language of rationalism, but ultimately didn't pay attention to the facts.

And, even if you did buy into Damore's memo, a true scientist would retort- so what? It's a fallacy to argue that just because a certain state of affairs prevails, that that is the way that it ought to be. If that was the case, why does humanity march on in the direction of technological and industrial progress?

Humans werent meant to travel large distances, or we would possess the ability to do so intrinsically. Boats, cars, airplanes, trains, according to the Damore mindset, would be a perversion of nature. As a species, we consider overcoming biology to be a sign of success.

Of course, the damage done by these kinds of views is not only that theyre hard to counteract, but that they have real consequences. Throughout history, appeals to the supposed rationalism of scientific research have justified moral atrocities such as ethnic sterilisation, apartheid, the creation of the slave trade, and state-sanctioned genocide.

If those in positions of power genuinely think that black and Hispanic communities are genetically predisposed to crime and murder, theyre very unlikely to invest in education, housing and community centres for those groups. Cycles of poverty then continue, and the myth, dressed up in pseudo-science, is entrenched.

Damore and those like him will certainly maintain that the evidence for gender differences are on their side. Since he was fired from Google, Damore has become somewhat of an icon to some parts of society, giving interviews to right-wing Youtubers and posing in a dubious shirt parodying the Google logo (it now says Goolag). Never mind that Damores beloved science has already proved them wrong.

Read more from the original source:

From Darwin to Damore - the ancient art of using "science" to mask prejudice - New Statesman

Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, experience.

Concepts are said to be a posteriori (Latin: from the latter) if they can be applied only on the basis of experience, and they are called a priori (from the former) if they can be applied independently of experience. Beliefs or propositions are said to be a posteriori if they are knowable only on the basis of experience and a priori if they are knowable independently of experience (see a posteriori knowledge). Thus, according to the second and third definitions of empiricism above, empiricism is the view that all concepts, or all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions, are a posteriori rather than a priori.

The first two definitions of empiricism typically involve an implicit theory of meaning, according to which words are meaningful only insofar as they convey concepts. Some empiricists have held that all concepts are either mental copies of items that are directly experienced or complex combinations of concepts that are themselves copies of items that are directly experienced. This view is closely linked to the notion that the conditions of application of a concept must always be specified in experiential terms.

Read More on This Topic

Western philosophy: The rise of empiricism and rationalism

The scientific contrast between Vesaliuss rigorous observational techniques and Galileos reliance on mathematics was similar to the philosophical contrast between Bacons experimental method and Descartess emphasis on a priori reasoning. Indeed, these differences can be conceived in more abstract terms as the contrast between empiricism and rationalism. This theme dominated the philosophical...

The third definition of empiricism is a theory of knowledge, or theory of justification. It views beliefs, or at least some vital classes of beliefe.g., the belief that this object is redas depending ultimately and necessarily on experience for their justification. An equivalent way of stating this thesis is to say that all human knowledge is derived from experience.

Empiricism regarding concepts and empiricism regarding knowledge do not strictly imply each other. Many empiricists have admitted that there are a priori propositions but have denied that there are a priori concepts. It is rare, however, to find a philosopher who accepts a priori concepts but denies a priori propositions.

Stressing experience, empiricism often opposes the claims of authority, intuition, imaginative conjecture, and abstract, theoretical, or systematic reasoning as sources of reliable belief. Its most fundamental antithesis is with the latteri.e., with rationalism, also called intellectualism or apriorism. A rationalist theory of concepts asserts that some concepts are a priori and that these concepts are innate, or part of the original structure or constitution of the mind. A rationalist theory of knowledge, on the other hand, holds that some rationally acceptable propositionsperhaps including every thing must have a sufficient reason for its existence (the principle of sufficient reason)are a priori. A priori propositions, according to rationalists, can arise from intellectual intuition, from the direct apprehension of self-evident truths, or from purely deductive reasoning.

In both everyday attitudes and philosophical theories, the experiences referred to by empiricists are principally those arising from the stimulation of the sense organsi.e., from visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory sensation. (In addition to these five kinds of sensation, some empiricists also recognize kinesthetic sensation, or the sensation of movement.) Most philosophical empiricists, however, have maintained that sensation is not the only provider of experience, admitting as empirical the awareness of mental states in introspection or reflection (such as the awareness that one is in pain or that one is frightened); such mental states are then often described metaphorically as being present to an inner sense. It is a controversial question whether still further types of experience, such as moral, aesthetic, or religious experience, ought to be acknowledged as empirical. A crucial consideration is that, as the scope of experience is broadened, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish a domain of genuinely a priori propositions. If, for example, one were to take the mathematicians intuition of relationships between numbers as a kind of experience, one would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of knowledge that is not ultimately empirical.

Even when empiricists agree on what should count as experience, however, they may still disagree fundamentally about how experience itself should be understood. Some empiricists, for example, conceive of sensation in such a way that what one is aware of in sensation is always a mind-dependent entity (sometimes referred to as a sense datum). Others embrace some version of direct realism, according to which one can directly perceive or be aware of physical objects or physical properties (see epistemology: realism). Thus there may be radical theoretical differences even among empiricists who are committed to the notion that all concepts are constructed out of elements given in sensation.

Test Your Knowledge

Christmas

Two other viewpoints related to but not the same as empiricism are the pragmatism of the American philosopher and psychologist William James, an aspect of which was what he called radical empiricism, and logical positivism, sometimes also called logical empiricism. Although these philosophies are empirical in some sense, each has a distinctive focus that warrants its treatment as a separate movement. Pragmatism stresses the involvement of ideas in practical experience and action, whereas logical positivism is more concerned with the justification of scientific knowledge.

When describing an everyday attitude, the word empiricism sometimes conveys an unfavourable implication of ignorance of or indifference to relevant theory. Thus, to call a doctor an Empiric has been to call him a quacka usage traceable to a sect of medical men who were opposed to the elaborate medicaland in some views metaphysicaltheories inherited from the Greek physician Galen of Pergamum (129c. 216 ce). The medical empiricists opposed to Galen preferred to rely on treatments of observed clinical effectiveness, without inquiring into the mechanisms sought by therapeutic theory. But empiricism, detached from this medical association, may also be used, more favourably, to describe a hard-headed refusal to be swayed by anything but the facts that the thinker has observed for himself, a blunt resistance to received opinion or precarious chains of abstract reasoning.

As a more strictly defined movement, empiricism reflects certain fundamental distinctions and occurs in varying degrees.

Britannica Lists & Quizzes

Health & Medicine Quiz

Science List

Arts & Culture Quiz

Society List

A distinction that has the potential to create confusion is the one that contrasts the a posteriori not with the a priori but with the innate. Since logical problems are easily confused with psychological problems, it is difficult to disentangle the question of the causal origin of concepts and beliefs from the question of their content and justification.

A concept, such as five, is said to be innate if a persons possession of it is causally independent of his experiencee.g., his perception of various groupings of five objects. Similarly, a belief is innate if its acceptance is causally independent of the believers experience. It is therefore possible for beliefs to be innate without being a priori: for example, the babys belief that its mothers breast will nourish it is arguably causally independent of his experience, though experience would be necessary to justify it.

Another supposedly identical, but in fact more or less irrelevant, property of concepts and beliefs is that of the universality of their possession or acceptancethat a priori or innate concepts and beliefs must be held by everyone. There may be, in fact, some basis for inferring universality from innateness, since many innate characteristics, such as the fear of loud noises, appear to be common to the whole human species. But there is no inconsistency in the supposition that a concept or belief is innate in one person and learned from experience in another.

Two main kinds of concept have been held to be a priori. First, there are certain formal concepts of logic and of mathematics that reflect the basic structure of discourse: not, and, or, if, all, some, existence, unity, number, successor, and infinity. Secondly, there are the categorial conceptssuch as substance, cause, mind, and Godwhich, according to some philosophers, are imposed by the mind upon the raw data of sensation in order to make experiences possible. One might add to these the more specific theoretical concepts of physics, which are sometimes said to apply to entities that are unobservable in principle.

In the long history of debate over the a priori, it was long taken for granted that all a priori propositions are necessarily truei.e., true by virtue of the meanings of their terms (analytic) or true by virtue of the fact that their negations imply a contradiction. Propositions such as all triangles have three sides, all bachelors are unmarried, and all red things are coloured are necessarily true in one or both of these senses. Likewise, it was held that propositions that are contingently true, or true merely by virtue of the way the world happens to be, are a posteriori. John is a bachelor and Johns house is red are propositions of this type.

In the 1970s, however, the American philosopher Saul Kripke argued to the contrary that some a priori propositions are contingent and some a posteriori propositions are necessary. According to Kripke, the referential properties of natural kind terms like heat can be understood by imagining that their referents were fixed, upon their introduction into the language, by means of certain definite descriptions, such as the cause of sensations of warmth. In other words, heat was introduced as a name for whatever phenomenon happened to satisfy the description the cause of sensations of warmth. Of course, the phenomenon in question is now known to be molecular motion. Thus heat refers to molecular motion, then and now, because molecular motion was the cause of sensations of warmth when the term was introduced. Given this introduction, however, the proposition heat causes sensations of warmth must be a priori. Because its introduction stipulated that heat is the phenomenon that causes sensations of warmth, it is knowable independently of experience that heat causes sensations of warmth, even though it is only a contingent matter of fact that it does. On the other hand, the proposition heat is molecular motion is a posteriori, because this fact about heat was discovered (and could only be discovered) through empirical scientific investigation. But the proposition is also necessary, according to Kripke, because once the referent of heat has been fixed as molecular motion, there are no imaginable circumstances in which the term could refer to anything else. This conclusion is supported by the intuition that, if it were discovered tomorrow that sensations of warmth in humans are actually caused by something other than molecular motion, one would not say that heat is not molecular motion but rather that sensations of warmth are caused by something other than heat. Kripke proposed a similar analysis of the referential properties of proper names like Aristotle, according to which a proposition like Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great is contingent but a priori.

Empiricism, whether concerned with concepts or knowledge, can be held with varying degrees of strength. On this basis, absolute, substantive, and partial empiricisms can be distinguished.

Absolute empiricists hold that there are no a priori concepts, either formal or categorial, and no a priori beliefs or propositions. Absolute empiricism about the former is more common than that about the latter, however. Although nearly all Western philosophers admit that obvious tautologies (e.g., all red things are red) and definitional truisms (e.g., all triangles have three sides) are a priori, many of them would add that these represent a degenerate case.

A more moderate form of empiricism is that of the substantive empiricists, who are unconvinced by attempts that have been made to interpret formal concepts empirically and who therefore concede that formal concepts are a priori, though they deny that status to categorial concepts and to the theoretical concepts of physics, which they hold are a posteriori. According to this view, allegedly a priori categorial and theoretical concepts are either defective, reducible to empirical concepts, or merely useful fictions for the prediction and organization of experience.

The parallel point of view about knowledge assumes that the truth of logical and mathematical propositions is determined, as is that of definitional truisms, by the relationships between meanings that are established prior to experience. The truth often espoused by ethicists, for example, that one is truly obliged to rescue a person from drowning only if it is possible to do so, is a matter of meanings and not of facts about the world. On this view, all propositions that, in contrast to the foregoing example, are in any way substantially informative about the world are a posteriori. Even if there are a priori propositions, they are formal or verbal or conceptual in nature, and their necessary truth derives simply from the meanings that attached to the words they contain. A priori knowledge is useful because it makes explicit the hidden implications of substantive, factual assertions. But a priori propositions do not themselves express genuinely new knowledge about the world; they are factually empty. Thus All bachelors are unmarried merely gives explicit recognition to the commitment to describe as unmarried anyone who has been described as a bachelor.

Substantive empiricism about knowledge regards all a priori propositions as being more-or-less concealed tautologies. If a persons duty is thus defined as that which he should always do, the statement A person should always do his duty then becomes A person should always do what he should always do. Deductive reasoning is conceived accordingly as a way of bringing this concealed tautological status to light. That such extrication is nearly always required means that a priori knowledge is far from trivial.

For the substantive empiricist, truisms and the propositions of logic and mathematics exhaust the domain of the a priori. Science, on the other handfrom the fundamental assumptions about the structure of the universe to the singular items of evidence used to confirm its theoriesis regarded as a posteriori throughout. The propositions of ethics and those of metaphysics, which deals with the ultimate nature and constitution of reality (e.g., only that which is not subject to change is real), are either disguised tautologies or pseudo-propositionsi.e., combinations of words that, despite their grammatical respectability, cannot be taken as true or false assertions at all.

The least thoroughgoing type of empiricism here distinguished, ranking third in degree, can be termed partial empiricism. According to this view, the realm of the a priori includes some concepts that are not formal and some propositions that are substantially informative about the world. The theses of the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant (17201804), the general scientific conservation laws, the basic principles of morality and theology, and the causal laws of nature have all been held by partial empiricists to be both synthetic (substantially informative) and a priori. As noted above, philosophers who embrace the Kripkean notion of reference fixing would add to this class propositions such as heat is the cause of sensations of warmth and Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great, both of which derive their presumed aprioricity from the hypothetical circumstances in which their subject terms were introduced. At any rate, in all versions of partial empiricism there remain a great many straightforwardly a posteriori concepts and propositions: ordinary singular propositions about matters of fact and the concepts that figure in them are held to fall in this domain.

So-called common sense might appear to be inarticulately empiricist; and empiricism might be usefully thought of as a critical force resisting the pretensions of a more speculative rationalist philosophy. In the ancient world the kind of rationalism that many empiricists oppose was developed by Plato (c. 428c. 328 bce), the greatest of rationalist philosophers. The ground was prepared for him by three earlier bodies of thought: the Ionian cosmologies of the 6th century bce, with their distinction between sensible appearance and a reality accessible only to pure reason; the philosophy of Parmenides (early 5th century bce), the important early monist, in which purely rational argument is used to prove that the world is really an unchanging unity; and Pythagoreanism, which, holding that the world is really made of numbers, took mathematics to be the repository of ultimate truth.

The first empiricists in Western philosophy were the Sophists, who rejected such rationalist speculation about the world as a whole and took humanity and society to be the proper objects of philosophical inquiry. Invoking skeptical arguments to undermine the claims of pure reason, they posed a challenge that invited the reaction that comprised Platos philosophy.

Plato, and to a lesser extent Aristotle, were both rationalists. But Aristotles successors in the ancient Greek schools of Stoicism and Epicureanism advanced an explicitly empiricist account of the formation of human concepts. For the Stoics the human mind is at birth a clean slate, which comes to be stocked with concepts by the sensory impingement of the material world upon it. Yet they also held that there are some concepts or beliefs, the common notions, that are present to the minds of all humans; and these soon came to be conceived in a nonempirical way. The empiricism of the Epicureans, however, was more pronounced and consistent. For them human concepts are memory images, the mental residues of previous sense experience, and knowledge is as empirical as the ideas of which it is composed.

Most medieval philosophers after St. Augustine (354430) took an empiricist position, at least about concepts, even if they recognized much substantial but nonempirical knowledge. The standard formulation of this age was: There is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses. Thus St. Thomas Aquinas (122574) rejected innate ideas altogether. Both soul and body participate in perception, and all ideas are abstracted by the intellect from what is given to the senses. Human ideas of unseen things, such as angels and demons and even God, are derived by analogy from the seen.

The 13th-century scientist Roger Bacon emphasized empirical knowledge of the natural world and anticipated the polymath Renaissance philosopher of science Francis Bacon (15611626) in preferring observation to deductive reasoning as a source of knowledge. The empiricism of the 14th-century Franciscan nominalist William of Ockham was more systematic. All knowledge of what exists in nature, he held, comes from the senses, though there is, to be sure, abstractive knowledge of necessary truths; but this is merely hypothetical and does not imply the existence of anything. His more extreme followers extended his line of reasoning toward a radical empiricism, in which causation is not a rationally intelligible connection between events but merely an observed regularity in their occurrence.

In the earlier and unsystematically speculative phases of Renaissance philosophy, the claims of Aristotelian logic to yield substantial knowledge were attacked by several 16th-century logicians; in the same century, the role of observation was also stressed. One mildly skeptical Christian thinker, Pierre Gassendi (15921655), advanced a deliberate revival of the empirical doctrines of Epicurus. But the most important defender of empiricism was Francis Bacon, who, though he did not deny the existence of a priori knowledge, claimed that, in effect, the only knowledge that is worth having (as contributing to the relief of the human condition) is empirically based knowledge of the natural world, which should be pursued by the systematicindeed almost mechanicalarrangement of the findings of observation and is best undertaken in the cooperative and impersonal style of modern scientific research. Bacon was, in fact, the first to formulate the principles of scientific induction.

A materialist and nominalist, Thomas Hobbes (15881679) combined an extreme empiricism about concepts, which he saw as the outcome of material impacts on the bodily senses, with an extreme rationalism about knowledge, of which, like Plato, he took geometry to be the paradigm. For him all genuine knowledge is a priori, a matter of rigorous deduction from definitions. The senses provide ideas; but all knowledge comes from reckoning, from deductive calculations carried out on the names that the thinker has assigned to them. Yet all knowledge also concerns material and sensible existences, since everything that exists is a body. (On the other hand, many of the most important claims of Hobbess ethics and political philosophy certainly seem to be a posteriori, insofar as they rely heavily on his experience of human beings and the ways in which they interact.)

The most elaborate and influential presentation of empiricism was made by John Locke (16321704), an early Enlightenment philosopher, in the first two books of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). All knowledge, he held, comes from sensation or from reflection, by which he meant the introspective awareness of the workings of ones own mind. Locke often seemed not to separate clearly the two issues of the nature of concepts and the justification of beliefs. His Book I, though titled Innate Ideas, is largely devoted to refuting innate knowledge. Even so, he later admitted that much substantial knowledgein particular, that of mathematics and moralityis a priori. He argued that infants know nothing; that if humans are said to know innately what they are capable of coming to know, then all knowledge is, trivially, innate; and that no beliefs whatever are universally accepted. Locke was more consistent about the empirical character of all concepts, and he described in detail the ways in which simple ideas can be combined to form complex ideas of what has not in fact been experienced. One group of dubiously empirical conceptsthose of unity, existence, and numberhe took to be derived both from sensation and from reflection. But he allowed one a priori conceptthat of substancewhich the mind adds, seemingly from its own resources, to its conception of any regularly associated group of perceptible qualities.

Bishop George Berkeley (16851753), a theistic idealist and opponent of materialism, applied Lockes empiricism about concepts to refute Lockes account of human knowledge of the external world. Because Berkeley was convinced that in sense experience one is never aware of anything but what he called ideas (mind-dependent qualities), he drew and embraced the inevitable conclusion that physical objects are simply collections of perceived ideas, a position that ultimately leads to phenomenalismi.e., to the view that propositions about physical reality are reducible to propositions about actual and possible sensations. He accounted for the continuity and orderliness of the world by supposing that its reality is upheld in the perceptions of an unsleeping God. The theory of spiritual substance involved in Berkeleys position seems to be vulnerable, however, to most of the same objections as those that he posed against Locke. Although Berkeley admitted that he did not have an idea of mind (either his own or the mind of God), he claimed that he was able to form what he called a notion of it. It is not clear how to reconcile the existence of such notions with a thoroughgoing empiricism about concepts.

The Scottish skeptical philosopher David Hume (171176) fully elaborated Lockes empiricism and used it reductively to argue that there can be no more to the concepts of body, mind, and causal connection than what occurs in the experiences from which they arise. Like Berkeley, Hume was convinced that perceptions involve no constituents that can exist independently of the perceptions themselves. Unlike Berkeley, he could find neither an idea nor a notion of mind or self, and as a result his radical empiricism contained an even more parsimonious view of what exists. While Berkeley thought that only minds and their ideas exist, Hume thought that only perceptions exist and that it is impossible to form an idea of anything that is not a perception or a complex of perceptions. For Hume all necessary truth is formal or conceptual, determined by the various relations that hold between ideas.

Voltaire (16941778) imported Lockes philosophy into France. Its empiricism, in a very stark form, became the basis of sensationalism, in which all of the constituents of human mental life are analyzed in terms of sensations alone.

A genuinely original and clarifying attempt to resolve the controversy between empiricists and their opponents was made in the transcendental idealism of Kant, who drew upon both Hume and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (16461716). With the dictum that, although all knowledge begins with experience it does not all arise from experience, he established a clear distinction between the innate and the a priori. He held that there are a priori concepts, or categoriessubstance and cause being the most importantand also substantial or synthetic a priori truths. Although not derived from experience, the latter apply to experience. A priori concepts and propositions do not relate to a reality that transcends experience; they reflect, instead, the minds way of organizing the amorphous mass of sense impressions that flow in upon it.

Lockean empiricism prevailed in 19th-century England until the rise of Hegelianism in the last quarter of the century (see also Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel). To be sure, the Scottish philosophers who followed Hume but avoided his skeptical conclusions insisted that humans do have substantial a priori knowledge. But the philosophy of John Stuart Mill (180673) is thoroughly empiricist. He held that all knowledge worth having, including mathematics, is empirical. The apparent necessity and aprioricity of mathematics, according to Mill, is the result of the unique massiveness of its empirical confirmation. All real knowledge for Mill is inductive and empirical, and deduction is sterile. (It is not clear that Mill consistently adhered to this position, however. In both his epistemology and his ethics, he sometimes seemed to recognize the need for first principles that could be known without proof.) The philosopher of evolution Herbert Spencer (18201903) offered another explanation of the apparent necessity of some beliefs: they are the well-attested (or naturally selected) empirical beliefs inherited by living humans from their evolutionary ancestors. Two important mathematicians and pioneers in the philosophy of modern physics, William Kingdon Clifford (184579) and Karl Pearson (18571936), defended radically empiricist philosophies of science, anticipating the logical empiricism of the 20th century.

The most influential empiricist of the 20th century was the great British philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell (18721970). Early in his career Russell admitted both synthetic a priori knowledge and concepts of unobservable entities. Later, through discussions with his pupil Ludwig Wittgenstein (18891951), Russell became convinced that the truths of logic and mathematics are analytic and that logical analysis is the essence of philosophy. In his empiricist phase, Russell analyzed concepts in terms of what one is directly acquainted with in experience (where experience was construed broadly enough to include not only awareness of sense data but also awareness of properties construed as universals). In his neutral monist phase, he tried to show that even the concepts of formal logic are ultimately empirical, though the experience that supplies them may be introspective instead of sensory.

Doctrines developed by Russell and Wittgenstein influenced the German-American philosopher Rudolf Carnap (18911970) and the Vienna Circle, a discussion group in which the philosophy of logical positivism was developed. The empirical character of logical positivism is especially evident in its formulation of what came to be known as the verification principle, according to which a sentence is meaningful only if it is either tautologous or in principle verifiable on the basis of sense experience.

Later developments in epistemology served to make some empiricist ideas about knowledge and justification more attractive. One of the traditional problems faced by more radical forms of empiricism was that they seemed to provide too slender a foundation upon which to justify what humans think they know. If sensations can occur in the absence of physical objects, for example, and if what one knows immediately is only the character of ones own sensations, how can one legitimately infer knowledge of anything else? Hume argued that the existence of a sensation is not a reliable indicator of anything other than itself. In contrast, adherents of a contemporary school of epistemology known as externalism have argued that sensations (and other mental states) can play a role in justifying what humans think they know, even though the vast majority of humans are unaware of what that role is. The crude idea behind one form of externalism, reliablism, is that a belief is justified when it is produced through a reliable processi.e., a process that reliably produces true beliefs. Humans may be evolutionarily conditioned to respond to certain kinds of sensory stimuli with a host of generally true, hence justified, beliefs about their environment. Thus, within the framework of externalist epistemology, empiricism might not lead so easily to skepticism.

See more here:

empiricism | philosophy | Britannica.com

Surrealism is celebrating its 100th birthday this year. The poet Guillaume Apollinaire coined the term to describe his play Les Mamelles de Tiresias (The Teats of Tiresias), which opened in a small Parisian theater in 1917. Beginning with an actress removing her breasts and ending early with an unscripted riot featuring a pistol-flailing audience member the play launched a movement that long convulsed French art and politics.

The centenary arrives in a surreal news environment. Indeed, among the dozens of isms used to explain the Trump presidency from isolationism and pluto-populism to narcissism and authoritarianism none does a better job than surrealism in capturing the current mood.

Andre Breton, the Pope of Surrealism, defined it as a psychic automatism in its pure state exempt from any moral concern. In his First Manifesto of Surrealism, Breton railed against rationalism and the reign of logic. Clarity and coherence lost bigly to the tumult of unconscious desires, while civility and courtesy were for bourgeois losers. Upping the ante in his Second Manifesto, he claimed the simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down into the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger, into the crowd.

Unarmed Surrealists were content to brandish their ids. What was once the stuff of repression was now ripe for expression. Everything that welled up into the conscious mind flowed across paper and canvas. The true Surrealist turns his mind into a receptacle, refusing to favor one group of words over another. Instead, it is up to the miraculous equivalent to intervene.

Or not. As a sober reader finds, most Surrealist literature is unreadable. The precursor to Surrealism, the Romanian Tristan Tzara, famously composed poems by cutting words from a newspaper, tossing them into a bag, pulling them out and reciting them one by one. The result, Tzara declared, will resemble you. (Perhaps thats true if you happen to be crashed on your kitchen floor, sleeping off an all-night bender.) As for Breton, he favored automatic writing by becoming a recording machine for his unconscious. The final product, he beamed, shines by its extreme degree of immediate absurdity.

Trumpian word salads bear the surrealist seal of absurdity. In Exquisite Corpse a Surrealist exercise aimed at unleashing the unconscious you write a word on a piece of paper, pass it to your neighbor who jots a second word without looking at the first word, and so on. This led to sentences like The exquisite/corpse/shall drink/the new/wine. Trumps gift of free association His one problem is he didnt go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death allows him to play a solitaire variation of the game.

A French translator recently marveled that Trump seems to have thematic clouds in his head that he would pick from with no need of a logical thread to link them. This is true not just of his speech, but also of his governing strategy.

Igniting a reaction similar to those following Marcel Duchamp entering a urinal at an art show, Trump has exhibited his Surrealist aesthetic in bureaucratic Washington. But he subverts ready-made expectations instead of ready-made objects. With a Surrealist flair for showmanship worthy of Salvador Dali, he randomly pairs titles and individuals. Thus, his son-in-law, a New York real estate developer, plays Middle East envoy one day, opioid crisis czar the next. Trumps claim that if Jared Kushner cannot bring peace to the Middle East, no one can expresses the Surrealist conviction that where reason and strategy have failed, unreason and whim will prevail.

The same aesthetic lies behind or, rather, below the Wall. Its failure to make economic, strategic or diplomatic sense is not beside the point; it is the point. Its raison dtre is to shock the political establishment and to give shape to what, until now, had been the repressed desires of Trumps base. Think of it not as a real security measure, but as a virtual sculpture that will allow its audience to touch, and not just talk about their phobias. Like a Surrealist object, the Wall is a shape-shifter opaque or transparent, continuous or discontinuous, topped with barbed wire or solar panels and expresses the Surrealist values of excess and extravagance, aggression and transgression.

In the end, Trumpism, like Surrealism, seeks to force reality to conform to individual desires, no matter how illicit, illegal or simply outrageous. This might work aesthetically, even financially just ask Dali, whose name Breton turned into the anagram Avida Dollars and, it seems, politically. But, one can hope, only in the short term.

Eventually, Surrealisms revolt against the reality-based community ended with a whimper, with its art relegated to post-dinner games and dorm room posters. One day, perhaps, politicians will look back on Trumpism in the same dismissive way.

Robert Zaretsky teaches at the University of Houston and is finishing a book on Catherine the Great and the French Enlightenment. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

Continued here:

Zaretsky: The best 'ism' to explain our time - Daily Commercial

Adelaide's independent news Get InDaily in your inbox. Daily. Subscribe

Adelaide Tuesday August 15, 2017

SA Health has commissioned consultants to evaluate the biggest hospital system overhaul in the states history. But one conclusion is already inescapable: Transforming Health has fractured the vital relationship between SAs doctors and the bureaucrats who employ them.

Transforming Health came with more buzz than the release of a new Apple product, says South Australian Salaried Medical Officers Association (SASMOA) senior industrial officer Bernadette Mulholland.

More than 600 medical staff and interested parties packed the Adelaide Convention Centre in November 2014 to hear the about the massive change planned for South Australias hospital system, and to be heard.

But as major changes began to roll through the system, doctors enthusiasm soured into suspicion.

The trust of clinicians and community so necessary to implement such broad sweeping changes was quickly eroded as it became clear that the focus by Government and SA Health prioritised economic rationalism rather than clinical, patient and community (outcomes), says Mulholland.

Within a short period, clinicians questioned the motivation of the Transforming Health (program) and recognised the potential devastation of health services to their local community and adverse clinical outcomes.

What absolutely concerned me was the damage that was caused to the relationship between the administration and medical officers.

Data provided by SA Health didnt match what some doctors believed to be happening on the ground, and when concerns about the accuracy of data were raised, many felt they were not being listened to.

Clinicians felt under pressure from administrators who now referred to clinicians providing any opposition as naysayers and dismissed any feedback that did not support change.

The process undermined trust and created a divide between Government and clinicians which wont be forgotten for some years.

Trust in the administration now lost through this process will be difficult to earn back from many clinicians.

SA Health has held regular forums to discuss Transforming Health with unions including SASMOA, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) and the Ambulance Employees Association (AEA) throughout the process.

But, according to Mulholland, in all the time that (SA Health CEO) Vickie Kaminski has been in that job, weve met her twice.

Asked how SA Health had allowed the relationship to deteriorate so dramatically, Kaminski told InDaily that different unions had responded to the process differently, and that many doctors have been highly supportive of Transforming Health.

SASMOAs had a tougher time wrapping their head around it (than other unions) but I think thats because its individuals, its I understand it (doctors) livelihood, its their place of work and youre changing that.

Transforming Health clinical ambassador Dorothy Keefe tells InDaily: There are many members of SASMOA who are actually very supportive of whats happening.

And I think SASMOAs been struggling a bit because of the differing views within its own membership. Of course, unhappiness makes better media than happiness.

Mulholland tells InDaily she is disappointed the administration is still bashing SASMOA.

It isnt constructive. I find it unhelpful, she says.

It maintains the relationship that we dont want.

Its clear, however, that any large-scale hospitals overhaul was never going to be easy for SA Health to manage.

Late last year, the department accepted the recommendations of a scathing review into the operations of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, which oversees the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, among others.

That report found medical staff were largely resistant to change, instead retaining a culture which is rooted in a mid-20th century view of the profession, of their relationship with the organisation and of care delivery.

There was no stigma against clinicians assuming someone else will take up the mantle of change management.

And when effective medical leadership is absent, change is inevitably difficult, lacks traction and sustainability, and is often associated with overt displays of anger and sometimes unprofessional behaviour.

Many doctors interviewed for the review reported that theirs was a resistant culture, a culture which rewarded and encouraged stasis rather than genuine change and a culture which had failed to come to grips with the reality of a resource constrained system.

There were, however, some clear exceptions to the change-resistant culture the report describes, characterised by the effective leadership of doctors who as a result have been able to bring others to a shared view that change is both important and desirable.

The problem for South Australias ambulance service, meanwhile, has not been the pace of change, but the lack thereof.

With major specialist services to be consolidated within the states largest hospitals under Transforming Health, more patients would have to travel farther, often in ambulances, to receive Best Care. First Time. Every Time. (as the Transforming Health mantra goes).

The ambulance service was to be a major beneficiary of the program.

A $16 million package was promised, with new ambulance stations, new vehicles and more paramedics to help the ambulance service cope.

However, asked to describe the major successes of Transforming Health, Ambulance Employees Association General Secretary Phil Palmer tells InDaily, from an ambulance perspective, none at this stage.

We dont have any extra boots on the ground yet, due to (SA Health) / Treasury refusing to release funds until it was too late.

Recruiting should have started 18 months ago at least but did not start until early this year.

It requires a 12-month long internship to make a degree-qualified graduate road-ready, with authority to practice as a paramedic.

Palmer says paramedics workload continues to climb and it is already beyond SA Ambulance capacity to cope.

Blown-out response times are now the norm, and there have already been two deaths that had 23-minute plus responses to cases that should have been attended in eight minutes, he says.

(Transforming Health) has created more need for patient transfers, but no extra resources to meet increased demand.

Premier Jay Weatherills announcement in June that Transforming Health would come to an end with the opening of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital (early next month) and the closure of the Repat (due before the end of the year) came as a surprise to the AEA.

We heard it in the news, says Palmer.

We do not at all accept that the process is complete.

There has been no improvement in patient flow through hospitals; the discharge system remains inefficient, emergency departments are more overcrowded than ever, and ramping is the worst we have ever seen in South Australia.

The policy formerly known as Transforming Health was rebranded well before its work was done.

The negative public reaction was a result of the failure of (SA Health) to bring their workforce, and the public, with them.

Evidence-based change was gazumped by opinion polling.

From the beginning, nurses were expected to be among the major losers out of Transforming Health.

South Australia has the highest number of nurses per head of population in the country a fact noted regularly in public statements by Health Minister Jack Snelling.

But Weatherill told ABC Radio Adelaide this morning that his government was proud of that fact and major clear-out of nurses simply hasnt come to pass in South Australia, or not yet.

ANMF SA Branch CEO Elizabeth Dabars said late last year that her union had secured a commitment from the State Government that there would be no forced redundancies of nurses as a result of Transforming Health.

Kaminski tells InDaily jobnumbers have been going in the opposite direction: Theres been displacement, where nurses have moved around the system, (but) I think overall were trending up.

Wed like to, at some point, get down to the national average, but what were trying to do right now is the location of service, and being able to make sure were able to have the right service, right place, right time.

Kaminski said the evaluation of Transforming Health would shed further light on the outcomes of the program.

We have engaged people to do that evaluation for us, to be objective and third-party, she said.

Were asking them to be frank.

This is the second in InDailys two-part series on Transforming Health.

You can read part one here.

Loading next article

More:

Transforming Health: The divisive wash-up - InDaily