Develops a theory of the modern state based on trust, drawing on Law, History and Social Science.

Challenges the assumption of the rationality of foreign policy makers in international relations, showing how leaders systematically vary in the rationality of their thinking.

"Ethics boards have become obligatory passage points in today's medical science, and we forget how novel they really are. The use of humans in experiments is an age-old practice that records show goes back to at least the third century BC and, since the early modern period, as a practice it has become increasingly popular. Yet, in most countries around the world, hardly any formal checks and balances existed to govern the communal oversight of experiments involving human subjects until at least the 1960s. Ethics by Committee traces the rise of ethics boards for human experimentation in the second half of the twentieth century. Using the Netherlands as a case-study, Noortje Jacobs shows how the authority of physicians to make decisions about clinical research gave way in most developed nations to formal mechanisms of communal decision-making that served to regiment the behavior of individual researchers. This historically unprecedented change in scientific governance came out of a growing international wariness of medical research in the decades after World War II. Research ethics committees were originally intended not only to make human experimentation more ethical but also to raise its epistemic quality. By examining complex negotiations over the appropriate governance of human subjects research, Ethics by Committee advances our understanding not only of the history of research ethics and the randomized controlled trial but also, more broadly, of how liberal democracies in the late twentieth century have sought to resolve public concerns over charged issues in medicine and science"--

Examines the emergence of Brazilian psychiatry during a period of national regeneration, demonstrating how sociopolitical negotiations can shape psychiatric professionalization

This book is designed to engage students' interest and promote their writing abilities while teaching them to think critically and creatively. Dowden takes an activist stance on critical thinking, asking students to create and revise arguments rather than simply recognizing and criticizing them. His book emphasizes inductive reasoning and the analysis of individual claims in the beginning, leaving deductive arguments for consideration later in the course.

Case-based reasoning is one of the fastest growing areas in the field of knowledge-based systems and this book, authored by a leader in the field, is the first comprehensive text on the subject. Case-based reasoning systems are systems that store information about situations in their memory. As new problems arise, similar situations are searched out to help solve these problems. Problems are understood and inferences are made by finding the closest cases in memory, comparing and contrasting the problem with those cases, making inferences based on those comparisons, and asking questions when inferences can't be made. This book presents the state of the art in case-based reasoning. The author synthesizes and analyzes a broad range of approaches, with special emphasis on applying case-based reasoning to complex real-world problem-solving tasks such as medical diagnosis, design, conflict resolution, and planning. The author's approach combines cognitive science and engineering, and is based on analysis of both expert and common-sense tasks. Guidelines for building case-based expert systems are provided, such as how to represent knowledge in cases, how to index cases for accessibility, how to implement retrieval processes for efficiency, and how to adapt old solutions to fit new situations. This book is an excellent text for courses and tutorials on case-based reasoning. It is also a useful resource for computer professionals and cognitive scientists interested in learning more about this fast-growing field.

Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning peculiar to law. Legal decision makers engage in the same modes of reasoning that all actors use in deciding what to do: open-ended moral reasoning, empirical reasoning, and deduction from authoritative rules. This book addresses common law reasoning when prior judicial decisions determine the law, and interpretation of texts. In both areas, the popular view that legal decision makers practise special forms of reasoning is false.