Proponents of teleological theories of mental content can agree that no ought-claim follows from a function ascription without the addition of further premises (for discussion, see Jacob (2001)) and that functions are not prescriptive.
Taking these considerations into account, purely normative, theoretical research on ideal premises (i.e. simplified, limited premises that basically allow for discussion and justification of principles, not real world actions) cannot be characterised as being translational in its own right.
With this assertion as the premise for the following roundtable discussion, we have invited a number of people who attended the Third Global Symposium to make brief contributions answering the following simple question: how do you respond to Christian Mpoyi Kalala?
Our study supports the premise that increased knowledge and opportunity for discussion is associated with acceptance of less restrictive consent models.
Our study also supports the premise that increased knowledge and opportunity for discussion is associated with acceptance of less restrictive consent models.
"It was a premise of the discussion at the time and was based on representations made by the tribe".
These findings challenge the premise that discussions about HIV status necessarily prevent forward transmission.
For discussion see Wall (forthcoming).
