bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Toward a Theory of the A Priori
Authors: Audi Robert 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
Self-evident propositions are important in their own right and crucial for the a priori in general. They are here shown to be justifiedly believable and knowable on the basis of adequately understanding them. Such understanding is multidimensional, and its adequacy in relation to a self-evident proposition, p, is explicable only on the basis of at least these cognitive variables, each of which is illustrated in appropriate relations to p: recognitional range regarding applications of p; the sense of rejectability of purported equivalents; explicative capacity; logical comprehension; confirmational sensitivity; discriminative acuity; translational capacity; readiness to meet objections to p; and, considerability (a kind of contemplatability needed to get p appropriately “in mind”). The account of adequate understanding also helps in explicating understanding in empirical cases, even propositions perceptually believed. The self-evident is shown to differ from the obvious, and thereby as neither necessarily compelling conviction nor limited to formal or other non-substantive truths.
Apriority, Disputability, and Necessity
Authors: Audi Robert 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter shows how the self-evident and, by extension, a priori propositions in general may plausibly be considered necessary. These propositions are best taken to have, as truthmakers, abstract objects and their interrelations. It is also argued that the a priori may be plausibly taken to extend to certain normative truths and to many propositions that, like some perceptual principles discussed in earlier chapters, belong to philosophy itself. As the case of philosophy well illustrates, when a priori propositions are substantive, there may be widespread rational disagreement on them. This is especially clear if, as argued here, beliefs can be rational even if not sufficiently well-grounded to be justified. This possibility implies that someone may rationally, though unjustifiedly, reject even certain self-evident propositions. How this happens is explained, and the chapter also shows both difficulties in identifying rational disagreements and some prospects for resolving them.
Inference and Its Role in Rational Action
Authors: Audi Robert 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
Action, like knowledge, is portrayed in this chapter as having grounds, but neither acting nor knowing requires a basis in inference. We can view agency as information-responsive, reasons-responsive, and rational without endorsing such intellectualist views. Acting for a reason need not be reasoned action. Beliefs or perceptible cues can guide intentional action without constituting knowledge. Intentions may have wide scope and complex content, much as beliefs can have complex propositional objects, and this enables a single intention to govern multiple deeds. Rational actions, moreover, are immensely various, extending to things we do rationally, without these actions being reason-based or even intentional. Granted, learning how to do many of the important things we do, say in speaking, playing instruments, and hiking, normally requires gaining propositional knowledge along the developmental route. Nonetheless, some propositional knowledge is like a ladder that, once having climbed up on it, we can do without.
The Prevailing British View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Before the American Revolution and Declarations of Rights
Authors: Bird Wendell 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
The seditious libel prosecution of John Wilkes, beginning in 1763, showed more clearly than ever that the crimes of seditious libel and seditious words were political crimes, and provoked many in Britain to advocate a more robust concept of freedoms of press and speech, and to question the criminalization of criticism of government and officials. George Wallace, a Scottish lawyer (publishing in London in 1760), set the stage by rejecting limitations on freedoms of press and speech, and rejecting seditious libel as a crime, as others did thereafter. Spurred by the Wilkes prosecutions and then the Junius prosecutions in 1770, scores of writers advocated broad understandings of freedoms of press and speech, such as “the right of free enquiry and fair discussion,” and condemned the entirety or parts of the main restrictions (criminalization of seditious libels and words). The narrow understanding of Blackstone, even before he published it, was a minority understanding.
Reasons for the Spread of Broad Views of Freedoms of Press and Speech in America, During and After the Colonial Crisis
Authors: Bird Wendell 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
Colonial leaders and newspaper editors came to care deeply about the breadth of freedoms of press and speech and the danger of prosecution of seditious libel, because they were repeatedly threatened with such prosecutions as they spoke and wrote critically of Britain’s actions. They became more likely to support broad freedoms, and less likely to support criminalization of seditious libel and words, as they perceived that those were political crimes and that they were the likely victims.
Epilogue
Authors: Bird Wendell 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
A number of conundrums are explained by the fact that an expansive understanding of freedom of press and freedom of speech prevailed and became dominant in Britain and America after the mid-1760s, and are unsolved by those who claim that the narrow Blackstone-Mansfield definition of freedoms of press and speech was universally or generally accepted during the late eighteenth century. Those conundrums include why those freedoms would be defined as mere protection from licensing that ended nearly a century before, why there was a steady stream of essays championing a broad definition and opposing a narrow definition, why American colonists and English radical Whigs threatened with prosecution would advocate narrow instead of broad freedoms, why there was such a wide chasm between restrictive law and permissive practices of speech and press, why nine of the eleven new states that adopted new fundamental law found it necessary to protect freedom of press, why every one of those declarations of rights gave the broadest protection without express exceptions rather than using Blackstone’s language, why the federal Bill of Rights similarly used the broadest language and rejected common law limitations, as well as why Fox’s Libel Act was able to attract majority support in Parliament.
Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Place in UK Politics
Authors: Hanretty Chris 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter introduces readers to the UK Supreme Court by describing two cases heard by the court: one case that almost no readers will have heard of, and that involved public access to land; and one case that was hugely controversial and that profoundly affected the process of the UK’s exit from the European Union. After describing the structure and operation of the court, the chapter steps back in time to explore the reasons for the court’s creation, and makes a case for the importance of understanding the court’s political role—and, as a consequence, for modeling the judges’ behaviors in ways that allow for subtle political influences alongside more consequential legal and organizational factors.
Trends in Ethnic Recognition
Authors: King Elisabeth 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter provides details on how the concept of “ethnic recognition” is defined and measured in a dataset of conflict-affected countries between 1990 and 2012. It compares and contrasts ethnic recognition to other related concepts, such as informal recognition and factional power sharing. Using the dataset, the chapter presents trends over time and across regions in the adoption of ethnic recognition in constitutions and comprehensive political settlements. It shows that ethnic recognition has been a common strategy in recent decades, with an overall adoption rate of approximately 40 percent. While rates of adoption have been relatively consistent over time, there are important regional differences in rates of recognition.
Pained
Authors: Stein Michael , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
As a country, the United States overinvests in medical care, often at the expense of the social, economic, and cultural forces that produce health. Indeed, the rise of medicine as a cornerstone of American life and culture has coincided with a social and political devaluation of factors demonstrated to mean more to one’s vitality than anything else—influences like where one lives, works, and plays; livable wages that create opportunity for healthy living; and gender and racial equity. As such, this book moves the conversation around American health toward matters of class, money, and culture. It highlights how the structural components of everyday life ultimately determine who gets to be healthy in today’s America. In doing so, it makes a case for reframing the political discourse on public health in less myopic, more effectual terms.
Creating Health Is Like Winning at Soccer
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter presents soccer as a metaphor for how societies can generate health. Health is shaped by the water one drinks; by the air one breathes; by whether one lives in a safe environment where exercise opportunities and healthy food are available; and by social policies that create a world free from inequity. One can imagine these conditions as the 10 soccer players moving the ball upfield, to maximize one’s chance of winning, of staying healthy. The goalie is medicine. It is one’s last resort—what can restore one to health if one gets sick. The chapter then emphasizes the need for a shift in the way people think about health. As in soccer, ten elevenths of one’s effort should be preventive, with medicine being the last line of defense. Health is about medicine, but it is far more about the politics that create the world one lives in; about housing, transportation, and livable wage; about community networks. Indeed, medicine is only a small part of a larger “team” of forces that shape health.
A Party Trick
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter distinguishes between health and health care. Health is a desired state of well-being that allows people to do what they want to do, enabling them to live full, rich lives, and to realize their human potential. Health care is the system that aims to restore people to health when they get sick. The conflation of health and health care is not without consequence. In fact, it fundamentally affects the health of the country. When people believe that health and health care are synonymous, they pour money into health care, thinking they are investing in health. This leads them away from addressing the true foundations of health, such as early childhood education, parks and recreation, prevention of suicide and substance use, gender equity, and economic fairness. This results in a one-sided focus on health care, at the expense of investing in the roots causes of health.
Public Health and a President’s Racism
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter addresses how racism presents a clear threat to the health of populations. In 2018, President Donald Trump made racist comments toward countries with predominantly nonwhite populations. Why did the president’s racism matter for the health of the public? To answer this question, one needs to understand where health comes from. Health is the product of the social, economic, and cultural context in which people live. This context is also shaped by social norms that do much to determine people’s behaviors and their consequences. Changing these norms can produce both positive and negative health effects. On the positive side, changing norms can promote health, by making unacceptable unhealthy conditions and behaviors that were once common, even celebrated. On the negative side, changing norms for the worse can empower elements of hate in society. When a president promotes hate, it shifts norms, suggesting that hate does in fact have a place in the country and the world. This opens the door to more hate crimes, more exclusion of minority groups from salutary resources, and little to no effort to address racial health gaps.
The Census and Public Health
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter describes the importance of the census for public health. The US Constitution mandates that each resident of the country be counted at least every 10 years. As the 2020 census approached, the Trump administration launched an effort to meddle with how to perform this head count, by adding a question about citizenship to the census. This move was roundly criticized by the Census Bureau’s Scientific Advisory committee and became the target of lawsuits. It looked very much like an attempt to depress the 2020 population count in immigrant-rich and predominantly Democratic areas, in advance of redistricting in 2021. Accurate census data are critical for the public's health. These data drive federal grants to states for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. They guide disaster response and disease outbreak planning. Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses census information to locate geographic areas with low education levels and high poverty rates, so as to expand screening and outreach programs. Thus, these data inform the building of roads, schools, and health centers. As such, political moves to influence the census is a matter of great concern for public health.
When We Talk about Public Health
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter studies how people talk about public health issues. During the 2016 presidential campaign, there was little discussion by candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton of public health issues. Indeed, according to a study that combed the texts of major campaign speeches, interviews, and advertisements made by candidates Trump and Clinton for public health keywords, general references to “health” accounted for less than 1% of the words used by the candidates. It is worth noting what the authors of the study considered to be “health topics.” The study focused on six “public health issues”: wellness, diet, disease prevention, substance abuse, workplace standards, and vaccinations. There is no disagreement that these are public health issues. However, it would be a shame if this short list constitutes the entire political discourse about public health. Housing, health disparities, immigration, aging, mental health and substance use, military medicine, the environment, criminal justice, food policy, health technology, disability/injury, and health care delivery—this is something closer to the full list of forces that shape the public’s health in contemporary America. Politicians and the public already use more than 1% of their words discussing these topics. However, the public health implications of these issues are rarely addressed.
What Kills Our Kids?
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter asks what kills children and what people can do about it. One of the greatest triumphs in health over the past century has been the dramatic decrease in childhood mortality, yet children still die. In 2016, there were, in the United States, about 38,000 deaths of children under the age of 19. Roughly half of deaths occur in early childhood due to genetic conditions, chromosomal abnormalities, and other perinatal conditions, many of which people do not know how to treat. However, we should be able to prevent most of the other half. The leading causes of injury deaths are motor vehicle deaths and gun-related deaths. Understanding how to prevent them can provide a template for stopping other childhood deaths. The chapter then considers the Vision Zero initiative, passed by the Swedish parliament 20 years ago, which aims to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. Just like motor vehicle accidents, childhood deaths from guns will not end until people work to create a safer environment by reducing the availability of firearms.
Dying Young in the United States
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter focuses on child mortality. Child mortality is declining worldwide, according to a half-century’s worth of data from the Human Mortality Database and the World Health Organization (WHO). Since the 1980s, however, the United States has had higher rates of mortality for kids aged 0 to 19, compared to other wealthy Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. In 2013, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) ranked the health and safety of children in the United States 25th out of 29 developed countries. Meanwhile, according to a 2018 Health Affairs study, from 2001 to 2010, the risk of death in the United States compared to peer nations was 76% greater for infants and 57% greater for children and youth age 1 to 19. In that same time frame, American teens age 15 to 19 were 82 times likelier to die from gun-related homicide. As such, US policymakers need to focus on preventing child mortality by preventing the largest contributors to this challenge: perinatal deaths, car accidents, and firearm assaults.
Vaccines and Conspiracies
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter looks at the effect of conspiracy theories on vaccines. Near the end of 2018, data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that a small, but growing, number of children in the United States were not getting recommended vaccinations. Some of this may be due to lack of access to vaccines; populations without insurance and those living in rural areas have greater rates of nonvaccination. However, part of it is also likely due to the rise of conspiracy theories and the willful dismissal of scientific evidence when it comes to vaccines. Vaccinations have always provoked anxiety; but the data on vaccines that are in widespread use are now clear: vaccines are safe and save lives. Nevertheless, conspiracism fuels the anti-vaccine movement, urging people to accept anecdotes over statistics. Unlike conspiracists, public health advocates adhere to standards of evidence and falsifiability; when conspiracists disregard explanation and refuse any form of correction, they place health at risk.
Health Systems and Public Health Thinking
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter addresses how homelessness affects health. The disordered lives of homeless patients disrupt appointment-keeping and medication adherence, even as they generate need for more treatment by driving health challenges like depression, high blood pressure, and hospitalizations. As such, some health systems have begun to address the link between homelessness and health. One Boston health system, for example, announced plans to subsidize housing for the patients for whom it is accountable, to give this population some measure of the shelter and stability necessary for good health. As a society, people tend to forget that health is a public good supported by their collective investment in resources such as education, the environment, and, indeed, housing. Health systems can help people remember, by investing in these resources, to improve the health of patients. Indeed, health systems can direct people toward a better understanding of what truly shapes health, but it is ultimately the people’s responsibility to act on that knowledge and build a world that generates health.
Can We Promote Public Health and Generate Return on Our Investment?
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter looks at how the country’s health investment remains resolutely focused on curative care. Perhaps people spend more on cure than they do on prevention because they believe keeping people healthy is too expensive. But is this true? An analysis set out to assess the return on investment for high-income countries that adopt efforts to improve health. The authors found that the median return on investment for public health interventions was 14 to 1—that is, for every dollar invested, it yields the same dollar back and another 14. They also found that the more these interventions were established at the wider, national level, the higher the return, rising up to about 40 to 1 for the best investments. These interventions include vaccination programs, taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, building better cities to reduce falls, and early youth interventions to limit teenage pregnancy and delinquency. In other words, these are classic efforts to promote the public’s health by shaping the conditions in which people live.
Clarifying Medical Bankruptcy
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter explores medical bankruptcy, which is a much-debated topic, with most questions focused on exactly how many people file for it and how often it occurs. In 2005, Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues found that medical costs led to over 40% of bankruptcies in the United States. This was followed by an update in 2009, pushing the proportion of bankruptcies due to medical expenses to 62%. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s 2014 report conflicts with this causal attribution, citing that less than 1% of adults in the United States file for bankruptcy, even though 20% of the population has great medical debt. In 2018, a group of economists reexamined this issue, concerned that the discrepancies in statistics were causing a misunderstanding of the problem. Their findings show an increase in people filing for bankruptcy after hospitalization. The researchers suggest that paying for medical bills out of pocket and losing income because of missed work are key reasons people file for personal bankruptcy. Ultimately, one thing is clear: the better people understand the causes of medical bankruptcy, the easier it is to see that an investment in disease prevention could boost Americans’ financial health, as well as their physical and mental well-being.
Violence Is a Public Health Issue
Authors: Stein Michael D. , Galea Sandro 
Published: April 2020

Abstract
This chapter looks at how violence is a public health issue. Even as rates of violence from several causes have declined, the persistent prevalence of violence in people’s daily lives, both domestically and globally, should give people pause. In theory, violence is eminently preventable. Decreasing violence should therefore be a top priority in the broader pursuit of preventing disease and poor health. Yet violence continues to injure and kill worldwide. At the heart of this failure to prevent violence is the belief that violence is not a health issue. Overwhelmingly, people think of violence as a criminal justice problem, or a sociopolitical concern. This has resulted in the heavy-handed approach to incarceration, which has exacerbated racial divides in the United States and done little to prevent violence. Yet violence is a public health problem, with consequences both individual and collective. Some individuals who experience violence die; those who do not will go on to bear a physical or mental health burden that can last a lifetime. As such, solutions to violence must be rooted in a public health perspective. This means understanding how the context that shapes people’s health each day can raise the likelihood of violence.