Process Reliabilism: A Case Study

These processes are not performed in isolation. The end result relies heavily on the satisfactory completion of all processes and the communication of all functional areas involved. By viewing these processes as a whole, management can identify process inefficiencies. These inefficiencies may include delays or queuing at process bottlenecks, lack of control or checking, or places responsibility for process activities is not clear.

Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.

Empiricism and positivism are two major characteristics of received view. McEwen and Wills (2007) state that “empiricism is founded on the belief that what is experienced is what exists” (p. 515). In other words, one’s experiences determine what we know. This knowledge from our experiences, must be confirmed by scientific support. McEwen and Wills (2007) go on to say that “these experiences be verified through scientific methodology” (p.8).

For organizations like Tesco’s, validity is considered more important than reliability because if a process does not precisely measure what it is supposed to, there is no use of it and therefore it being reliable is useless.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

The verification principle is known to be one of the most discredited and flawed theories of the 21st century. The major flaw

Page 1: Delaware, Randolph, Jay, Allen, Wayne, Hancock, Henry, Madison And Huntington Counties, process server - http://www.munciebailbonds.com/process_server.html

A process evaluation is a tool utilized to identify the key components of intervention that are effective and under what conditions. Additionally it also evaluates the extent to which a program is being implemented as planned. A process evaluation can be broken down into six steps which are depicted in the diagram below. In order to engage stake holders the process must begin at the evaluation cycle. Stakeholders in regards to our program include those who are directly involved with program operations. This includes the staff utilized to procure supplies and equipment, those involved in the delivery of supplies equipment, those who distribute educational materials, those that perform diabetic testing and those that interact with the target

the likelihood of errors while avoiding the trap of focusing on mistakes by individuals” (AHRQ,

In this paper, I will first discuss what the basic argument of skepticism is all about, then I will provide the defense of the argument: the three cases (Judy/Trudy Case, Crow/Raven and Coke/ Generic Coke case). After that, I will talk about the responses to the argument, specifically about the criticisms from Descartes and Moore; how Moore feels that perceptual evidence is enough and we can reject premise 1 and how descartes thinks that we can rule out the skeptical scenarios with our evidence. Finally, I’ll provide my opinion on all this and what I personally have to say about skepticism, whether I am a skeptic or not or if I reject either of the premises.

It cannot be justified or foreseen. Like in the short story Simplexity, the author explains how a simple evacuation of a building can turn into complete chaos and complexity. The evacuation of the Twin Towers of New York City had been tested and simulated a hundred times over but the final problem every time was that no computer could generate the actions and person would do under the stress of living or dying. This is simple because a computer cannot feel, or create feelings. Under the simple cognitive emotions of nervousness, fear, and surprise, people will react is sometimes meaningless ways that no one or computer can recognize and respond

Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine

Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat