To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The epilogue concludes the book by summarizing the book’s key findings. In particular, it draws out five categories of implications following the book’s examination of coherence. These implications relate to fundamental aspects of international legal practice, including, crucially, to conceptual understandings of law, doctrine, epistemology, professional ethics in investor-state dispute settlement, and future institutional design in investor-state dispute settlement.
The International Law Commission has described the operation of the VCLT rule of interpretation as a ‘crucible’, whereby it is the combination of the interpretative principles contained in the VCLT rule that in each case yields the meaning of treaty provisions. Taking that view as its starting point, Chapter 4 points out that different interpretative VCLT principles may be assigned different weights in different cases, depending on the drafters’ constructed intention followed by the adjudicator in each case. The underlying idea, therefore, is that all these interpretative principles must hang together well and must be combined in a way that makes sense in the context of each case. This is a sign that considerations of coherence are apposite in the operation of the VCLT rule, acting as reasons that justify the above combination in each case and ultimately account for the outcome’s persuasiveness. In the process, the chapter identifies two key coherence-related processes: framing and normative contextualisation
Coherence is a highly valued notion in law and it is especially sought after in investor-state dispute settlement. At the same time, coherence is a largely underexplored concept in international law literature. The introductory chapter serves to set the stage for the book’s investigation. To that end, the chapter outlines: (i) the impetus behind the choice of coherence as a subject for inquiry; (ii) the principal, so-called ‘bottom-up’ perspective from which the subject of coherence is examined in the book; and (iii) the core thesis advanced in relation to the dual, substantive and methodological, nature of coherence and its role in judicial reasoning in investor-state dispute settlement.
The question with which this chapter grapples is the following: What kind of a concept is coherence and what is its content? The chapter begins by a general introduction on concepts. Three different concept types are identified: criterial concepts, natural-kind concepts, and interpretative concepts. As coherence is clearly not a natural-kind concept, the chapter analyses coherence as a potential candidate concept of the criterial kind. It identifies three elements often associated with, and deemed necessary for, the existence of coherence in a legal setting, namely: consistency, correctness, and comprehensiveness. Incidentally, these are also key concerns regarding the existing ISDS regime as expressed by state delegations and scholars. The section ultimately concludes that none of the three elements is necessary for coherence to exist in non-ideal practical situations. Based on this examination, the chapter then shifts perspectives and characterises coherence as a concept of the interpretative kind. In so doing, the chapter makes a preliminary case for the existence of a dual, substantive and methodological, dimension of the interpretative concept of coherence
Chapter 7 addresses the following question: How can reflexivity be promoted in the collective context of investor-state dispute settlement, so as to help bridge individually held views by arbitrators that often come into competition or conflict with one another? The response that this chapter offers is that collective reflexivity can be promoted by acknowledging the presence of moral responsibility in arbitrators and by arbitrators committing to five distinct judicial virtues, namely: faith, humility, acquiescence, integrity, and candour. Judicial virtues are habits and mental dispositions, not an equation for the courtroom. They are thus meant as a framework offering guidelines and a roadmap to develop better deliberative practices. The chapter analyses the content of each virtue and assesses observable behaviour in investor-state dispute settlement under each of them.
This chapter establishes the strong link between coherence and legal reasoning. In so doing, it draws three main conclusions. A first conclusion is that legal reasoning is an instance of practical reasoning and practical deliberation. What this means, ultimately, is that when one reasons and argues about the content of the law one does not seek to discover truth in the same sense as when forming an opinion about the way things are in nature. Rather, the aim is to formulate a reasoned opinion and commit oneself to a specific course of action given the presence of a legal problem. A second conclusion is that, when understood as practical reasoning, legal reasoning exhibits certain coherence-related features. These are: (i) a web-like structure; (ii) the fact that rationality in legal reasoning does not depend only on logic but also on plausibility (or fit); and (iii) a purposive nature. A third conclusion is that coherence acts as a substantive and a methodological principle during legal reasoning, thus further confirming the dual dimension of coherence identified in Chapter 1.
Research endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria.
We report a mathematical result that casts doubt on the possibility of recalibration of probabilities using calibration curves. We then discuss how to interpret this result in the light of behavioral research.
Although the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses method (ACH) is a structured analytic technique promoted in several intelligence communities for improving the quality of probabilistic hypothesis testing, it has received little empirical testing. Whereas previous evaluations have used numerical evidence assumed to be perfectly accurate, in the present experiment we tested the effectiveness of ACH using a judgment task that presented participants with uncertain evidence varying in source reliability and information credibility. Participants (N = 227) assigned probabilities to two alternative hypotheses across six cases that systematically varied case features. Across multiple tests of coherence, the ACH group showed no advantage over a no-technique control group. Both groups showed evidence of subadditivity, unreliability, and overly conservative non-Bayesian judgments. The ACH group also showed pseudo-diagnostic weighting of evidence. The findings do not support the claim that ACH is effective at improving probabilistic judgment.
Many controversies in medical science can be framed as tension between a coherence approach (which seeks logic and explanation) and a correspondence approach (which emphasizes empirical correctness). In many instances, a coherence-based theory leads to an understanding of disease that is not supported by empirical evidence. Physicians and patients alike tend to favor the coherence approach even in the face of strong, contradictory correspondence evidence. Examples include the management of atrial fibrillation, treatment of acute bronchitis, and the use of Vitamin E to prevent heart disease. Despite the frequent occurrence of controversy stemming from coherence-correspondence conflicts, medical professionals are generally unaware of these terms and the philosophical traditions that underlie them. Learning about the coherence-correspondence distinction and using the best of both approaches could not only help reconcile controversy but also lead to striking advances in medical science.
Participants decided whom of two patients to prioritize for surgery in three studies. The factual quantitative information about the patients (e.g., probability of surviving surgery) was given in vignette form with case descriptions on Visual Analogue Scales — VAS’s. Differentiation and Consolidation theory predicts that not only the attractiveness of facts but also the mental representations of objective facts themselves will be restructured in post-decision processes in support of a decision (Svenson, 2003). After the decision, participants were asked to reproduce the objective facts about the patients. The results showed that distortions of objective facts were used to consolidate a prior decision. The consolidation process relied on facts initially favoring the non-chosen alternative and on facts rated as less, rather than more important.
Hammond (1996) argued that much of the research in the field of judgment and decision making (JDM) can be categorized as focused on either coherence or correspondence (C&C) and that, in order to understand the findings of the field, one needs to understand the differences between these two criteria. Hammond’s claim is that conclusions about the competence of judgments and decisions will depend upon the selection of coherence or correspondence as the criterion (Hammond, 2008). First, I provide an overview of the terms coherence and correspondence (C&C) as philosophical theories of truth and relate them to the field of JDM. Second, I provide an example of Hammond’s claim by examining literature on base rate neglect. Third, I examine Hammond’s claim as it applies to the broader field of JDM. Fourth, I critique Hammond’s claim and suggest that refinements to the C&C distinction are needed. Specifically, the C&C distinction 1) is more accurately applied to criteria than to researchers, 2) should be refined to include two important types of coherence (inter and intrapersonal coherence) and 3) neglects the third philosophical theory of truth, pragmatism. Pragmatism, as a class of criteria in JDM, is defined as goal attainment. In order to provide the most complete assessment of human judgment possible, and understand different findings in the field of JDM, all three criteria should be considered.
This paper introduces historical aspects of the concepts correspondence and coherence with emphasis on the nineteenth century when key aspects of modern science were emerging. It is not intended to be a definitive history of the concepts of correspondence and coherence as they have been used across the centuries in the field of inquiry that we now call science. Rather it is a brief history that highlights the apparent origins of the concepts and provides a discussion of how these concepts contributed to two important science related controversies. The first relates to aspects of evolution in which correspondence and coherence, as competing theories of truth, played a central role. The controversy about evolution continues into the beginning of the twenty-first century in forms that are recognizably similar to those of the middle of the nineteenth century. The second controversy relates to the etiology of blood-born infections (sepsis) during childbirth (childbed fever). In addition to correspondence and coherence, the authors introduce other theories of truth and discuss an evolutionarily cogent theory of truth, the pragmatic theory of truth.
A routine part of intelligence analysis is judging the probability of alternative hypotheses given available evidence. Intelligence organizations advise analysts to use intelligence-tradecraft methods such as Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to improve judgment, but such methods have not been rigorously tested. We compared the evidence evaluation and judgment accuracy of a group of intelligence analysts who were recently trained in ACH and then used it on a probability judgment task to another group of analysts from the same cohort that were neither trained in ACH nor asked to use any specific method. Although the ACH group assessed information usefulness better than the control group, the control group was a little more accurate (and coherent) than the ACH group. Both groups, however, exhibited suboptimal judgment and were susceptible to unpacking effects. Although ACH failed to improve accuracy, we found that recalibration and aggregation methods substantially improved accuracy. Specifically, mean absolute error (MAE) in analysts’ probability judgments decreased by 61% after first coherentizing their judgments (a process that ensures judgments respect the unitarity axiom) and then aggregating their judgments. The findings cast doubt on the efficacy of ACH, and show the promise of statistical methods for boosting judgment quality in intelligence and other organizations that routinely produce expert judgments.
In this paper, I trace the evolution of the aircraft cockpit as an example of the transformation of a probabilistic environment into an ecological hybrid, that is, an environment characterized by both probabilistic and deterministic features and elements. In the hybrid ecology, the relationships among correspondence and coherence strategies and goals and cognitive tactics on the continuum from intuition to analysis become critically important. Intuitive tactics used to achieve correspondence in the physical world do not work in the electronic world. Rather, I make the case that judgment and decision making in a hybrid ecology requires coherence as the primary strategy to achieve correspondence, and that this process requires a shift in tactics from intuition toward analysis.
I show how the coherence/correspondence distinction can inform the conversation about decision methods for engineering design. Some engineers argue for the application of multi-attribute utility theory while others argue for what they call heuristics. To clarify the differences among methods, I first ask whether each method aims at achieving coherence or correspondence. By analyzing statements in the design literature, I argue that utility theory aims at achieving coherence and heuristics aim at achieving correspondence. Second, I ask if achieving coherence always implies achieving correspondence. It is important to provide an answer because while in design the objective is correspondence, it is difficult to assess it, and coherence that is easier to assess is used as a surrogate. I argue that coherence does not always imply correspondence in design and that this is also the case in problems studied in judgment and decision-making research. Uncovering the conditions under which coherence implies, or does not imply, correspondence is a topic where engineering design and judgment and decision-making research might connect.
Coherence is highly valued in law. It is especially sought after in investor-state dispute settlement, where charges of incoherence in arbitral awards have long been raised by states and scholars. Yet coherence is a largely underexplored notion in international law. Often, it is treated as a mere ideal to strive towards or simply as a different way to describe the legal consistency of judicial outcomes. This book takes a different approach. It sees coherence as an independent concept having two dimensions: a substantive and a methodological one. Both are critically important for legal reasoning by international courts and tribunals, including by investor-state tribunals, and the book illustrates through several case studies some of the ways this conclusion is borne out in practice. A fuller understanding of coherence in international law has implications for our understanding of the concept of law, the practice of legal reasoning, and judicial professional ethics.
Basic concepts of quantum mechanics: Schroedinger equation; Dirac notation; the energy representation; expectation value; Hermite operators; coherent superposition of states and motion in the quantum world; perturbation Hamiltonian. Time-dependent perturbation theory: harmonic perturbation. Transition rate: Fermi’s golden rule. The density matrix; pure and mixed states. Temporal dependence of the density operator: von Neuman equation. Randomizing Hamiltonian. Longitudinal and transverse relaxation times. Density matrix and entropy.
Over the recent years, the theory of rewriting has been used and extended in order to provide systematic techniques to show coherence results for strict higher categories. Here, we investigate a further generalization to Gray categories, which are known to be equivalent to tricategories. This requires us to develop the theory of rewriting in the setting of precategories, which are adapted to mechanized computations and include Gray categories as particular cases. We show that a finite rewriting system in precategories admits a finite number of critical pairs, which can be efficiently computed. We also extend Squier’s theorem to our context, showing that a convergent rewriting system is coherent, which means that any two parallel 3-cells are necessarily equal. This allows us to prove coherence results for several well-known structures in the context of Gray categories: monoids, adjunctions, and Frobenius monoids.
This paper introduces a novel form of pragmatic encroachment: one that makes a difference to the status of emotion rather than the status of belief. I begin by isolating a distinctive standard in terms of which we can evaluate emotion – one sometimes called “subjective fittingness,” “epistemic justification,” or “warrant.” I then show how this standard for emotion could face a kind of pragmatic encroachment importantly similar to the more familiar encroachment on epistemic standards for belief. Encroachment on warranted emotion is a striking proposal that deserves attention. In fact, there are good reasons to think that encroachment on warranted emotion deserves to be considered the default view for those who already accept pragmatic encroachment on the epistemic status of belief. I support this parity claim by arguing for a principle that establishes a limited coordination between the conditions that warrant emotion and the conditions that justify belief.