Spätestens mit der 1992er Rio Declaration on Environment and Development hat sich der Begriff „Ökosystemintegrität“ als Leitprinzip internationaler Umweltpolitik etabliert. Seinen Ursprung hat dieser Begriff in Bestrebungen in Kanada und den USA, mit Hilfe der positiven Konnotationen des aus der menschlich-sozialen Sphäre stammenden Begriffs der „Integrität“ die Wertschätzung und den Schutz von Natur zu fördern. Die Kombination mit dem Begriff „Ökosystem“ ergibt sich aus der Absicht, eine zugleich integrativ-holistische und naturwissenschaftlich-empirische Bewertungsmöglichkeit zu etablieren – anstelle einer entweder naturwissenschaftlich-reduktionistischen oder spirituell-holistischen (...) Betrachtungsweise. In diesem Aufsatz wird zunächst der Entstehungskontext des Begriffs der Ökosystemintegrität beleuchtet, um dann vier konkurrierende Begriffsbestimmungen vorzustellen: Ökosystemintegrität als Fähigkeit eines Ökosystems, seinen ursprünglichen Zustand, seine intrinsische Funktionalität bzw. innere Zweckmäßigkeit oder seine extrinsische Funktionalität bzw. äußere Zweckmäßigkeit aufrechtzuerhalten, sowie, übergeordnet, ökologische Integrität als transpersonal-planetarisches Bewusstsein der Eingebundenheit des Menschen in das planetarische Ökosystem. Diese vier Konzepte werden zunächst – deskriptiv – im Hinblick auf die ihnen zugrunde liegenden naturwissenschaftlichen Theorien und naturtheoretischen Prämissen sowie auf ihren normativen Gehalt analysiert. Dann wird – normativ – ihre Eignung als umweltethisches Leitprinzip geprüft. Epistemologische Kriterien für die Auswahl dieser vier Begriffsbestimmungen waren: Werden Ökosysteme bzw. Ökosystemintegrität im Sinne eines ontologischen Realismus als beobachterunabhängige oder aber im Sinne eines ontologischen Konstruktivismus als beobachterabhängige Entitäten bzw. Eigenschaft begriffen? Was wird als Referenz dafür angesehen, ob etwas abträglich für Ökosystemintegrität ist? Vor allem in normativer Hinsicht ist die Frage relevant: Werden Menschen bzw. Gesellschaften als getrennt von oder als Teile von Ökosystemen bestimmt? Gewählt wurden diese Kriterien, weil sie entscheidende Prämissen der vielen verschiedenen Konzepte von Ökosystemintegrität erschließen, die in umweltethischer Hinsicht normativ wirksam werden. Die vorliegende Analyse zeigt, dass alle vier Konzepte von „Ökosystemintegrität“ mit schwerwiegenden Einwänden konfrontiert und als umweltethisches Leitprinzip problematisch sind – vor allem, weil sie auf fragwürdigen ontologischen Voraussetzungen basieren. (shrink)

How can we draw the line between health and disease? This crucial question of demarcation has immense practical implications and has troubled scholars for ages. The question will be addressed in three steps. First, I will present an important contribution by Rogers and Walker who argue forcefully that no line can be drawn between health and disease. However, a closer analysis of their argument reveals that a line-drawing problem for disease-related features does not necessarily imply a line-drawing problem for disease (...) as such. The second step analyzes some alternative approaches to drawing the line between health and disease. While these approaches do not provide full answers to the question, they indicate that the line-drawing question should not be dismissed too hastily. The third step investigates whether the line-drawing problem can find its solution in the concept of suffering. In particular, I investigate whether returning to the origin of medicine, with the primary and ultimate goal of reducing suffering, may provide sources of demarcation between health and disease. In fact, the reason why we pay attention to particular phenomena as characteristics of disease, consider certain processes to be relevant, and specific functions are classified as dys-functions, is that they are related to suffering. Accordingly, using suffering as a criterion of demarcation between health and disease may hinder a wide range of challenges with modern medicine, such as unwarranted expansion of disease, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and medicalization. (shrink)

Radical embodied cognitive science (REC) tries to understand as much cognition as it can without positing contentful mental entities. Thus, in one prominent formulation, REC claims that content is involved neither in visual perception nor in any more elementary form of cognition. Arguments for REC tend to rely heavily on considerations of ontological parsimony, with authors frequently pointing to the difficulty of explaining content in naturalistically acceptable terms. However, many classic concerns about the difficulty of naturalizing content likewise threaten the (...) credentials of intentionality, which even advocates of REC take to be a fundamental feature of cognition. In particular, concerns about the explanatory role of content and about indeterminacy can be run on accounts of intentionality as well. Issues about explanation can be avoided, intriguingly if uncomfortably, by dramatically reconceptualizing or even renouncing the idea that intentionality can explain. As for indeterminacy, Daniel Hutto and Erik Myin point the way toward a response, appropriating an idea from Ruth Millikan. I take it a step further, arguing that attention to the ways that beliefs’ effects on behavior are modulated by background beliefs can help illuminate the facts that underlie their intentionality and content. (shrink)

Christopher Boorse’s Biostatistical Theory of Health has been the main contender among naturalistic accounts of health for the last 40 years. Yet, a recent criticism of this theory, presented by Elselijn Kingma, identifies a dilemma resulting from the BST’s conceptual linking of health and statistical typicality. Kingma argues that the BST either cannot accommodate the situation- specificity of many normal functions or cannot account for many situation-specific diseases. In this article, we expand upon with Daniel Hausman’s response to Kingma’s dilemma. (...) We propose that recalling Boorse’s specification that health is an intrinsic property of its bearers and explicating this intrinsic property in relation to the concept of homeostasis can illuminate how proponents of naturalistic accounts of health should deal with the situation- specificity of normal functions. We argue that beyond what Boorse and Hausman have delineated, the situation- specificity of normal function cannot be fully captured in a simple dichotomy between normal and abnormal environment or between relevant and irrelevant situations. By bringing homeostasis to the fore of the analysis of health, we set out a richer picture of what the various situations that affect living organisms’ functional performance can be. Accordingly, we provide a broader classification of these various situations which, we contend, better accounts for the main intuitions that philosophers of medicine have sought to accommodate than previous naturalistic theories of health. (shrink)

In the domain of ontology design as well as in Knowledge Representation, modeling universals is a challenging problem.Most approaches that have addressed this problem rely on Description Logics (DLs) but many difficulties remain, due to under-constrained representation which reduces the inferences that can be drawn and further causes problems in expressiveness. In mathematical logic and program checking, type theories have proved to be appealing but, so far they have not been applied in the formalization of ontologies. To bridge this gap, (...) we present in this paper a theory for representing ontologies in a dependently typed framework which relies on strong formal foundations including both a constructive logic and a functional type system. The language of this theory defines in a precise way what ontological primitives such as classes, relations, properties, etc., and thereof roles, are. The first part of the paper details how these primitives are defined and used within the theory. In a second part, we focus on the formalization of the role primitive. A review of significant role properties leads to the specification of a role profile and most of the remaining work details through numerous examples, how the proposed theory is able to fully satisfy this profile. It is demonstrated that dependent types can model several non-trivial aspects of roles including a formal solution for generalization hierarchies, identity criteria for roles and other contributions. A discussion is given on how the theory is able to cope with many of the constraints inherent in a good role representation. (shrink)

According to one large family of views, scientific explanations explain a phenomenon (such as an event or a regularity) by subsuming it under a general representation, model, prototype, or schema (see Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441; Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press; Darden (2006); Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific (...) explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 331–496). New York: Free Press; Kitcher (1989); Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25). My concern is with the minimal suggestion that an adequate philosophical theory of scientific explanation can limit its attention to the format or structure with which theories are represented. The representational subsumption view is a plausible hypothesis about the psychology of understanding. It is also a plausible claim about how scientists present their knowledge to the world. However, one cannot address the central questions for a philosophical theory of scientific explanation without turning one’s attention from the structure of representations to the basic commitments about the worldly structures that plausibly count as explanatory. A philosophical theory of scientific explanation should achieve two goals. The first is explanatory demarcation. It should show how explanation relates with other scientific achievements, such as control, description, measurement, prediction, and taxonomy. The second is explanatory normativity. It should say when putative explanations succeed and fail. One cannot achieve these goals without undertaking commitments about the kinds of ontic structures that plausibly count as explanatory. Representations convey explanatory information about a phenomenon when and only when they describe the ontic explanations for those phenomena. (shrink)