Several authors have proposed alternatives to the traditionalapproaches of risk evaluation on the basis of philosophical andethical arguments. Shrader-Frechette (1991) has proposed a number ofreforms in risk assessment and evaluation procedures on the basis of aphilosophical critique of current practices. Roeser (2012) argues fora role of emotions in judging the acceptability of risks. Hansson hasproposed the following alternative principle for risk evaluation:‘Exposure of a person to a risk is acceptable if and only ifthis exposure is part of an equitable social system of risk-takingthat works to her advantage’ (Hansson 2003:305). Hansson’s proposal introduces a number of moralconsiderations in risk evaluation that are traditionally not addressedor only marginally addressed. These are the consideration whetherindividuals profit from a risky activity and the consideration whetherthe distribution of risks and benefits is fair.
A third approach is to base risk acceptance on the consent ofpeople who suffer the risks after they have been informed about theserisks (informed consent). A problem of this approach is thattechnological risks usually affect a large number of people atonce. Informed consent may therefore lead to a ‘society ofstalemates’ (Hansson 2003: 300).
Wilkins and Griffiths (2013) hold that the epistemic premise cansometimes be resisted: evolutionary processes do track truth, forinstance, in the case of commonsense beliefs and, by extension,scientific beliefs. However, they hold that this move does not workfor religious and moral beliefs, because such beliefs are assumed notto be the result of truth-tracking cognitive processes. Some authors(e.g., McCauley 2011) indeed think there is a large difference betweenthe cognitive processes involved in science and in religion, but moreempirical work has to be done on this front.
Due to the dynamic and controversial quality of this area, it is necessary for a prospective teacher to develop his or her personal philosophy of education, whether it is a hodge-podge of several standard examples or one clear viewpoint.
Philosophers of science actively study such questions as:
My own philosophy derives from a little bit of each of the five basic philosophies with essentialism marginally coming on top and existentialism representing the least of my teaching attitudes....
Modern science of the brain, e.g.
By way of organizing the countless questions posed and answers sought, broad conceptions of "science," "reason," "philosophy," and "religion" have been created and debated by humankind for centuries....
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
Theistic evolutionists hold a non-interventionist approach to divineaction: God creates indirectly, through the laws of nature (e.g.,through natural selection). For example, the theologian John Haught(2000) regards divine providence as self-giving love, and naturalselection and other natural processes as manifestations of this love,as they foster autonomy and independence. While theistic evolutionistsallow for special divine action, particularly the miracle of theIncarnation in Christ (e.g., Deane-Drummond 2009), deists such asMichael Corey (1994) think there is only general divine action: Godhas laid out the laws of nature and lets it run like clockwork withoutfurther interference. Deism is still a long distance from ontologicalmaterialism, the idea that the material world is all there is.