International Journal of Social Robotics, 1 1 Bitte beurteilen sie Ihren Eindruck des Roboters auf diesen Skalen: Please rate your impression of the robot on these scales: Geef aub uw indruk van de robot weer aan de hand van onderstaande schalen: Bitte bewerten Sie Ihren emotionalen Zustand auf diesen Skalen: Please rate your emotional state on these scales: We just used this questionnaire series in an HRI study — thanks for providing it!
Should that question actually be posed be the other way around? It would seem logical to us that calm correlates with a safe robot and agitated with an unsafe experience not vice versa. That is, if we ask people e. I would like to know if there is a standard Godspeed questionnaire or I need to apply it on my own needs Project.
The questionnaire on this web page is the official godspeed questionnaire series. Feel free to edit it to your needs. Dear Bartneck, thanks for your efforts on the questionnaire. It seems really useful. I have two questions, which I hope you can shed some light on. However, there is a different description for part V. You can use any of the four section independently of each other.
There is even a small overlap between two of them.
The questions within each section have no particular order. If you want, you can add dummy items to conceal the intention of the questionnaire. Just make sure that these dummy items to not interact with the actual items. Your email address will not be published. This questionnaire has been discussed in detailed in this publication: From a neo-Pyrrhonist point of view, both are typically, though not always, dogmatists: The crucial distinction is that between dogmatism and non-dogmatism. Sometimes, ordinary people are not dogmatic, and neither are some philosophers, such the skeptics Pyrrhonists.
For Porchat, many contemporary philosophers are skeptics or have a skeptical tendency without knowing it Porchat Accordingly, the basic neo-Pyrrhonian distinction is that between the phenomena and what is said about the phenomena. Dogmatic discourse is about the phenomena. Thus, they are no longer talking about the world, but about a further reality posited by their theory. No one disputes whether a rose appears red, but whether it is in fact red. Not all discourse, however, is about the phenomena and some merely expresses the phenomena. Such is ordinary language in daily life, and such is also the use of language by neo-Pyrrhonists: Therefore, neo-Pyrrhonism is not, in one sense of the word, a form of relativism, since it accepts an objective knowledge about the world.
Two other Pyrrhonian concepts are updated by the neo-Pyrrhonist in the positive part: This skeptical view of the world is an elaboration of how things appear to neo-Pyrrhonists. Skeptical discourse should be understood as an expression of phenomena. Thus, neo-Pyrrhonists may articulate explicitly their own view of the world. Since most phenomena are common, especially those that concern philosophical issues, neo-Pyrrhonists will try to make explicit our ways of thinking, at least as they see them. However, each skeptic will have his or her own skeptical view of the world, since this view depends also on the circumstances in which they live.
Lastly, it should be noted that neo-Pyrrhonists are empiricists, but their empiricism is improved by current philosophy of science. For instance, they may endorse the hypothetic-deductive method. For them, we can explore the world empirically, and in their skeptical view of the world they may incorporate scientific results. For instance, we think that the earth moves, and we no longer think that the earth is at the center of the universe. Porchat went as far as to distinguish between a philosophical realism and a scientific realism Porchat , , asserting that neo-Pyrrhonists need not be instrumentalists, but could hold scientific realism, although not, of course, philosophical realism.
If there is objective knowledge of the common world, it seems that the sciences can improve on that knowledge being guided by an experimental method such as the hypothetic-deductive. Neo-Pyrrhonism provoked a lot of different reactions in Brazil and elsewhere. Since it is impossible to review them all here, our purpose will be to give a fair idea of them.
The first important reaction came from philosophers concerned with scientific knowledge. Hilan Bensusan and Paulo Souza thought that Pyrrhonism was an outdated philosophy. In the face of contemporary science, Pyrrhonism would no longer be a viable alternative, for it had not the adequate concepts to explain that science. Therefore, the fact that science has evolved in unforeseeable ways is an objection to neo-Pyrrhonism.
Dutra thought that the metaphysical notion of truth is indispensable to scientific research. Both held that modern science establishes theories that cannot be doubted by the neo-Pyrrhonist. Neo-Pyrrhonian empiricism emphasizes the notion of empirical adequacy. A second kind of response was given by those who want to develop or improve on basic features of neo-Pyrrhonism.
For instance, the idea that dogmatism is a disease and that the skeptic Pyrrhonist offers a better way of life by curing dogmatists of their disease may be mere prejudice. Therefore, the skeptical idea of therapy is perhaps dogmatic. The skeptical view of the world has an undeniable personal aspect. Another important discussion intended to correct and improve on neo-Pyrrhonism concerns the neo-Pyrrhonist view on truth.
Porchat developed in an important paper a skeptical doctrine of truth Porchat According to Porchat, once they have divorced from a metaphysical notion of reality, neo-Pyrrhonists can defend a correspondence theory of truth: Eduardo Barrio , however, thinks that the only alternative to a neo-Pyrrhonist is to adopt a deflationist theory of truth, like the redundancy theory, and that any correspondence theory would imply dogmatism. An unexpected and important development of neo-Pyrrhonism came from philosophers who were also concerned with political philosophy. They were interested in knowing what would be the skeptical Pyrrhonian proposal in politics.
Porchat in conversation has always been very clear on this issue, for he holds that the skeptic could have any political doctrine, including a radical one: After all, skepticism would not exclude any content of phainomena. But most think that not all alternatives are accessible to a skeptical position. This debate opened up a new line of research concerning skepticism.
Very recently, an internal criticism of neo-Pyrrhonism emerged and it deserves to be mentioned. Vitor Hirschbruch Schvartz and Diego Machuca a argue for a rustic version of neo-Pyrrhonism, according to which Pyrrhonists hold no beliefs, and do not stop short of all the consequences that one should derive from the force of the skeptical attack on dogmatism. A truly skeptical position would destroy all beliefs, whether ordinary or philosophical. But there have been many external criticisms whose intention is to reject neo-Pyrrhonism. One could apply to skepticism the same kind of argument that the skeptic uses against other philosophies.
In the end, skepticism would be part of the conflict among philosophies it tries to avoid. These two criticisms, if sound, should make one reconsider neo-Pyrrhonism.
More recently, Pereira came to defend naive realism against Pyrrhonism. Just as in many other parts of the world, contemporary skepticism in Latin America deals with epistemological issues within analytic theory of knowledge. Many anti-skeptical strategies, such as contextualism and externalism, deserved close scrutiny by Latin American philosophers.
Also the transcendental strategy has captured the attention of many philosophers interested in skepticism. But contemporary skepticism is not confined to epistemology alone and it engages with, more broadly, analytic philosophy as a whole. Analytic worries about language and, more specifically, the notion of meaning have led to the development of a new form of skepticism, known as meaning skepticism.
We will review some of the discussions on these topics, beginning with the connections between skepticism and analytic philosophy. Thus, Marcondes was articulating Pyrrhonism further in a similar spirit as Porchat. Another groundbreaking work on skepticism derived from the linguistic turn is that of Samuel Cabanchik Argentina. Cabanchik was interested in the possibility of a linguistic form of skepticism or skepticism about meaning not only in Wittgenstein, but also in Aristotle and Francisco Sanchez.
His main focus, however, was Wittgenstein, about whom he wrote two books , and many papers , a,b. The connections between skepticism and the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein have been highlighted by many scholars. In the same spirit, Guadalupe Reinoso Argentina , , calls our attention to the value of skepticism in both Sextus and Wittgenstein as an ars vivendi: Pamela Lastres Peru has recently been doing some promising work on Wittgenstein and Moore, but also on Pyrrhonian skepticism.
More recently, Glenda Satne Argentina , a,b, also pursued a line of research based on analytic theories of meaning and, more specifically, on meaning skepticism. Thus, the connection between skepticism and analytic philosophy became a topic to be further explored by Latin American philosophers. Porchat had argued that contemporary analytic philosophy was to a good extent skeptical without knowing it.
If they had the appropriate knowledge of the history of skepticism, they would perhaps acknowledge the skeptical orientation of their doctrines. It is not clear, however, that that is the case in analytic philosophy. One debate that has received some attention is how far this or that analytic philosopher is close to skepticism.
However, the perception of a skeptical Quine still persists in some places. Davidson is another analytic philosopher whose connections to skepticism have been assessed by Latin American philosophers.
- The LabVIEW Style Book (National Instruments Virtual Instrumentation Series).
- And We Shall Shock Them: The British Army in the Second World War (Bloomsbury Reader).
- The Eye of the Law: Two Essays on Legal History (Birkbeck Law Press)!
- Friends With Benefits: How to Change the World With a Handful of Letters!
Eleonora Orlando Argentina wrote a paper criticizing Davidson, for his conception of language would end up, despite his intentions, into a kind of semantic skepticism. The relation between P. Strawson and skepticism has also been assessed by a number of Latin American scholars on contemporary skepticism or on analytic philosophy. Perhaps the most important contribution comes from a Mexican group. We will talk more about them below, when we discuss transcendental arguments as an anti-skeptical strategy.
Other analytic philosophers engaged with the issue further. However, he argues, that combination is impossible. Perhaps one should note that contemporary skepticism was also developed along other philosophical traditions, not only of an analytic orientation. Under the influence of Wittgenstein, but also of Stanley Cavell, Mario Gensollem Mexico explored the role of skepticism not only in philosophy, but also in common life.
He came to embrace the Cavellian thesis that philosophical skepticism is the best expression of the intrinsic finitude of human nature. Skeptical worries are usually linked to epistemological issues. We find in Mexico a group of philosophers who have a very strong connection to skepticism. They go as far as proposing new forms of skepticism. Pyrrhonian scientists can practice science, since they are aware of the non-dogmatic temporal character of their ontological, methodological and semantic principles.
Such acknowledgment will keep them safe from a dogmatic outlook. Ornelas tried to show that none of these strategies succeed or dislodge the traditional skeptical challenge, chiefly because they lack a satisfactory diagnosis of the motivations behind the skeptical problematic. Therefore, they fall prey to a double error: Fallibilism and skepticism were the topics of some papers written by Guillermo Hurtado Mexico. Hurtado a holds that, although these two positions are closely related, one must keep them apart; he rejects fallibilism because it is revisionist.
Not much later, he argues in favor of using more fine-grained epistemic terms. His basic idea is to enrich the vocabulary of epistemology, including more sophisticated skeptical terms. Many, of course, reject the skeptical position. Paulo Francisco Estrella Faria Brazil , , for instance, argued against skepticism. In fact, he thinks, skepticism is committed to a kind of idealism, even in the case of Porchat and despite his explicit rejection of this philosophical view. According to Faria, any assertion implies a claim to absolute truth and, if skeptics assert anything, as they do in ordinary life, then they are committed to what they would rather avoid.
The works of Eleonora Cresto Argentina and Alejandro Miroli Argentina also distance themselves from the skeptical position. Cresto , focused on anti-skeptical strategies that arise from naturalistic positions, whether along Wittgensteinian lines or following F. Dretske and other reliabilists. Miroli , , , in turn, dealt with scientific skepticism, addressing both general cases and socially important ones. Several additional epistemological strategies were put under close scrutiny by Latin American epistemologists.
Here are a few of them.
"consciente o inconscientemente" in English
Diana Hoyos Colombia works on contemporary theory of knowledge, linking the concepts of epistemic responsibility, Gettier examples and skepticism. Jorge Gregorio Posada Colombia has responded to her work. Another popular anti-skeptical strategy is contextualism. Among the anti-skeptical strategies, the one that invokes transcendental considerations deserves special mention. A group of philosophers in Mexico is the most distinguished one concerning this Kantian-Strawsonian-inspired answer to skepticism.
Pedro Stepanenko Mexico explored the anti-skeptical potential of the Kantian concept of the synthetic unity of apperception in many papers , a, , , According to his interpretation, this unity should be considered as the unity of our mental states that is possible only through the inferential relations to their contents. This unity makes possible the self-consciousness that any argumentative practice requires. If we could suspend judgment with respect to any subject, we would renounce to establish inferential relations among the contents of our mental states; in that case, there would be no consciousness unity, nor knowledge of our mental states.
Lazos , was able to combine Kantian and Wittgensteinian anti-skepticism to produce new perspectives on the skeptical challenge. More recently, Lazos appealed to a transcendental strategy based on the works of Barry Stroud to show the anti-skeptical force of transcendental arguments. Isabel Cabrera Mexico edited a book on transcendental arguments, in which the force and limits of such arguments as tools against skepticism are assessed.
Cabrera also worked out the relations between Buddhism and skepticism. The so-called Agrippan trilemma is an important argument for contemporary skepticism. Some Latin American philosophers have tried to answer this deep, difficult skeptical challenge. Machuca accuses contemporary epistemologists who defend that disagreement leads to suspension of judgment of dogmatism. According to Machuca, they base their arguments on dogmatist principles to reach suspension of judgment.
Perhaps this is another topic in which one may discover some original contributions from Latin American skepticism. There has also been some efforts to extend the mode of disagreement in contemporary skepticism into logical matters Barrio , as well as some discussion concerning evaluative judgments and the notion of relative truth Orlando The history of skepticism has also attracted the attention of many scholars throughout Latin America.
As in most places, historical investigation tended to concentrate in the modern period, mostly on Cartesian and Humean skepticism, though many other authors, such as Montaigne, Bacon, Bayle, and Kant, were also on the spot. Although Brazilian scholarship has perhaps made more contributions, one should not neglect the huge and widespread interest in modern skepticism throughout Latin America. According to Maia Neto, Popkin emphasized the importance of Pyrrhonism for modern philosophy, but neglected the fact that Academic skepticism was also widely known and used by many philosophers.
In addition to Fernando Bahr Argentina , to whom we shall return, Soledad Croce Argentina , , for instance, has published many papers on what she takes as the practical skepticism of Montaigne. Luiz Eva Brazil , , also focused on the relations between Francis Bacon and skepticism. He proposed some careful interpretations of the Theory of the Idols and skeptical arguments stemming from ancient Pyrrhonism and from Montaigne and Sanchez.
He showed not only the skeptical origins of most Baconian idols, but also how their structure changed the skeptical Modes, thereby revealing what is properly new in Bacon. Silvia Manzo Argentina wrote on the same subject, holding a balanced view, in which there is a double attitude in light of the skeptical threat. According to him, Bacon used skeptical weapons to reject the whole traditional philosophy including skepticism , not only to criticize dogmatism, thereby distancing himself from it.
KudoZ™ translation help
Danilo Marcondes Brazil , has been doing original, important research on the ancient Modes and the discovery of the New World. This discovery offered not only many more examples of the same kind of diversity Europeans were familiar with, but also of a different, more radical kind, strengthening the force of the skeptical Modes. That is a vast and rich literature not yet explored by scholars on the history of skepticism.
As expected, Cartesian skepticism is one of the main objects of study. In almost every country we find scholars trying to understand its sources, the nature of its arguments, their force and persuasiveness. The problem of the external world became, thereby, a crucial issue for those concerned with skepticism, because it was thought of as a skeptical problem. In Mexico, concern with Cartesian skepticism was once the dominant focus of research on skepticism. This group was strongly oriented toward the work of Descartes and modern science. Consequently, Cartesian skepticism or methodological skepticism was an important subject to them.
Many members of the group shared, perhaps implicitly, the belief that the Cartesian anti-skeptical strategy was successful to avoid disastrous skeptical consequences. Also very important are the contributions of Mauricio Zuluaga, who has examined contemporary interpretations of Cartesian skepticism, especially those based on the closure principle Zuluaga , the Agrippan Trilemma Zuluaga and the relations between Pyrrhonism and Cartesian skepticism Zuluaga Zuluaga published an important book that emerged from his Ph. In Peru we also find some interest in the relation between Descartes and skepticism.
Jorge Secada has done work on Descartes and Suarez, but focused on Descartes with regard to skepticism. Humberto Quispe has also done research on this topic, mainly under the influence of Jorge Secada. French skepticism of the 17 th century was given some attention, although not as much as one would like. Bahr , a,b, , , , focused mainly on Pierre Bayle, whose skeptical arguments touch on three main points: These topics led Bahr to study both the 18 th century, where he examines the influence of Bayle on Hume that was the topic of his Ph.
Plinio Junqueira Smith shows the importance of the skeptical method both in Bayle's historical work and in his philosophical thinking. His historical research follows the current trend of erudition, discovering and exploring less known figures, but who were very important at their time.
Robles shows that the Berkeleyan skeptical thesis that rejects the existence of a material substance has important consequences, such as the rejection of many other subsidiary problems: Jaimir Conte Brazil also explored the connections between Berkeley and skepticism in an important paper. At that time, Berkeley was considered the greatest skeptic, until Kant pronounced Hume to be even greater. Charles shows, with plenty of erudition, how this image of Berkeley was created in France. Not much attention was given to skepticism in the 18 th century French materialist philosophy. Moreover, commentators tend to think of skepticism as a mere negative doctrine, not paying enough attention to its positive side.
Humean scholarship has increased so much in Brazil that it is not possible to give a fair survey of its status in a limited space. Lisandro Aguirre Argentina , , a,b , for instance, has published many papers on Hume. His main point is that Hume follows Pyrrhonism precisely when he thinks he is avoiding it, i. Humean skeptical arguments are also studied in Colombia, for instance by Catalina Gonzalez , Humean skepticism was perhaps what generated Peruvian interest in modern skepticism. Although Juan Bautista Ferro Porcile Peru was mainly concerned with logic, he lectured extensively on modern philosophy, especially in the empiricist tradition and in the Humean branch of skepticism, on which he published an influential paper.
The relations between Kant and skepticism attracted much attention in Latin America, most of all in Mexico. Strawson and Barry Stroud, among others, from a Kantian point of view.
Stepanenko, in particular, was more historically orientated. In Colombia, Alejandro Rosas Colombia opened up this field of research with an influential paper. According to Smith, Kant responded to three different kinds of modern skepticism: Cartesian skepticism concerning the external world which Kant came to recognize, in the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason , as an idealist problem, not a skeptical one ; Baylean skepticism and the antinomies, and Humean skepticism on the objective validity of the categories.
Hoyos works motivated a number of Colombian philosophers to devote their attention to the subject and the period. As many scholars have perceived the fundamental importance of Kant to modern skepticism and vice versa , it should not come as a surprise that many others also perceived what is now called post-Kantian skepticism. Perhaps the first important study on the topic is that of Luis Eduardo Hoyos Colombia , when he publishes his Ph. Interest in post-Kantian skepticism is spreading around. Schulze, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Fichte.
Ricardo Cattaneo Argentina , focuses both on discussions on skepticism in Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy Jacobi, Schulze and on the interpretation and assimilation of skepticism in Hegel and German Idealism. In connection with Nietzsche, Kathia Hanza Peru has explored different sides of skepticism. Ancient skepticism has also attracted a lot of attention, though, like in almost all places, it has received less attention than modern skepticism.
Roberto Bolzani Filho Brazil published a book Bolzani and a number of papers on the topic Bolzani , , , a. His book on Academic skepticism and Pyrrhonism is very carefully written, well informed, and presents a detailed account of the relationship between these two forms of ancient skepticism. Vitor Hirschbruch Schvartz defends a rustic interpretation of Sextus Empiricus. Recent scholarship is improving, as is shown by the works of Rodrigo Pinto de Brito Brazil on Sextus.
More recently, studies on ancient skepticism grew thanks to the works of Diego Machuca Argentina a,b, , a. Afterwards, he has published many papers and reviews, as well as organized events. He has also edited a number of important collections on the history of skepticism a,b, b.
consciente o inconscientemente - English translation - yguvyvihiteq.gq Spanish-English dictionary
It is fair to say that no one gave more impulse to improve Latin American scholarship on ancient skepticism than he did. Thus, both for his personal papers and books and for his involvement in organizing research, Machuca is a leading figure in ancient skepticism. Colombia has also given its contribution to the field. Studies on the history of skepticism before the modern period are not restricted to Pyrrhonism and Academic skepticism.
In connection to the origins of Medieval Philosophy, and especially Augustine and Descartes, Luis Bacigalupo Peru has also done some research. Rodrigo Pinto de Brito Brazil has been working on the impact of skepticism in Christian thought. One should also pay attention to Mauricio Beuchot Mexico , who devoted two papers to skepticism in the Middle Age. His point is that skepticism attracted some attention even before Renaissance. According to him, many medieval authors developed skeptical positions.
Perhaps it should also be mentioned some other studies on the history of skepticism. On the one hand, there are some literary studies. Machado de Assis, one of the best Brazilian writers, has been seen as a skeptic by many people. Krause is a Brazilian novelist as well as a professor of literature who published many books and papers on skepticism and literature Krause , on Machado Krause and other writers such as the well-known Brazilian poet Carlos Drummond de Andrade Krause b.
On the other hand, Paulo Roberto Margutti Pinto has been studying the history of Brazilian philosophy, in which he sees an important role for skepticism long before Porchat brought it to center stage. In Pinto , he argues for the influence of Francisco Sanches on Brazilian colonial thought. Machado de Assis would not be an exception.