Prototypes or Pragmatics? The Open Question of Public Attitudes Toward Enhancement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Banja (2011) nimbly analyzes how a particular strain of conceptual myopia corrodes the rigor of “moral conservative” arguments in bioethics, particularly on the topic of human enhancement. We find his prototypist angle meritorious, but demur on a key conclusion: that virtue essentialism’s “prospects for remaining popular, especially among nonbioethicists and the electorate, are exceedingly good.” Our primary concern is that this prediction, despite enjoying a priori appeal, lacks empirical support. Gathering data on ordinary citizens’ moral intuitions about enhancement not only will prove worthwhile for its predictive value, but also will lend a helpful measure of nuance to debates on an important normative question: how public opinion should factor into policy decisions on biopolitical issues. We heartily agree with the central philosophical thrust of the article, as the picture of category-mediated reasoning emerging from prototype theory poses a vexing and potentially insurmountable challenge to arguments from naturalness, dignity, giftedness, et cetera, all aimed at establishing prohibitions on the use of cognition-enhancing pharmaceuticals. Moreover, we do not dispute the premises that Banja recruitsinsupportofhisforecastregardingthepopularityof such arguments. He elaborates that to the folk, virtue essentialist arguments, being “dogmatic, certain, and absolute,” sound“justthewaymoralargumentissupposedtosound.” One could suggest that preliminary support for Banja’s thesis can be found in examples such the comment thread on the CBS News website in reaction to its 60 Minutes segment on the illicit use of prescription stimulant medications by university students (CBS News 2010). Even a cursory review of the comments reveals explosions of moral outrage. However, there is a danger in relying too heavily on public comments such as those just cited, for they draw not on public opinion writ large but rather on the sentiments of a particular public—those sufficiently motivated by the television program to vent their frustration. What is not known is whether the general public shares those sentiments (Nadler and Reiner 2010). It may in fact be the case that the anxieties of the general public over cognitive enhancement rest for the most part not on philosophical op
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it