• Communications of the Korean Mathematical Society
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.585-599
• /
• 2004

본 연구에서는 학교수학에서 증명지도의 문제점을 정당화의 측면에서 분석하고, 정당화의 한 방법으로서 확률론적 정당화를 제시하며, 학교수학에서 정당화 지도의 교육적 가치, 정당화 지도의 방향, 정당화 지도의 예와 지도 방법에 대해 논의한다. 이러한 논의에 근거하여 학교수학에서의 정당화 지도의 필요성 및 가능성에 관하여 살펴본다. 본 연구에서 '증명'은 고전적인 의미에서의 증명, 즉 엄밀한(rigorous) 증명, 수학적(mathematical) 증명이고, '정당화'는 기존의 수학적 증명 개념은 물론, 다양한 논증 기법을 포함하는 넓은 의미이다.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.31-62
• /
• 2006

이 논문은 포퍼의 후기 확률론인 성향적 확률론에 대한 것이다. 포퍼가 확률에 관한 성향이론을 제시한 가장 중요한 동기는 단일 사건에 확률값을 부여하기 위함이었다. 그의 성향이론은 전기와 후기로 나누어지는데, 전기의 이론은 성향을 반복가능한 조건들의 집합으로, 후기의 이론은 성향을 특정 시각에서의 우주의 상태로 설명한다. 이 글은 포퍼의 전기와 후기 성향이론이 성공적이지 않음을 논증한다. 전기 성향이론에 대해서는 가장 좁은 준거집합의 원리의 문제에 부딪혀서 단일 사건에 대하여 객관적인 확률값을 부여할 수 없기 때문이고, 후기 성향이론은 성향을 약한 인과라고 해석하는 문제와 함께 포퍼 자신의 의도와 달리 형이상학적인 이론이 되어버렸기 때문이다.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.189-194
• /
• 2003

급격하게 변하고 있는 이 사회에 맞춰 수학이 변하고 있다. 이에 따라 학교 수학에서의 증명지도가 변해야할 필요성이 있다. 본 연구에서는 기존의 증명 개념을 아우르는 보다 포괄적인 개념으로써 정당화를 소개하고 정당화 지도 방안을 제안한다. 또, 기존의 형식적이고 엄밀한 연역적 증명과 정당화가 어떻게 다른지 비교해 보고 실제 수업하는데 도움을 줄 수 있도록 활용 방안을 간단하게 제시하고자 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.139-207
• /
• 2022

As various state restrictions on individual freedom were imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised that excessive infringements on fundamental rights were indiscriminately permitted based on the public interest of preventing infectious diseases. Therefore, the question of how to set acceptable limits of liberty restrictions on individuals has emerged. However, since the phenomenon of infections spreading to the population is only predicted statistically, how to deal with the risk of the infected individual as a subject of legal analysis has become a problem. In the absence of a theoretical framework of legal analysis of risk, the risk of infected individuals during the pandemic was not analyzed strictly, and proportionality review of infection prevention measures was often only an abstract comparison of the importance of public interest and individual rights. Therefore, this research aims to conduct a theoretical review on how risk can be conceptualized legally in a public health crisis, and to develop a theoretical framework for proportionality review of the risk of liberty-limiting measures during a pandemic. Chapter 2 analyzes the legal philosophical concepts of risk, which are the basis for liberty restrictions during a public health crisis, and applies and extends them to the pandemic. Chapter 3 reviews previous studies related to liberty restriction measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and points out they have a limitation that specific criteria for the proportionality review of public health measures in the pandemic have not been presented. Accordingly, Chapter 3 specifies the methodological framework for proportionality review, referring to the theoretical discussion on risks in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 reviews the legitimacy of gathering restriction orders, applying the theoretical discussion in Chapter 2 and the criteria for proportionality review established in Chapter 3. In particular, Section 4 examines logic of proportionality review in judicial precedents over the ban on gathering restrictions implemented in the COVID-19 pandemic. In analyzing the precedents, the logic of proportionality review in each case is critically reviewed and reconstructed based on the theoretical framework presented in this research.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.509-520
• /
• 2023

Scientific explanation is the main goal of scientists' scientific practice, and the science curriculum also includes developing students' abilities to construct scientific explanations as a major goal. Thus, clarifying its meaning is an important issue in the science education community. In this paper, the researchers identified three perspectives on 'scientific explanation' based on the scoping review method (Deductive-Nomological, Probabilistic, and Pragmatic explanation models). We argued that it is important to clarify and distinguish the meanings of 'scientific explanation' from other concepts used in science education, such as 'description', 'prediction', 'hypothesis', and 'argument' based on a review of the literature. It is also pointed out that there is a difference between 'scientific explanation' as a product and 'explaining scientifically' as communication, and several ways to revise achievement standard statements in the science curriculum are suggested, to guide students to construct scientific explanations and to help students to explain scientifically. By adopting the three scientific explanation models, the important factors to be considered were classified and organized, and examples of science learning activities for scientific explanation considering such factors were suggested. It is hoped that the discussion in this study will help establish clearer learning goals in science learning related to scientific explanation and aid the design of more appropriate learning activities accordingly.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.167-195
• /
• 2015

This paper aims to respond to Weisberg's claim that the standard Bayesian epistemology cannot model an agent's belief updating that is triggered by some undermining evidence. Our epistemological intuition seems to require that the undermining evidence decreases some particular relevant credences. According to Weisberg, however, such a belief change cannot result from the standard Bayesian belief updating rules-i.e., (Jeffrey) Conditionalization. This is because probabilistic independence between some propositions is preserved under (Jeffrey) Conditionalization on the relevant evidence. Yet I will show in this paper that this conclusion is somewhat hasty. In particular, I will show that there is another version of Conditionalization and that when one updates her credences by means of such a version, the belief updating originated in undermining evidence can be well modeled in the Bayesian framework. Some authors often call the version Higher Order Conditionalization.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.1-19
• /
• 2017

In modern cosmology, it is controversial whether the existence of human consciousness can be used as evidence to support the hypothesis that many parallel universes are actualized. In this paper, we want to explore the nature of self-consciousness information that I am awake now. Consider the following experiment participating Al and Bob. We throw a fair coin on Sunday. If the coin lands heads we wake up just one of Al and Bob on Monday. If the coin lands tails we wake up both of Al and Bob. On Monday, at least one of Al and Bob will wake up, to what degree ought they believe that the outcome of the coin toss is heads? We will argue that the correct answer to this question is 1/3. To this end, we will argue the awakened person's information that "I am awake" is given to himself through a random procedure.