Following the dissolution of the SFRY, and in the light of new social circumstances, the religious communities have new social status and new social role; they have come out from the private sphere and found its place in the public one. Religious tolerance is more significant in the context of desecularization of social life, both for the religious communities themselves, and for other social actors and the society as a whole. With this in mind, the goal of this paper is (...) to analyze theoretical views and definitions of the notion of religious tolerance in the papers of domestic authors- philosophers, representatives of social sciences as well as theologians. In addition to the analysis of the impact of social context, the relation between monotheism and in/tolerance is also analyzed, whereas a doctrinaire aspect, i.e. the content of the sacred texts, is contemplated as well. A consideration is given to the possible subjects of the religious tolerance, and a problem of paternalism is pointed out in the speeches on religion stressing the importance of the mutual appreciation and respect among the actors of the dialogue communication. In accordance with the current views on im/possibility of the tolerance among different denominations, that is, religions, due to their different standpoints on the man's path to salvation, emphasize is given to the difference between valuing cognition and valuing an actor - individuals, communities and social groups. (shrink)

The paper addresses the issue and theoretical articulations of religious tolerance, overviewing theoretical approaches of various authors - starting with the period of enlightenment. In that sense, we analyze the standpoints of John Locke, François Marie Arouet, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, Andrew Heywood, John Rawls, Žolt Lazar, Aleksandar Prnjat and Đuro Šušnjić. At the end of the paper we give a short summary of the 18th century Habsburg Monarchy relation towards freedom of religious beliefs, bearing in mind minority (...) status of the Serbian community of Orthodox religion. (shrink)

The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncritically accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes are (...) influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher’s degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants' readiness to question the scientific method. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship between epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism on the one hand, and career stage and sociopolitical views on the other hand. Interestingly, our study found only small correlations between the participants' degree of conservatism and their epistemic attitudes. This suggests that political views, against common argumentation, actually do not play an important role in one’s scientific decisions. Moreover, social scientists scored higher on the epistemic tolerance and lower on the epistemic authoritarianism scale than natural scientists. Finally, the results indicate that natural scientists question the scientific method less than social scientists. (shrink)

The longstanding tension between the procedural and instrumental justification of democracy has been challenged by the theories that try to combine both approaches. These theories portray epistemic features of democracy in an instrumental framework and then try to reconcile them with procedural values. In this paper, I argue that it is possible to incorporate an epistemic dimension into a justification of democracy, without resorting to instrumentalism. On the view that I advance, Peircean epistemology, when combined with intrinsically valued epistemic virtues, (...) constitutes a purely procedural argument for democracy. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet’s jury theorem is, and to examine its central assumptions, its significance to the epistemic theory of democracy and its connection with Rousseau’s theory of general will. In the first part of the paper I will analyze an epistemic theory of democracy and explain how its connection with Condorcet’s jury theorem is twofold: the theorem is at the same time a contributing historical source, and the model used by the authors to (...) this day. In the second part I will specify the purposes of the theorem itself, and examine its underlying assumptions. Third part will be about an interpretation of Rousseau’s theory, which is given by Grofman and Feld relying on Condorcet’s jury theorem, and about criticisms of such interpretation. In the fourth, and last, part I will focus on one particular assumption of Condorcet’s theorem, which proves to be especially problematic if we would like to apply the theorem under real-life conditions; namely, the assumption that voters choose between two options only. (shrink)

Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another,without prior consultation and for the sake of her epistemic good. We will examine two main types of epistemic paternalism: eudaimonic and strict. In the case of eudaimonic epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is used only as a means to achieve non-epistemic benefits. In the case of strict epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is valued as a good in itself. The main objection against each type of epistemic paternalism is (...) that this practice leads to a violation of personal autonomy. We will defend a more moderate form of strict epistemic paternalism which is motivated by both epistemic and non-epistemic benefits. At the same time, this moderate form leads to the development of specific epistemic virtues, which results in an increase rather than a violation of personal autonomy. We will show that the question of the justification of epistemic paternalism is especially relevant in crises, such as the current pandemic caused by the covid-19 virus. (shrink)

The question of when to stop an unsuccessful experiment can be difficult to answer from an individual perspective. To help to guide these decisions, we turn to the social epistemology of science and investigate knowledge inquisition within a group. We focused on the expensive and lengthy experiments in high energy physics, which were suitable for citation-based analysis because of the relatively quick and reliable consensus about the importance of results in the field. In particular, we tested whether the time spent (...) on a scientific project correlates with the project output. Our results are based on data from the high energy physics laboratory Fermilab. They point out that there is an epistemic saturation point in experimenting, after which the likelihood of obtaining major results drops. With time the number of less significant publications does increase, but highly cited ones do not get published. Since many projects continue to run after the epistemic saturation point, it becomes clearer that decisions made about continuing them are not always rational. (shrink)

In this paper, the author presents Jaspers’ view of the relationship between the state and university. According to Jaspers, universities should be free from any state control. Jaspers’ attitudes are mostly normative. According to Jaspers, the very existence of the institution of universities means that the state strives to provide a space where truth can be investigated, a space that would be independent of any kind of influence. Therefore, according to Jaspers, there is a certain tension, or even hostility, between (...) the state and university. Although Jaspers is aware that freedom to investigate at university may be abused, in the sense that teachers may become indolent, he believes that it is a risk worth taking. As far as political conflict is concerned, it can be a research topic at university, but university must not be an arena for political fighting. Jaspers indicates that, although every university belongs to a certain nation, its mission is supranational. Because of this, universities must not take sides in the struggle between nations. National issues may be investigated alongside other subjects; however, according to Jaspers, national issues must never become the objective and purpose of the existence of universities. (shrink)

[1] If asked to name career diplomats who have tackled some very difficult international crises, many foreign policy makers would put Richard Holbrooke near the top of the list. Not many negotiators have wielded moral principle, power, and reason as well as Holbrooke. His book on the Bosnia negotiations leading up to the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement is timely, given the ethnic cleansing that is being carried out in Kosovo, a southern province of Yugoslavia's Serb Republic. Once again we are (...) faced with unrest in the Balkans. We have seen the daily newspaper headlines change from "24 Albanian Men Killed in Kosovo" and "Hopes Fade for New Kosovo Talks" to "NATO Air Campaign Expanded" and "Chinese Embassy Bombed in Belgrade." Although talk of "Bosnian Muslims," "the Bosnian Army" and "Srebrenica' has been replaced with "Kosovars," "the Kosovo Liberation Army," and "Rogovo," two of the main actors in the Bosnia negotiations have returned to put their stamp on the Kosovo negotiations: President Slobodan Milosevic and U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke. Unfortunately, Holbrooke's words that begin the last paragraph of his book seem to have come true: "There will be other Bosnias in our lives." With that in mind, Holbrooke's book will best he appreciated as a harbinger of things to come in Kosovo and elsewhere. (shrink)

This paper analyzes several significant polemics in Serbian philosophy, published in philosophical journals and daily papers during past two decades. These are polemics between Milorad Belančić and Slobodan Žunjić, Nenad Daković and Slobodan Žunjić, and Mihailo Marković and Aleksandar Prnjat, respectively. In the first polemic, the two authors discuss the ontological status of several philosophical terms; in the second one, authors negotiate the importance of translating and publishing F. Copleston's A History of Philosophy, whilst in the third polemic, (...) the two philosophers discuss the problem of paternalism, suggesting redefinition of some aspects of this problem. (shrink)