Search

This article evaluates an emerging element in popular debate and inquiry: DYOR. (Haven't heard of the acronym? Then Do Your Own Research.) The slogan is flexible and versatile. It is used frequently on social media platforms about topics from medical science to financial investing to conspiracy theories. Using conceptual and empirical resources drawn from philosophy and psychology, we examine key questions about the slogan's operation in human cognition and epistemic culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existentialism centres reflection upon the bodily existence of the human person. Generally, however, theological anthropology has struggled to manage developments in biological and psychological sciences that have made clear the pluriformity of human embodiment. The work of the social sciences has also increased the visibility of minority, disadvantaged, or neglected persons. Theological anthropology must begin to conceive of an inclusive, non-static understanding of human nature that fully acknowledges the integrity and the diverse identities of the human subject. To riposte, this article utilises the interplay between phenomenology and theology in the work of the contemporary philosopher-theologian Jean-Luc Marion. Marion undeniably sees the root of the human in the concrete free person; he recognises an ever-receding, indefinable horizon towards which the incomprehensible existence of the subjective phenomenon is universally oriented. In this article I focus on how a combination of the theology of the subject and its existential orientation, realised through the freedom of incomprehensibility à la Marion, may provide a dynamic basis for understanding human nature at a time when subjective diversity is ever more asserted.

Experts are usually valued for their knowledge. However, do they possess metaknowledge, that is, knowing how much they know as well as the limits of that knowledge? The current research examined expert metaknowledge by comparing experts' and nonexperts' confidence when they made correct versus incorrect choices as well as the difference in‐between (e.g., Murphy's Resolution and Yate's Separation). Across three fields of expertise (climate science, psychological statistics, and investment), we found that experts tended to display better metaknowledge than nonexperts but still showed systematic and important imperfections. They were less overconfident than nonexperts in general and expressed more confidence in their correct answers. However, they tend to exhibit low Murphy's Resolution similar to nonexperts and gave endorsed wrong answers with equal to higher confidence than did their nonexpert peers. Thus, it appears that expertise is associated with knowing with more certainty what one knows but conceals awareness of what one does not know. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Team meetings are an integral, yet potentially underutilized management strategy in many dental practices throughout the country. Team meetings promote team unity, better efficiency and productivity, and stronger relationships, as [...]

The article discusses the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary team teaching in a freshman program. The authors, who are historians of science, explain how their training in the history of science has been valuable in teaching courses on various topics. They emphasize the importance of making insider knowledge explicit to non-specialist audiences and opening up disciplinary practices for examination. The authors also highlight the role of historians of science in bringing unspoken assumptions to the surface and helping students make methodological and conceptual choices. They argue that an interdisciplinary perspective can enhance traditional disciplinary teaching and advocate for institutional support for interdisciplinary programs. [Extracted from the article]

Dental practice management literature is rich with advice-based articles and essays about the importance of performance appraisals and performance feedback, and 'how to' manage the performance of staff members in [...]