منابع مشابه
Cognitive Criteria for the Moral Solution of the False Brothers “Independence” and “Despotism” of Judges Based on Religious Sources
The independence of judges in arbitration is an important process that is mentioned in the one hundred and fifty-sixth article of the Constitution. The main issue of this research is the moral solution of the false brothers of independence and despotism in judgment. Judges sometimes become confused between the two when making decisions and sentencing, which can only be resolved by recognizing t...
متن کاملBelief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics.
We provide evidence that religious skeptics, as compared to believers, are both more reflective and effective in logical reasoning tasks. While recent studies have reported a negative association between an analytic cognitive style and religiosity, they focused exclusively on accuracy, making it difficult to specify potential underlying cognitive mechanisms. The present study extends the previo...
متن کاملAnalytical Thinking Predicts Less Teleological Reasoning and Religious Belief
Individual differences in reflectiveness have been found to predict belief in God. We hypothesize that this association may be due to a broader inclination for intuitive thinkers to endorse teleological explanations. In support of our hypothesis, we find that scientifically unfounded teleological explanations are more likely to be endorsed by intuitive compared to analytical thinkers, and that ...
متن کاملJudges, Expertise, and Analogy
Political scientists have shown that one can anticipate how a judge will decide a case more often than chance, or a reading of the facts, might allow by using various predictors such as party affiliation, gender, or the judge’s own decisions on earlier similar cases. The simplest explanation for such behavior is that judges first decide what they want the outcome of the case to be, then go back...
متن کاملGames judges don’t play: predatory pricing and strategic reasoning in US antitrust
The paper analyzes the last three decades of debates about predatory pricing in US antitrust law, starting from the literature that followed Areeda and Turner’s 1975 landmark paper and ending in the beginning of this century, upon the Brooke 1993 decision. Special emphasis is given to the game-theoretic approach to predation and to the reasons why this approach has never gained attention in the...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel
سال: 2012
ISSN: 1927-4165
DOI: 10.21991/c9xm29