Search results

Diet therapy or nutritional therapy has become a real challenge in the fight against the increasing number of modern illnesses such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancers. The scientific community has recognized the importance of studies that will support or rebut the association of certain nutrition/energy inputs with the prevention and/or improvement of certain diseases. Patient counseling is offered by medical doctors, nutritionists and dieticians, but patients often seek additional sources of information from popular media that may not be adequately scientifically supported. Whose responsibility is it when the Diet Therapy is not an effective treatment and where does the consequent ethical and moral responsibility lie?

This chapter argues for the importance of a nutritionally educated scientist evaluating the diets that are seen to be related with the health improvement also excluding diets that are mostly related to the patients’ well-being as the Mediterranean, DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension), Ketogenic and Vegetarian diet. Diet guidelines are often explained with linguistic variables (as “reduce the input of” etc.) which can be differently perceived by the end user. The interpretation if a linguistic variable is presented using the body mass index categories using a bell-shaped curve. The preferable area fits to the linguistic variable “acceptable BMI.” But also are indicated those areas which are less preferable. Those examples of information interpretations show the necessity of knowledge transfer. The quantity of information presented in diet guidelines can be experienced as a great muddle for patients; leaving them not knowing where and how to start. So, remains the ethical and moral responsibility of all links in the chain of nutritional and diet research and recommendations. Only objective and open-minded recommendations based on the latest scientific facts can gain confidence of the social, economical, and political subjects which must put the well-being of the population uppermost in their mind.

Based on a synthesis of findings from psychology, neuroscience, and machine learning, we propose a unified theory of curiosity as a form of motivated cognition. Curiosity, we propose, is comprised of a family of mechanisms that range in complexity from simple heuristics based on novelty, salience, or surprise, to drives based on reward and uncertainty reduction and finally, to self-directed metacognitive processes. These mechanisms, we propose, have evolved to allow agents to discover useful regularities in the world – steering them toward niches of maximal learning progress and away from both random and highly familiar tasks. We emphasize that curiosity arises organically in conjunction with cognition and motivation, being generated by cognitive processes and in turn, motivating them. We hope that this view will spur the systematic study of curiosity as an integral aspect of cognition and decision making during development and adulthood.

This paper conceives of Hayek's overall project as presenting a theory of sociocognition, explication of which has a two-fold purpose: (1) to locate Hayek within the non-Cartesian tradition of cognitive science, and (2) to show how Hayek's philosophical psychology infuses his social theory.

All through last century, the Austrian School of Economics introduced a series of original and interesting ideas into social sciences, which are still fruitful for contemporary research. We are not referring only to the ideas that are particularly relevant in economics, such as marginal utility, competition, market, entrepreneur, time irreversibility, information, risk, uncertainty, economic cycle, money, theory of capital, public choice, to mention only the most relevant ones. What we have in mind is ideas relevant for all social sciences: methodological subjectivism, apriorism, human knowledge, human action, decision making, praxeology, human freedom, evolution, nature and role of institutions. The ideas expressed by the authors belonging to this school are often so heterogeneous, that they are rather a composite collection of ideas than a single consistent corpus. Nevertheless, a few common aspects characterize the school as a whole.