There is a long-standing tradition of questioning the viability and scientificity of first-person methods. Husserlian reflective methodology, in particular, has been challenged on the basis of its perceived inability to meet the standards of objectivity and reliability, leading to what has been called “phenomenological skepticism” ( Roy, 2007 ). In this article, I reassess this line of objection by outlining Daniel C. Dennett’s empirically driven skepticism and reconstructing his methodological arguments against Husserlian phenomenology. His ensuing phenomenological skepticism is divided into (...) strong skepticism and categorical and gradual versions of weak skepticism. Both strands of Dennett’s criticism are then countered by analyzing the key components of Husserl’s method of phenomenological reflection: epoché and transcendental reduction, intentional analysis, eidetic variation, and intersubjective validation. Laying out the basic features of phenomenological reflection serves two purposes. First, it undermines Dennett’s methodological arguments, which are based on the unfounded assumptions that Husserl is committed to introspection, methodological solipsism, the first-person-plural presumption, and the lone-wolf approach. Second, it shows how Husserl’s own methodology can alleviate the more justified empirical worries concerning overinterpretation, underdescription, and disagreement. Finally, I argue that gradual weak skepticism is the only plausible form of phenomenological skepticism and conclude that Husserlian methodology is well-equipped to combat it. (shrink)

In an overview of the essays in this project, a number of clinical ethics issues receive emphasis. (1) One cluster concerns the ethical concerns presented within the relationship between the providers (doctor, nurse, etc.) and patient (and family), as distinct from those associated with being a clinical ethics consultant invited into a situation to assist. (2) Distinct from these are ethical issues intrinsic to the ways in which clinical encounters are variously written about (from chart notes to published articles). (3) (...) Finally, there is a set of issues connected with the major characteristics of clinical encounters, in view of which it is imperative to be specifically attentive to the fine details and complex interactions among patient, doctor, family, and others, within a specific social context. Keeping these matters in mind helps to clarify the differences between consulting (talking and listening) and writing about consultations, as well as among the various kinds of writing about clinical encounters. (shrink)