document_title: List of Olympic Games host cities

question_text: where were the olympics held in the us

question_tokens: where were the olympics held in the us

text: List of Olympic Games host cities

text: Olympic Games host cities[edit]

text:
City
Country
Continent
Summer (Olympiad)
Winter
Year
Opening Ceremony
Closing Ceremony

Athens
 Greece
Europe
S005I
—
1896
000000002018-04-06-0000April 6
000000002018-04-15-0000April 15

Paris
 France
Europe
S005II
—
1900
000000002018-05-14-0000May 14
000000002018-10-28-0000October 28

St. Louis[a]
 United States
North America
S005III
—
1904
000000002018-07-01-0000July 1
000000002018-11-23-0000November 23

London[c]
 United Kingdom
Europe
S005IV
—
1908
000000002018-04-27-0000April 27
000000002018-10-31-0000October 31

Stockholm
 Sweden
Europe
S005V
—
1912
000000002018-05-05-0000May 5
000000002018-07-22-0000July 22

Berlin
 Germany
Europe
S006VI
—
1916
Cancelled due to WWI[4]

Antwerp[d]
 Belgium
Europe
S007VII
—
1920
000000002018-04-20-0000April 20
000000002018-09-12-0000September 12[5]

Chamonix
 France
Europe
—
W001I
1924
000000002018-01-25-0000January 25
000000002018-02-04-0000February 4[6]

Paris
 France
Europe
S008VIII
—
000000002018-05-04-0000May 4
000000002018-07-27-0000July 27[7]

St. Moritz
  Switzerland
Europe
—
W002II
1928
000000002018-02-11-0000February 11
000000002018-02-19-0000February 19[8]

Amsterdam
 Netherlands
Europe
S009IX
—
000000002018-05-17-0000May 17
000000002018-08-12-0000August 12[9]

Lake Placid
 United States
North America
—
W003III
1932
000000002018-02-04-0000February 4
000000002018-02-15-0000February 15[10]

Los Angeles
 United States
North America
S010X
—
000000002018-07-30-0000July 30
000000002018-08-14-0000August 14[11]

Garmisch-Partenkirchen
 Nazi Germany
Europe
—
W004IV
1936
000000002018-02-06-0000February 6
000000002018-02-16-0000February 16[12]

Berlin
 Nazi Germany
Europe
S011XI
—
000000002018-08-01-0000August 1
000000002018-08-16-0000August 16[13]

Sapporo
Garmisch-Partenkirchen[e]
 Empire of Japan
 Nazi Germany
Asia
Europe
—
W005aV
1940
Cancelled due to WWII[4]

Tokyo
Helsinki[f]
 Empire of Japan
 Finland
Asia
Europe
S012XII
—

Cortina d'Ampezzo
 Italy
Europe
—
W005bV
1944

London
 United Kingdom
Europe
S013XIII
—

St. Moritz
  Switzerland
Europe
—
W005cV
1948
000000002018-01-30-0000January 30
000000002018-02-08-0000February 8

London
 United Kingdom
Europe
S014XIV
—
000000002018-07-29-0000July 29
000000002018-08-14-0000August 14

Oslo
 Norway
Europe
—
W006VI
1952
000000002018-02-14-0000February 14
000000002018-02-25-0000February 25

Helsinki
 Finland
Europe
S015XV
—
000000002018-07-19-0000July 19
000000002018-08-03-0000August 3

Cortina d'Ampezzo
 Italy
Europe
—
W007VII
1956
000000002018-01-26-0000January 26
000000002018-02-05-0000February 5

Melbourne
Stockholm[g]
 Australia
 Sweden
Oceania
Europe
S016XVI
—
000000002018-11-22-0000November 22
000000002018-06-10-0000June 10
000000002018-12-08-0000December 8
000000002018-06-17-0000June 17

Squaw Valley
 United States
North America
—
W008VIII
1960
000000002018-02-18-0000February 18
000000002018-02-28-0000February 28

Rome
 Italy
Europe
S017XVII
—
000000002018-08-25-0000August 25
000000002018-09-11-0000September 11

Innsbruck
 Austria
Europe
—
W009IX
1964
000000002018-01-29-0000January 29
000000002018-02-09-0000February 9

Tokyo
 Japan
Asia
S018XVIII
—
000000002018-10-10-0000October 10
000000002018-10-24-0000October 24

Grenoble
 France
Europe
—
W010X
1968
000000002018-02-06-0000February 6
000000002018-02-18-0000February 18

Mexico City
 Mexico
North America
S019XIX
—
000000002018-10-12-0000October 12
000000002018-10-27-0000October 27

Sapporo
 Japan
Asia
—
W011XI
1972
000000002018-02-03-0000February 3
000000002018-02-13-0000February 13

Munich
 West Germany
Europe
S020XX
—
000000002018-08-26-0000August 26
000000002018-09-11-0000September 11

Innsbruck
 Austria
Europe
—
W012XII
1976
000000002018-02-04-0000February 4
000000002018-02-15-0000February 15

Montreal
 Canada
North America
S021XXI
—
000000002018-07-17-0000July 17
000000002018-08-01-0000August 1

Lake Placid
 United States
North America
—
W013XIII
1980
000000002018-02-12-0000February 12
000000002018-02-24-0000February 24

Moscow
 Soviet Union
Europe[h]
S022XXII
—
000000002018-07-19-0000July 19
000000002018-08-03-0000August 3

Sarajevo
 Yugoslavia
Europe
—
W014XIV
1984
000000002018-02-07-0000February 7
000000002018-02-19-0000February 19

Los Angeles
 United States
North America
S023XXIII
—
000000002018-07-28-0000July 28
000000002018-08-12-0000August 12

Calgary
 Canada
North America
—
W015XV
1988
000000002018-02-13-0000February 13
000000002018-02-28-0000February 28

Seoul
 South Korea
Asia
S024XXIV
—
000000002018-09-17-0000September 17
000000002018-10-02-0000October 2

Albertville
 France
Europe
—
W016XVI
1992
000000002018-02-08-0000February 8
000000002018-02-23-0000February 23

Barcelona
 Spain
Europe
S025XXV
—
000000002018-07-25-0000July 25
000000002018-08-09-0000August 9

Lillehammer
 Norway
Europe
—
W017XVII
1994
000000002018-02-12-0000February 12
000000002018-02-27-0000February 27

Atlanta
 United States
North America
S026XXVI
—
1996
000000002018-07-19-0000July 19
000000002018-08-04-0000August 4

Nagano
 Japan
Asia
—
W018XVIII
1998
000000002018-02-07-0000February 7
000000002018-02-22-0000February 22

Sydney
 Australia
Oceania
S027XXVII
—
2000
000000002018-09-15-0000September 15
000000002018-10-01-0000October 1

Salt Lake City
 United States
North America
—
W019XIX
2002
000000002018-02-08-0000February 8
000000002018-02-24-0000February 24

Athens
 Greece
Europe
S028XXVIII
—
2004
000000002018-08-13-0000August 13
000000002018-08-29-0000August 29

Torino
 Italy
Europe
—
W020XX
2006
000000002018-02-10-0000February 10
000000002018-02-26-0000February 26

Beijing[i]
 China
Asia
S029XXIX
—
2008
000000002018-08-08-0000August 8
000000002018-08-24-0000August 24

Vancouver
 Canada
North America
—
W021XXI
2010
000000002018-02-12-0000February 12
000000002018-02-28-0000February 28

London
 United Kingdom
Europe
S030XXX
—
2012
000000002018-07-27-0000July 27
000000002018-08-12-0000August 12

Sochi
 Russia
Europe[h]
—
W022XXII
2014
000000002018-02-07-0000February 7
000000002018-02-23-0000February 23

Rio de Janeiro
 Brazil
South America
S031XXXI
—
2016
000000002018-08-05-0000August 5
000000002018-08-21-0000August 21

Pyeongchang
 South Korea
Asia
—
W023XXIII
2018
000000002018-02-09-0000February 9
000000002018-02-25-0000February 25

Tokyo
 Japan
Asia
S032XXXII
—
2020
000000002018-07-24-0000July 24
000000002018-08-09-0000August 9

Beijing
 China
Asia
—
W024XXIV
2022
000000002018-02-04-0000February 4
000000002018-02-20-0000February 20

Paris
 France
Europe
S033XXXIII
—
2024
000000002018-07-26-0000July 26
000000002018-08-11-0000August 11

TBD
TBD

—
W025XXV
2026
(TBD)

Los Angeles
 United States
North America
S034XXXIV
—
2028
000000002018-07-21-0000July 21
000000002018-08-06-0000August 6

TBD
TBD

—
W026XXVI
2030
(TBD)

text: Host cities for multiple Summer and Winter Olympic Games[edit]

text:
List of cities that hosted multiple editions of the Olympic Games

City
Country
Continent
Summer Olympics
Winter Olympics
Total

London
 United Kingdom
Europe
3 (1908, 1948, 2012)
0
3

Paris
 France
Europe
3 (1900, 1924, 2024)
0

Los Angeles
 United States
North America
3 (1932, 1984, 2028)
0

Athens
 Greece
Europe
2 (1896, 2004)
0
2

Tokyo
 Japan
Asia
2 (1964, 2020)
0

Beijing
 China
Asia
1 (2008)
1 (2022)

St. Moritz
  Switzerland
Europe
0
2 (1928, 1948)

Innsbruck
 Austria
Europe
0
2 (1964, 1976)

Lake Placid
 United States
North America
0
2 (1932, 1980)

text: The 1906 Intercalated Games are not officially recognized by the IOC as an official Olympic Games.

text: Number of Olympic Games by country[edit]

text:
List of countries ranked by the number of times they hosted the Olympic Games

Rank
Country
Continent
Summer Olympics
Winter Olympics
Total

1
 United States
North America
5 (1904, 1932, 1984, 1996, 2028)
4 (1932, 1960, 1980, 2002)
9

2
 France
Europe
3 (1900, 1924, 2024)
3 (1924, 1968, 1992)
6

3
 Japan
Asia
2 (1940, 1964, 2020)
2 (1940, 1972, 1998)
4

4
 United Kingdom
Europe
3 (1908, 1944, 1948, 2012)
0
3

 Canada
North America
1 (1976)
2 (1988, 2010)

 Italy
Europe
1 (1960)
2 (1944, 1956, 2006)

 German Empire/ Nazi Germany/ West Germany/ Germany
Europe
2 (1916, 1936, 1972)
1 (1936, 1940)

8
 China
Asia
1 (2008)
1 (2022)
2

 South Korea
Asia
1 (1988)
1 (2018)

 Soviet Union/ Russia
Europe
1 (1980)
1 (2014)

 Greece
Europe
2 (1896, 2004)
0

 Australia
Oceania
2 (1956, 2000)
0

 Norway
Europe
0
2 (1952, 1994)

 Austria
Europe
0
2 (1964, 1976)

  Switzerland
Europe
0
2 (1928, 1940, 1948)

16
 Brazil
South America
1 (2016)
0
1

 Spain
Europe
1 (1992)
0

 SFR Yugoslavia/ Bosnia and Herzegovina
Europe
0
1 (1984)

 Mexico
North America
1 (1968)
0

 Finland
Europe
1 (1940, 1952)
0

 Netherlands
Europe
1 (1928)
0

 Belgium
Europe
1 (1920)
0

 Sweden
Europe
1 (1912)
0

text: Number of Olympic Games by continent[edit]

text:
Rank
Continent
Summer Olympics
Winter Olympics
Total

1
Europe
17 (1896, 1900, 1908, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1960, 1972, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2012, 2024)
13 (1924, 1928, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1984, 1992, 1994, 2006, 2014)
30

2
North America
7 (1904, 1932, 1968, 1976, 1984, 1996, 2028)
6 (1932, 1960, 1980, 1988, 2002, 2010)
13

3
Asia
4 (1940, 1964, 1988, 2008, 2020)
4 (1940, 1972, 1998, 2018, 2022)
8

4
Oceania
2 (1956, 2000)
0
2

5
South America
1 (2016)
0
1

6
Africa
0
0
0

text: Unsuccessful cities[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Country
City
Bids

 United States
Detroit
7

 Hungary
Budapest
6

 Turkey
Istanbul
5

 Spain
Madrid
4

 Argentina
Buenos Aires
4

  Switzerland
Lausanne
4

 United States
Philadelphia
4

 United States
Chicago
4

 United States
Minneapolis
3

 Cuba
Havana
3

 Belgium
Brussels
3

 Azerbaijan
Baku
2

 Qatar
Doha
2

 Spain
Seville
2

 Puerto Rico
San Juan
1

 Australia
Brisbane
1

 Slovakia
Poprad
1

 United States
Boston
1

text: Notes[edit]

text:
a Originally awarded to Chicago, but moved to St. Louis to coincide with the World's Fair.[14][15]
b The 1906 Games were sanctioned and treated as an Olympic Games when held, and they were recognized as an Olympic Games by the IOC until 1949[16]
c The 1908 Games were originally given to Rome, but were moved to London when Mount Vesuvius erupted.[17]
d The sailing events in 1920 were held in Ostend, Belgium and in Amsterdam, Netherlands.
e The 1940 winter games were originally awarded to Sapporo, but were moved to Garmisch-Partenkirchen before being cancelled.
f The 1940 summer games were originally awarded to Tokyo, but were moved to Helsinki before being cancelled.
g Equestrian events were held in Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm had to bid for the equestrian competition separately; it received its own Olympic flame and had its own formal invitations and opening and closing ceremonies, just like the regular Summer Olympics.[18]
h Russia/Soviet Union spans the continents of Europe and Asia. However, the Russian National Olympic Committee is part of the European Olympic Committees. Also, Moscow is on the European side of the most commonly recognized boundary between Europe and Asia. (Sochi is in Asia per the usual geographic boundary, being just south of the Greater Caucasus' western end; but political approximations of the continental boundary place it in Europe.)
i Equestrian events were held in China's Hong Kong SAR.[19] Although Hong Kong's separate NOC conducted the equestrian competition, it was an integral part of the Beijing Games (unlike the 1956 Stockholm equestrian competition it was not conducted under a separate Hong Kong bid, separate flame, etc.).[20]


document_title: Reason

question_text: which mode of reasoning comes into play when seeking to explain and to predict natural phenomena

question_tokens: which mode of reasoning comes into play when seeking to explain and to predict natural phenomena

root

text: Reason

text: Etymology and related words[edit]

text: In the English language and other modern European languages, "reason", and related words, represent words which have always been used to translate Latin and classical Greek terms in the sense of their philosophical usage.

tag: p

text:
The original Greek term was "λόγος" logos, the root of the modern English word "logic" but also a word which could mean for example "speech" or "explanation" or an "account" (of money handled).[8]
As a philosophical term logos was translated in its non-linguistic senses in Latin as ratio. This was originally not just a translation used for philosophy, but was also commonly a translation for logos in the sense of an account of money.[9]
French raison is derived directly from Latin, and this is the direct source of the English word "reason".[6]

tag: ul

text: The earliest major philosophers to publish in English, such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke also routinely wrote in Latin and French, and compared their terms to Greek, treating the words "logos", "ratio", "raison" and "reason" as inter-changeable. The meaning of the word "reason" in senses such as "human reason" also overlaps to a large extent with "rationality" and the adjective of "reason" in philosophical contexts is normally "rational", rather than "reasoned" or "reasonable".[10] Some philosophers, Thomas Hobbes for example, also used the word ratiocination as a synonym for "reasoning".

text: Philosophical history[edit]

text: The proposal that reason gives humanity a special position in nature has been argued to be a defining characteristic of western philosophy and later western modern science, starting with classical Greece. Philosophy can be described as a way of life based upon reason, and in the other direction reason has been one of the major subjects of philosophical discussion since ancient times. Reason is often said to be reflexive, or "self-correcting," and the critique of reason has been a persistent theme in philosophy.[11] It has been defined in different ways, at different times, by different thinkers about human nature.

text: Classical philosophy[edit]

text: For many classical philosophers, nature was understood teleologically, meaning that every type of thing had a definitive purpose which fit within a natural order that was itself understood to have aims. Perhaps starting with Pythagoras or Heraclitus, the cosmos is even said to have reason.[12] Reason, by this account, is not just one characteristic that humans happen to have, and that influences happiness amongst other characteristics. Reason was considered of higher stature than other characteristics of human nature, such as sociability, because it is something humans share with nature itself, linking an apparently immortal part of the human mind with the divine order of the cosmos itself. Within the human mind or soul (psyche), reason was described by Plato as being the natural monarch which should rule over the other parts, such as spiritedness (thumos) and the passions. Aristotle, Plato's student, defined human beings as rational animals, emphasizing reason as a characteristic of human nature. He defined the highest human happiness or well being (eudaimonia) as a life which is lived consistently, excellently and completely in accordance with reason.[13]

text: The conclusions to be drawn from the discussions of Aristotle and Plato on this matter are amongst the most debated in the history of philosophy.[14] But teleological accounts such as Aristotle's were highly influential for those who attempt to explain reason in a way which is consistent with monotheism and the immortality and divinity of the human soul. For example, in the neo-platonist account of Plotinus, the cosmos has one soul, which is the seat of all reason, and the souls of all individual humans are part of this soul. Reason is for Plotinus both the provider of form to material things, and the light which brings individuals souls back into line with their source.[15] Such neo-Platonist accounts of the rational part of the human soul were standard amongst medieval Islamic philosophers, and under this influence, mainly via Averroes, came to be debated seriously in Europe until well into the renaissance, and they remain important in Iranian philosophy.[14]

text: Subject-centred reason in early modern philosophy[edit]

text: The early modern era was marked by a number of significant changes in the understanding of reason, starting in Europe. One of the most important of these changes involved a change in the metaphysical understanding of human beings. Scientists and philosophers began to question the teleological understanding of the world.[16] Nature was no longer assumed to be human-like, with its own aims or reason, and human nature was no longer assumed to work according to anything other than the same "laws of nature" which affect inanimate things. This new understanding eventually displaced the previous world view that derived from a spiritual understanding of the universe.

text: Accordingly, in the 17th century, René Descartes explicitly rejected the traditional notion of humans as "rational animals," suggesting instead that they are nothing more than "thinking things" along the lines of other "things" in nature. Any grounds of knowledge outside that understanding was, therefore, subject to doubt.

text: In his search for a foundation of all possible knowledge, Descartes deliberately decided to throw into doubt all knowledge – except that of the mind itself in the process of thinking:

text: At this time I admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is a mind, or intellect, or understanding, or reason – words of whose meanings I was previously ignorant.[17]

text: This eventually became known as epistemological or "subject-centred" reason, because it is based on the knowing subject, who perceives the rest of the world and itself as a set of objects to be studied, and successfully mastered by applying the knowledge accumulated through such study. Breaking with tradition and many thinkers after him, Descartes explicitly did not divide the incorporeal soul into parts, such as reason and intellect, describing them as one indivisible incorporeal entity.

text: A contemporary of Descartes, Thomas Hobbes described reason as a broader version of "addition and subtraction" which is not limited to numbers.[18] This understanding of reason is sometimes termed "calculative" reason. Similar to Descartes, Hobbes asserted that "No discourse whatsoever, can end in absolute knowledge of fact, past, or to come" but that "sense and memory" is absolute knowledge.[19]

text: In the late 17th century, through the 18th century, John Locke and David Hume developed Descartes' line of thought still further. Hume took it in an especially skeptical direction, proposing that there could be no possibility of deducing relationships of cause and effect, and therefore no knowledge is based on reasoning alone, even if it seems otherwise.[20][21]

text: Hume famously remarked that, "We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."[22] Hume also took his definition of reason to unorthodox extremes by arguing, unlike his predecessors, that human reason is not qualitatively different from either simply conceiving individual ideas, or from judgments associating two ideas,[23] and that "reason is nothing but a wonderful and unintelligible instinct in our souls, which carries us along a certain train of ideas, and endows them with particular qualities, according to their particular situations and relations."[24] It followed from this that animals have reason, only much less complex than human reason.

text: In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant attempted to show that Hume was wrong by demonstrating that a "transcendental" self, or "I", was a necessary condition of all experience. Therefore, suggested Kant, on the basis of such a self, it is in fact possible to reason both about the conditions and limits of human knowledge. And so long as these limits are respected, reason can be the vehicle of morality, justice, aesthetics, theories of knowledge (epistemology), and understanding.

text: Substantive and formal reason[edit]

text: In the formulation of Kant, who wrote some of the most influential modern treatises on the subject, the great achievement of reason (German: Vernunft) is that it is able to exercise a kind of universal law-making. Kant was able therefore to re-formulate the basis of moral-practical, theoretical and aesthetic reasoning, on "universal" laws.

text: Here practical reasoning is the self-legislating or self-governing formulation of universal norms, and theoretical reasoning the way humans posit universal laws of nature.[25]

text: Under practical reason, the moral autonomy or freedom of human beings depends on their ability to behave according to laws that are given to them by the proper exercise of that reason. This contrasted with earlier forms of morality, which depended on religious understanding and interpretation, or nature for their substance.[26]

text: According to Kant, in a free society each individual must be able to pursue their goals however they see fit, so long as their actions conform to principles given by reason. He formulated such a principle, called the "categorical imperative", which would justify an action only if it could be universalized:

text: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.[27]

text: In contrast to Hume then, Kant insists that reason itself (German Vernunft) has natural ends itself, the solution to the metaphysical problems, especially the discovery of the foundations of morality. Kant claimed that this problem could be solved with his "transcendental logic" which unlike normal logic is not just an instrument, which can be used indifferently, as it was for Aristotle, but a theoretical science in its own right and the basis of all the others.[28]

text: According to Jürgen Habermas, the "substantive unity" of reason has dissolved in modern times, such that it can no longer answer the question "How should I live?" Instead, the unity of reason has to be strictly formal, or "procedural." He thus described reason as a group of three autonomous spheres (on the model of Kant's three critiques):

text:
Cognitive-instrumental reason is the kind of reason employed by the sciences. It is used to observe events, to predict and control outcomes, and to intervene in the world on the basis of its hypotheses;
Moral-practical reason is what we use to deliberate and discuss issues in the moral and political realm, according to universalizable procedures (similar to Kant's categorical imperative); and
Aesthetic reason is typically found in works of art and literature, and encompasses the novel ways of seeing the world and interpreting things that those practices embody.

tag: ol

text: For Habermas, these three spheres are the domain of experts, and therefore need to be mediated with the "lifeworld" by philosophers. In drawing such a picture of reason, Habermas hoped to demonstrate that the substantive unity of reason, which in pre-modern societies had been able to answer questions about the good life, could be made up for by the unity of reason's formalizable procedures.[29]

text: The critique of reason[edit]

text: Hamann, Herder, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Rorty, and many other philosophers have contributed to a debate about what reason means, or ought to mean. Some, like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Rorty, are skeptical about subject-centred, universal, or instrumental reason, and even skeptical toward reason as a whole. Others, including Hegel, believe that it has obscured the importance of intersubjectivity, or "spirit" in human life, and attempt to reconstruct a model of what reason should be.

text: Some thinkers, e.g. Foucault, believe there are other forms of reason, neglected but essential to modern life, and to our understanding of what it means to live a life according to reason.[11]

text: In the last several decades, a number of proposals have been made to "re-orient" this critique of reason, or to recognize the "other voices" or "new departments" of reason:

text: For example, in opposition to subject-centred reason, Habermas has proposed a model of communicative reason that sees it as an essentially cooperative activity, based on the fact of linguistic intersubjectivity.[30]

text: Nikolas Kompridis has proposed a widely encompassing view of reason as "that ensemble of practices that contributes to the opening and preserving of openness" in human affairs, and a focus on reason's possibilities for social change.[31]

text: The philosopher Charles Taylor, influenced by the 20th century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, has proposed that reason ought to include the faculty of disclosure, which is tied to the way we make sense of things in everyday life, as a new "department" of reason.[32]

text: In the essay "What is Enlightenment?", Michel Foucault proposed a concept of critique based on Kant's distinction between "private" and "public" uses of reason. This distinction, as suggested, has two dimensions:

text:
Private reason is the reason that is used when an individual is "a cog in a machine" or when one "has a role to play in society and jobs to do: to be a soldier, to have taxes to pay, to be in charge of a parish, to be a civil servant."
Public reason is the reason used "when one is reasoning as a reasonable being (and not as a cog in a machine), when one is reasoning as a member of reasonable humanity." In these circumstances, "the use of reason must be free and public."[33]

text: Reason compared to related concepts[edit]

text: Compared to logic[edit]

text: The terms "logic" or "logical" are sometimes used as if they were identical with the term "reason" or with the concept of being "rational", or sometimes logic is seen as the most pure or the defining form of reason. For example in modern economics, rational choice is assumed to equate to logically consistent choice.

text: Reason and logic can however be thought of as distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. Author Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach, characterizes the distinction in this way. Logic is done inside a system while reason is done outside the system by such methods as skipping steps, working backward, drawing diagrams, looking at examples, or seeing what happens if you change the rules of the system.[34]

text: Reason is a type of thought, and the word "logic" involves the attempt to describe rules or norms by which reasoning operates, so that orderly reasoning can be taught. The oldest surviving writing to explicitly consider the rules by which reason operates are the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, especially Prior Analysis and Posterior Analysis.[35] Although the Ancient Greeks had no separate word for logic as distinct from language and reason, Aristotle's newly coined word "syllogism" (syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. When Aristotle referred to "the logical" (hē logikē), he was referring more broadly to rational thought.[36]

text: Reason compared to cause-and-effect thinking, and symbolic thinking[edit]

text: As pointed out by philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume, some animals are also clearly capable of a type of "associative thinking", even to the extent of associating causes and effects. A dog once kicked, can learn how to recognize the warning signs and avoid being kicked in the future, but this does not mean the dog has reason in any strict sense of the word. It also does not mean that humans acting on the basis of experience or habit are using their reason.[37]

text: Human reason requires more than being able to associate two ideas, even if those two ideas might be described by a reasoning human as a cause and an effect, perceptions of smoke, for example, and memories of fire. For reason to be involved, the association of smoke and the fire would have to be thought through in a way which can be explained, for example as cause and effect. In the explanation of Locke, for example, reason requires the mental use of a third idea in order to make this comparison by use of syllogism.[38]

text: More generally, reason in the strict sense requires the ability to create and manipulate a system of symbols, as well as indices and icons, according to Charles Sanders Peirce, the symbols having only a nominal, though habitual, connection to either smoke or fire.[39] One example of such a system of artificial symbols and signs is language.

text: The connection of reason to symbolic thinking has been expressed in different ways by philosophers. Thomas Hobbes described the creation of "Markes, or Notes of remembrance" (Leviathan Ch.4) as speech. He used the word speech as an English version of the Greek word logos so that speech did not need to be communicated.[40] When communicated, such speech becomes language, and the marks or notes or remembrance are called "Signes" by Hobbes. Going further back, although Aristotle is a source of the idea that only humans have reason (logos), he does mention that animals with imagination, for whom sense perceptions can persist, come closest to having something like reasoning and nous, and even uses the word "logos" in one place to describe the distinctions which animals can perceive in such cases.[41]

text: Reason, imagination, mimesis, and memory[edit]

text: Reason and imagination rely on similar mental processes.[42] Imagination is not only found in humans. Aristotle, for example, stated that phantasia (imagination: that which can hold images or phantasmata) and phronein (a type of thinking that can judge and understand in some sense) also exist in some animals.[43] According to him, both are related to the primary perceptive ability of animals, which gathers the perceptions of different senses and defines the order of the things that are perceived without distinguishing universals, and without deliberation or logos. But this is not yet reason, because human imagination is different.

text: The recent modern writings of Terrence Deacon and Merlin Donald, writing about the origin of language, also connect reason connected to not only language, but also mimesis,[44] More specifically they describe the ability to create language as part of an internal modeling of reality specific to humankind. Other results are consciousness, and imagination or fantasy. In contrast, modern proponents of a genetic pre-disposition to language itself include Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker, to whom Donald and Deacon can be contrasted.

text: As reason is symbolic thinking, and peculiarly human, then this implies that humans have a special ability to maintain a clear consciousness of the distinctness of "icons" or images and the real things they represent. Starting with a modern author, Merlin Donald writes[45]

text: A dog might perceive the "meaning" of a fight that was realistically play-acted by humans, but it could not reconstruct the message or distinguish the representation from its referent (a real fight). [...] Trained apes are able to make this distinction; young children make this distinction early – hence, their effortless distinction between play-acting an event and the event itself

text: In classical descriptions, an equivalent description of this mental faculty is eikasia, in the philosophy of Plato.[46] This is the ability to perceive whether a perception is an image of something else, related somehow but not the same, and therefore allows humans to perceive that a dream or memory or a reflection in a mirror is not reality as such. What Klein refers to as dianoetic eikasia is the eikasia concerned specifically with thinking and mental images, such as those mental symbols, icons, signes, and marks discussed above as definitive of reason. Explaining reason from this direction: human thinking is special in the way that we often understand visible things as if they were themselves images of our intelligible "objects of thought" as "foundations" (hypothēses in Ancient Greek). This thinking (dianoia) is "...an activity which consists in making the vast and diffuse jungle of the visible world depend on a plurality of more 'precise' noēta."[47]

text: Both Merlin Donald and the Socratic authors such Plato and Aristotle emphasize the importance of mimesis, often translated as imitation or representation. Donald writes[48]

text: Imitation is found especially in monkeys and apes [... but ...] Mimesis is fundamentally different from imitation and mimicry in that it involves the invention of intentional representations. [...] Mimesis is not absolutely tied to external communication.

text: Mimēsis is a concept, now popular again in academic discussion, that was particularly prevalent in Plato's works, and within Aristotle, it is discussed mainly in the Poetics. In Michael Davis's account of the theory of man in this work.[49]

text: It is the distinctive feature of human action, that whenever we choose what we do, we imagine an action for ourselves as though we were inspecting it from the outside. Intentions are nothing more than imagined actions, internalizings of the external. All action is therefore imitation of action; it is poetic...[50]

text: Donald like Plato (and Aristotle, especially in On Memory and Recollection), emphasizes the peculiarity in humans of voluntary initiation of a search through one's mental world. The ancient Greek anamnēsis, normally translated as "recollection" was opposed to mneme or memory. Memory, shared with some animals,[51] requires a consciousness not only of what happened in the past, but also that something happened in the past, which is in other words a kind of eikasia[52] "...but nothing except man is able to recollect."[53] Recollection is a deliberate effort to search for and recapture something once known. Klein writes that, "To become aware of our having forgotten something means to begin recollecting."[54] Donald calls the same thing autocueing, which he explains as follows:[55] "Mimetic acts are reproducible on the basis of internal, self-generated cues. This permits voluntary recall of mimetic representations, without the aid of external cues – probably the earliest form of representational thinking."

text: In a celebrated paper in modern times, the fantasy author and philologist J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in his essay "On Fairy Stories" that the terms "fantasy" and "enchantment" are connected to not only "....the satisfaction of certain primordial human desires...." but also "...the origin of language and of the mind."

text: Logical reasoning methods and argumentation[edit]

text: Looking at logical categorizations of different types of reasoning the traditional main division made in philosophy is between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Formal logic has been described as the science of deduction.[56] The study of inductive reasoning is generally carried out within the field known as informal logic or critical thinking.

text: Deductive reasoning[edit]

text: A subdivision of Philosophy is Logic. Logic is the study of reasoning. Deduction is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises. A deduction is also the conclusion reached by a deductive reasoning process. One classic example of deductive reasoning is that found in syllogisms like the following:

text:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

text: The reasoning in this argument is valid, because there is no way in which the premises, 1 and 2, could be true and the conclusion, 3, be false.

text: Inductive reasoning[edit]

text: Induction is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either specifically or generally, based on previous observation. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to objects or types based on previous observations or experiences, or to formulate general statements or laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.

text: Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning in that, even in the best, or strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion of an inductive argument follows with some degree of probability. Relatedly, the conclusion of an inductive argument contains more information than is already contained in the premises. Thus, this method of reasoning is ampliative.

text: A classic example of inductive reasoning comes from the empiricist David Hume:

text:
Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now.
Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.

text: Abductive reasoning[edit]

text: Abductive reasoning, or argument to the best explanation, is a form of inductive reasoning, since the conclusion in an abductive argument does not follow with certainty from its premises and concerns something unobserved. What distinguishes abduction from the other forms of reasoning is an attempt to favour one conclusion above others, by attempting to falsify alternative explanations or by demonstrating the likelihood of the favoured conclusion, given a set of more or less disputable assumptions. For example, when a patient displays certain symptoms, there might be various possible causes, but one of these is preferred above others as being more probable.

text: Analogical reasoning[edit]

text: Analogical reasoning is reasoning from the particular to the particular. It is often used in case-based reasoning, especially legal reasoning.[57] An example follows:

text:
Premise 1: Socrates is human and mortal.
Premise 2: Plato is human.
Conclusion: Plato is mortal.

text: Analogical reasoning can be viewed as a form of inductive reasoning from a single example, but if it is intended as inductive reasoning it is a bad example, because inductive reasoning typically uses a large number of examples to reason from the particular to the general.[58] Analogical reasoning often leads to wrong conclusions. For example:

text:
Premise 1: Socrates is human and male.
Premise 2: Ada Lovelace is human.
Conclusion: Therefore Ada Lovelace is male.

text: Fallacious reasoning[edit]

text: Flawed reasoning in arguments is known as fallacious reasoning. Bad reasoning within arguments can be because it commits either a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy.

text: Formal fallacies occur when there is a problem with the form, or structure, of the argument. The word "formal" refers to this link to the form of the argument. An argument that contains a formal fallacy will always be invalid.

text: An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs due to a problem with the content, rather than mere structure, of the argument.

text: Traditional problems raised concerning reason[edit]

text: Philosophy is sometimes described as a life of reason, with normal human reason pursued in a more consistent and dedicated way than usual. Two categories of problem concerning reason have long been discussed by philosophers concerning reason, essentially being reasonings about reasoning itself as a human aim, or philosophizing about philosophizing. The first question is concerning whether we can be confident that reason can achieve knowledge of truth better than other ways of trying to achieve such knowledge. The other question is whether a life of reason, a life that aims to be guided by reason, can be expected to achieve a happy life more so than other ways of life (whether such a life of reason results in knowledge or not).

text: Reason versus truth, and "first principles"[edit]

text: Since classical times a question has remained constant in philosophical debate (which is sometimes seen as a conflict between movements called Platonism and Aristotelianism) concerning the role of reason in confirming truth. People use logic, deduction, and induction, to reach conclusions they think are true. Conclusions reached in this way are considered more certain than sense perceptions on their own.[59] On the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built originally upon a foundation of sense perceptions, then, our most logical conclusions can never be said to be certain because they are built upon the very same fallible perceptions they seek to better.[60]

text: This leads to the question of what types of first principles, or starting points of reasoning, are available for someone seeking to come to true conclusions. In Greek, "first principles" are archai, "starting points",[61] and the faculty used to perceive them is sometimes referred to in Aristotle[62] and Plato[63] as nous which was close in meaning to awareness or consciousness.[64]

text: Empiricism (sometimes associated with Aristotle[65] but more correctly associated with British philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume, as well as their ancient equivalents such as Democritus) asserts that sensory impressions are the only available starting points for reasoning and attempting to attain truth. This approach always leads to the controversial conclusion that absolute knowledge is not attainable. Idealism, (associated with Plato and his school), claims that there is a "higher" reality, from which certain people can directly arrive at truth without needing to rely only upon the senses, and that this higher reality is therefore the primary source of truth.

text: Philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas and Hegel are sometimes said to have argued that reason must be fixed and discoverable—perhaps by dialectic, analysis, or study. In the vision of these thinkers, reason is divine or at least has divine attributes. Such an approach allowed religious philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Étienne Gilson to try to show that reason and revelation are compatible. According to Hegel, "...the only thought which Philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of reason; that reason is the Sovereign of the World; that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process."[66]

text: Since the 17th century rationalists, reason has often been taken to be a subjective faculty, or rather the unaided ability (pure reason) to form concepts. For Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, this was associated with mathematics. Kant attempted to show that pure reason could form concepts (time and space) that are the conditions of experience. Kant made his argument in opposition to Hume, who denied that reason had any role to play in experience.

text: Reason versus emotion or passion[edit]

text: After Plato and Aristotle, western literature often treated reason as being the faculty that trained the passions and appetites.[citation needed] Stoic philosophy by contrast considered all passions bad.[citation needed] After the critiques of reason in the early Enlightenment the appetites were rarely discussed or conflated with the passions.[citation needed] Some Enlightenment camps took after the Stoics to say Reason should oppose Passion rather than order it, while others like the Romantics believed that Passion displaces Reason, as in the maxim "follow your heart".[citation needed]

text: Reason has been seen as a slave, or judge, of the passions, notably in the work of David Hume, and more recently of Freud.[citation needed] Reasoning which claims that the object of a desire is demanded by logic alone is called rationalization.[citation needed]

text: Rousseau first proposed, in his second Discourse, that reason and political life is not natural and possibly harmful to mankind.[67] He asked what really can be said about what is natural to mankind. What, other than reason and civil society, "best suits his constitution"? Rousseau saw "two principles prior to reason" in human nature. First we hold an intense interest in our own well-being. Secondly we object to the suffering or death of any sentient being, especially one like ourselves.[68] These two passions lead us to desire more than we could achieve. We become dependent upon each other, and on relationships of authority and obedience. This effectively puts the human race into slavery. Rousseau says that he almost dares to assert that nature does not destine men to be healthy. According to Velkley, "Rousseau outlines certain programs of rational self-correction, most notably the political legislation of the Contrat Social and the moral education in Émile. All the same, Rousseau understands such corrections to be only ameliorations of an essentially unsatisfactory condition, that of socially and intellectually corrupted humanity."

text: This quandary presented by Rousseau led to Kant's new way of justifying reason as freedom to create good and evil. These therefore are not to be blamed on nature or God. In various ways, German Idealism after Kant, and major later figures such Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Scheler, and Heidegger, remain pre-occupied with problems coming from the metaphysical demands or urges of reason.[69] The influence of Rousseau and these later writers is also large upon art and politics. Many writers (such as Nikos Kazantzakis) extol passion and disparage reason. In politics modern nationalism comes from Rousseau's argument that rationalist cosmopolitanism brings man ever further from his natural state.[70]

text: Another view on reason and emotion was proposed in the 1994 book titled Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio. In it, Damasio presents the "Somatic Marker Hypothesis" which states that emotions guide behavior and decision-making. Damasio argues that these somatic markers (known collectively as "gut feelings") are "intuitive signals" that direct our decision making processes in a certain way that cannot be solved with rationality alone. Damasio further argues that rationality requires emotional input in order to function.

text: Reason versus faith or tradition[edit]

text: There are many religious traditions, some of which are explicitly fideist and others of which claim varying degrees of rationalism. Secular critics sometimes accuse all religious adherents of irrationality, since they claim such adherents are guilty of ignoring, suppressing, or forbidding some kinds of reasoning concerning some subjects (such as religious dogmas, moral taboos, etc.).[71] Though the theologies and religions such as classical monotheism typically do not claim to be irrational, there is often a perceived conflict or tension between faith and tradition on the one hand, and reason on the other, as potentially competing sources of wisdom, law and truth.[72][73]

text: Religious adherents sometimes respond by arguing that faith and reason can be reconciled, or have different non-overlapping domains, or that critics engage in a similar kind of irrationalism:

text:
Reconciliation: Philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that there is no real conflict between reason and classical theism because classical theism explains (among other things) why the universe is intelligible and why reason can successfully grasp it.[74][75]
Non-overlapping magisteria: Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould argues that there need not be conflict between reason and religious belief because they are each authoritative in their own domain (or "magisterium").[76][77] For example, perhaps reason alone is not enough to explain such big questions as the origins of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness,[78] the foundation of morality, or the destiny of the human race. If so, reason can work on those problems over which it has authority while other sources of knowledge or opinion can have authority on the big questions.[79]
Tu quoque: Philosophers Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor argue that those critics of traditional religion who are adherents of secular liberalism are also sometimes guilty of ignoring, suppressing, and forbidding some kinds of reasoning about subjects.[80][81] Similarly, philosophers of science such as Paul Feyaraband argue that scientists sometimes ignore or suppress evidence contrary to the dominant paradigm.
Unification: Theologian Joseph Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, asserted that "Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason," referring to John 1:Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, usually translated as "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)." Thus, he said that the Christian faith is "open to all that is truly rational," and that the rationality of Western Enlightenment "is of Christian origin".[82]

text: Some commentators have claimed that Western civilization can be almost defined by its serious testing of the limits of tension between "unaided" reason and faith in "revealed" truths—figuratively summarized as Athens and Jerusalem, respectively.[83][84] Leo Strauss spoke of a "Greater West" that included all areas under the influence of the tension between Greek rationalism and Abrahamic revelation, including the Muslim lands. He was particularly influenced by the great Muslim philosopher Al-Farabi. To consider to what extent Eastern philosophy might have partaken of these important tensions, Strauss thought it best to consider whether dharma or tao may be equivalent to Nature (by which we mean physis in Greek). According to Strauss the beginning of philosophy involved the "discovery or invention of nature" and the "pre-philosophical equivalent of nature" was supplied by "such notions as 'custom' or 'ways'", which appear to be really universal in all times and places. The philosophical concept of nature or natures as a way of understanding archai (first principles of knowledge) brought about a peculiar tension between reasoning on the one hand, and tradition or faith on the other.[85]

text: Although there is this special history of debate concerning reason and faith in the Islamic, Christian and Jewish traditions, the pursuit of reason is sometimes argued to be compatible with the other practice of other religions of a different nature, such as Hinduism, because they do not define their tenets in such an absolute way.[86]

text: Reason in particular fields of study[edit]

text: Reason in political philosophy and ethics[edit]

text: Aristotle famously described reason (with language) as a part of human nature, which means that it is best for humans to live "politically" meaning in communities of about the size and type of a small city state (polis in Greek). For example...

text: It is clear, then, that a human being is more of a political [politikon = of the polis] animal [zōion] than is any bee or than any of those animals that live in herds. For nature, as we say, makes nothing in vain, and humans are the only animals who possess reasoned speech [logos]. Voice, of course, serves to indicate what is painful and pleasant; that is why it is also found in other animals, because their nature has reached the point where they can perceive what is painful and pleasant and express these to each other. But speech [logos] serves to make plain what is advantageous and harmful and so also what is just and unjust. For it is a peculiarity of humans, in contrast to the other animals, to have perception of good and bad, just and unjust, and the like; and the community in these things makes a household or city [polis]. [...] By nature, then, the drive for such a community exists in everyone, but the first to set one up is responsible for things of very great goodness. For as humans are the best of all animals when perfected, so they are the worst when divorced from law and right. The reason is that injustice is most difficult to deal with when furnished with weapons, and the weapons a human being has are meant by nature to go along with prudence and virtue, but it is only too possible to turn them to contrary uses. Consequently, if a human being lacks virtue, he is the most unholy and savage thing, and when it comes to sex and food, the worst. But justice is something political [to do with the polis], for right is the arrangement of the political community, and right is discrimination of what is just. (Aristotle's Politics 1253a 1.2. Peter Simpson's translation, with Greek terms inserted in square brackets.)

text: The concept of human nature being fixed in this way, implied, in other words, that we can define what type of community is always best for people. This argument has remained a central argument in all political, ethical and moral thinking since then, and has become especially controversial since firstly Rousseau's Second Discourse, and secondly, the Theory of Evolution. Already in Aristotle there was an awareness that the polis had not always existed and had needed to be invented or developed by humans themselves. The household came first, and the first villages and cities were just extensions of that, with the first cities being run as if they were still families with Kings acting like fathers.[87]

text: Friendship [philia] seems to prevail [in] man and woman according to nature [kata phusin]; for people are by nature [tēi phusei] pairing [sunduastikon] more than political [politikon = of the polis], inasmuch as the household [oikos] is prior [proteron = earlier] and more necessary than the polis and making children is more common [koinoteron] with the animals. In the other animals, community [koinōnia] goes no further than this, but people live together [sumoikousin] not only for the sake of making children, but also for the things for life; for from the start the functions [erga] are divided, and are different [for] man and woman. Thus they supply each other, putting their own into the common [eis to koinon]. It is for these [reasons] that both utility [chrēsimon] and pleasure [hēdu] seem to be found in this kind of friendship. (Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.12.1162a. Rough literal translation with Greek terms shown in square brackets.)

text: Rousseau in his Second Discourse finally took the shocking step of claiming that this traditional account has things in reverse: with reason, language and rationally organized communities all having developed over a long period of time merely as a result of the fact that some habits of cooperation were found to solve certain types of problems, and that once such cooperation became more important, it forced people to develop increasingly complex cooperation—often only to defend themselves from each other.

text: In other words, according to Rousseau, reason, language and rational community did not arise because of any conscious decision or plan by humans or gods, nor because of any pre-existing human nature. As a result, he claimed, living together in rationally organized communities like modern humans is a development with many negative aspects compared to the original state of man as an ape. If anything is specifically human in this theory, it is the flexibility and adaptability of humans. This view of the animal origins of distinctive human characteristics later received support from Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

text: The two competing theories concerning the origins of reason are relevant to political and ethical thought because, according to the Aristotelian theory, a best way of living together exists independently of historical circumstances. According to Rousseau, we should even doubt that reason, language and politics are a good thing, as opposed to being simply the best option given the particular course of events that lead to today. Rousseau's theory, that human nature is malleable rather than fixed, is often taken to imply, for example by Karl Marx, a wider range of possible ways of living together than traditionally known.

text: However, while Rousseau's initial impact encouraged bloody revolutions against traditional politics, including both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, his own conclusions about the best forms of community seem to have been remarkably classical, in favor of city-states such as Geneva, and rural living.

text: Psychology[edit]

text: Scientific research into reasoning is carried out within the fields of psychology and cognitive science. Psychologists attempt to determine whether or not people are capable of rational thought in a number of different circumstances.

text: Assessing how well someone engages in reasoning is the project of determining the extent to which the person is rational or acts rationally. It is a key research question in the psychology of reasoning. Rationality is often divided into its respective theoretical and practical counterparts.

text: Behavioral experiments on human reasoning[edit]

text: Experimental cognitive psychologists carry out research on reasoning behaviour. Such research may focus, for example, on how people perform on tests of reasoning such as intelligence or IQ tests, or on how well people's reasoning matches ideals set by logic (see, for example, the Wason test).[88] Experiments examine how people make inferences from conditionals e.g., If A then B and how they make inferences about alternatives, e.g., A or else B.[89] They test whether people can make valid deductions about spatial and temporal relations, e.g., A is to the left of B, or A happens after B, and about quantified assertions, e.g., All the A are B.[90] Experiments investigate how people make inferences about factual situations, hypothetical possibilities, probabilities, and counterfactual situations.[91]

text: Developmental studies of children's reasoning[edit]

text: Developmental psychologists investigate the development of reasoning from birth to adulthood. Piaget's theory of cognitive development was the first complete theory of reasoning development. Subsequently, several alternative theories were proposed, including the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development.[92]

text: Neuroscience of reasoning[edit]

text: The biological functioning of the brain is studied by neurophysiologists and neuropsychologists. Research in this area includes research into the structure and function of normally functioning brains, and of damaged or otherwise unusual brains. In addition to carrying out research into reasoning, some psychologists, for example, clinical psychologists and psychotherapists work to alter people's reasoning habits when they are unhelpful.

text: Computer science[edit]

text: Automated reasoning[edit]

text: In artificial intelligence and computer science, scientists study and use automated reasoning for diverse applications including automated theorem proving the formal semantics of programming languages, and formal specification in software engineering.

text: Meta-reasoning[edit]

text: Meta-reasoning is reasoning about reasoning. In computer science, a system performs meta-reasoning when it is reasoning about its own operation.[93] This requires a programming language capable of reflection, the ability to observe and modify its own structure and behaviour.

text: Evolution of reason[edit]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (August 2017)

tag: table

text: A species could benefit greatly from better abilities to reason about, predict and understand the world. French social and cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that there could have been other forces driving the evolution of reason. They point out that reasoning is very difficult for humans to do effectively, and that it is hard for individuals to doubt their own beliefs (confirmation bias). Reasoning is most effective when it is done as a collective - as demonstrated by the success of projects like science. They suggest that there are not just individual, but group selection pressures at play. Any group that managed to find ways of reasoning effectively would reap benefits for all its members, increasing their fitness. This could also help explain why humans, according to Sperber, are not optimized to reason effectively alone. Their argumentative theory of reasoning claims that reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with the search for the truth.[94][95]


document_title: Hyaline cartilage

question_text: where do you expect to find articular cartilage

text: Hyaline cartilage

text: Structure[edit]

text: Hyaline cartilage is covered externally by a fibrous membrane, called the perichondrium (i.e. ears and nose, and also at the articular ends of bones where it is internal to the joint cavity which is defined by a fibrous joint capsule lined with synovium). This membrane, perichondrium or synovium, contains vessels that provide the cartilage with nutrition through diffusion.

text: Hyaline cartilage matrix is mostly made up of type II collagen and chondroitin sulphate, both of which are also found in elastic cartilage.

text: Hyaline cartilage exists on the ventral ends of ribs; in the larynx, trachea, and bronchi; and on the articulating surfaces of bones. It gives those structures a definite but pliable form. Presence of collagen fibres makes such structures and joints strong but less elastic and movable only to a minor extent. It is the most prevalent form of cartilage. It also forms the embryonic skeleton and the skeleton of elasmobranch fishes.

text: Histology[edit]

text: If a thin slice is examined under the microscope, it will be found to consist of cells (chondrocytes) of a rounded or bluntly angular form, lying in groups of two or more in a granular or almost homogeneous matrix. Chondrocytes are cartilage cells that produce the matrix. When arranged in groups of two or more, chondrocytes have generally straight outlines where they are in contact with each other, and in the rest of their circumference are rounded. They consist of clear translucent protoplasm in which fine interlacing filaments and minute granules are sometimes present; embedded in this are one or two round nuclei, having the usual intranuclear network.

text: The cells are contained in cavities in the matrix, called cartilage lacunae; these are actually artificial gaps formed by the shrinking of the cells during the staining and setting of the tissue for observation. The interterritorial space between the isogenous cell groups contains relatively more collagen fibers, causing it to maintain its shape while the actual cells shrink, creating the lacunae. This constitutes the so-called capsule of the space. Each lacuna is generally occupied by a single cell, but during the division of the cells it may contain two, four, or eight cells.

text: Articular cartilage[edit]

text: Articular cartilage is hyaline cartilage on the articular surfaces of bones. [1] As such, it lies inside the joint cavity of synovial joints, bathed in synovial fluid produced by the synovial membrane that lines the walls of the cavity.

text: Though it is often found in close contact with menisci and articular disks, articular cartilage is not considered a part of either of these structures, which are made entirely of fibrocartilage.

text: The biochemical breakdown of the articular cartilage results in osteoarthritis, the most common type of joint disease[2]. Osteoarthritis affects over 30 million individuals in the United States alone and is the leading cause of chronic disability among the elderly[3].

text: Additional images[edit]

text:
Articular cartilage of the elbow joint as seen in dissection

A synovial joint with bone, articular cartilage, and articular disc shown.

Elbow joint. Deep dissection. Anterior view.

Elbow joint. Deep dissection. Anterior view..

Elbow joint. Deep dissection. Posterior view.

Elbow joint. Deep dissection. Posterior view.


document_title: Human Development Index

question_text: when was the human development index adopted by the united nations

text: Human Development Index

text: Origins[edit]

text: The origins of the HDI are found in the annual Human Development Reports produced by the Human Development Reports Office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These were devised and launched by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq in 1990, and had the explicit purpose "to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people-centered policies". To produce the Human Development Reports, Mahbub ul Haq formed a group of development economists including Paul Streeten, Frances Stewart, Gustav Ranis, Keith Griffin, Farhan C.M, Sudhir Anand, and Meghnad Desai. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen utilized Haq's work in his own work on human capabilities.[3] Haq believed that a simple composite measure of human development was needed to convince the public, academics, and politicians that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also improvements in human well-being.

text: Dimensions and calculation[edit]

text: New method (2010 Index onwards)[edit]

text: Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June 2011), the 2010 Human Development Index (HDI) combines three dimensions:[6][7]

text:
A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
Education index: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$)

text: In its 2010 Human Development Report, the UNDP began using a new method of calculating the HDI. The following three indices are used:

text:
1. Life Expectancy Index (LEI)

=

LE

−
20

85
−
20

{\displaystyle ={\frac {{\textrm {LE}}-20}{85-20}}}

text:
2. Education Index (EI)

=

MYSI

+

EYSI

2

{\displaystyle ={\frac {{\textrm {MYSI}}+{\textrm {EYSI}}}{2}}}

[8]

text:
3. Income Index (II)

=

ln

(

GNIpc

)
−
ln

(
100
)

ln

(
75
,
000
)
−
ln

(
100
)

{\displaystyle ={\frac {\ln({\textrm {GNIpc}})-\ln(100)}{\ln(75,000)-\ln(100)}}}

text: Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalized indices:

text:
HDI

=

LEI

⋅

EI

⋅

II

3

.

{\displaystyle {\textrm {HDI}}={\sqrt[{3}]{{\textrm {LEI}}\cdot {\textrm {EI}}\cdot {\textrm {II}}}}.}

text:
LE: Life expectancy at birth
MYS: Mean years of schooling (i.e. years that a person aged 25 or older has spent in formal education)
EYS: Expected years of schooling (i.e. total expected years of schooling for children under 18 years of age)
GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per capita

text: Old method (before 2010 Index)[edit]

text: The HDI combined three dimensions last used in its 2009 Report:

text:
Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity to HDI
Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting).
Standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity.

text: OECD   Europe not in the OECD and CIS   Latin America and the Caribbean   East Asia     Arab League   South Asia   Sub-Saharan Africa

text: This methodology was used by the UNDP until their 2011 report.

text:
The formula defining the HDI is promulgated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).[11] In general, to transform a raw variable, say

x

{\displaystyle x}

, into a unit-free index between 0 and 1 (which allows different indices to be added together), the following formula is used:

text:
x

 index

=

x
−
a

b
−
a

{\displaystyle x{\text{ index}}={\frac {x-a}{b-a}}}

text:
where

a

{\displaystyle a}

 and

b

{\displaystyle b}

 are the lowest and highest values the variable

x

{\displaystyle x}

 can attain, respectively.

text: The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents the uniformly weighted sum with 1⁄3 contributed by each of the following factor indices:

text:
Life Expectancy Index =

L
E
−
25

85
−
25

{\displaystyle {\frac {LE-25}{85-25}}}

Education Index =

2
3

×
A
L
I
+

1
3

×
G
E
I

{\displaystyle {\frac {2}{3}}\times ALI+{\frac {1}{3}}\times GEI}

Adult Literacy Index (ALI) =

A
L
R
−
0

100
−
0

{\displaystyle {\frac {ALR-0}{100-0}}}

Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) =

C
G
E
R
−
0

100
−
0

{\displaystyle {\frac {CGER-0}{100-0}}}

GDP =

log

(

G
D
P
p
c

)

−
log

(
100
)

log

(
40000
)

−
log

(
100
)

{\displaystyle {\frac {\log \left(GDPpc\right)-\log \left(100\right)}{\log \left(40000\right)-\log \left(100\right)}}}

text: Other organizations/companies may include other factors, such as infant mortality, which produces a different HDI.

text: 2018 Human Development Index[edit]

text: The 2018 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 14 September 2018, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2017.[12] Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:[13]

text:
= increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
The number in parentheses represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the year of 2016.

text:
Rank

Country/Territory

HDI

2018 rankings[1]

Change in rank from previous year[1]

2018  rankings[1]

Change from previous year[1]

1

 Norway
0.953
 0.002

2

  Switzerland
0.944
 0.001

3

 Australia
0.939
 0.001

4

 Ireland
0.938
 0.004

5
  (1)
 Germany
0.936
 0.002

6

 Iceland
0.935
 0.002

7
 (1)
 Hong Kong
0.933
 0.003

7

 Sweden
0.933
 0.001

9
 (1)
 Singapore
0.932
 0.002

10

 Netherlands
0.931
 0.003

11
 (1)
 Denmark
0.929
 0.001

12

 Canada
0.926
 0.004

13
 (1)
 United States
0.924
 0.002

14

 United Kingdom
0.922
 0.002

15

 Finland
0.920
 0.002

16

 New Zealand
0.917
 0.002

17
 (1)
 Belgium
0.916
 0.001

17
 (1)
 Liechtenstein
0.916
 0.001

19

 Japan
0.909
 0.002

20

 Austria
0.908
 0.002

21

 Luxembourg
0.904
 0.001

22

 Israel
0.903
 0.001

22
 (1)
 South Korea
0.903
 0.003

24

 France
0.901
 0.002

25

 Slovenia
0.896
 0.002

26

 Spain
0.891
 0.002

27

 Czech Republic
0.888
 0.003

28

 Italy
0.880
 0.002

29

 Malta
0.878
 0.003

30

 Estonia
0.871
 0.003

Rank

Country

HDI

2018 rankings[1]

Change in rank from previous year[1]

2018  rankings[1]

Change from previous year[1]

31
 (1)
 Greece
0.870
 0.002

32

 Cyprus
0.869
 0.002

33
 (1)
 Poland
0.865
 0.005

34
 (1)
 United Arab Emirates
0.863
 0.001

35

 Andorra
0.858
 0.002

35
 (1)
 Lithuania
0.858
 0.003

37
 (1)
 Qatar
0.856
 0.001

38
 (1)
 Slovakia
0.855
 0.002

39
 (1)
 Brunei
0.853
 0.001

39
 (1)
 Saudi Arabia
0.853
 0.001

41
 (2)
 Latvia
0.847
 0.003

41
 (1)
 Portugal
0.847
 0.002

43
 (2)
 Bahrain
0.846

44

 Chile
0.843
 0.001

45

 Hungary
0.838
 0.003

46

 Croatia
0.831
 0.003

47

 Argentina
0.825
 0.003

48
 (1)
 Oman
0.821
 0.001

49

 Russia
0.816
 0.001

50

 Montenegro
0.814
 0.004

51
 (1)
 Bulgaria
0.813
 0.003

52

 Romania
0.811
 0.004

53
 (1)
 Belarus
0.808
 0.003

54
 (1)
 Bahamas
0.807
 0.001

55
 (1)
 Uruguay
0.804
 0.002

56
 (1)
 Kuwait
0.803
 0.001

57

 Malaysia
0.802
 0.003

58
 (1)
 Barbados
0.800
 0.001

58
 (2)
 Kazakhstan
0.800
 0.003

text: Inequality-adjusted HDI[edit]

text: The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[14] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

text: The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 30).

text:
Iceland 0.878
 Japan 0.876
 Norway 0.876
  Switzerland 0.871
 Finland 0.868
 Sweden 0.864
 Germany 0.861
 Australia 0.861
 Denmark 0.860
 Netherlands 0.857
 Ireland 0.854
 Canada 0.852
 New Zealand 0.846
 Slovenia 0.846
 Czech Republic 0.840
 Belgium 0.836
 United Kingdom 0.835
 Austria 0.835
 Singapore 0.816
 Luxembourg 0.811
 Hong Kong 0.809
 France 0.808
 Malta 0.805
 Slovakia 0.797
 United States 0.797
 Estonia 0.794
 Israel 0.787
 Poland 0.787
 South Korea 0.773
 Hungary 0.773
 Italy 0.771
 Cyprus 0.769
 Latvia 0.759
 Lithuania 0.757
 Croatia 0.756
 Belarus 0.755
 Spain 0.754
 Greece 0.753
 Montenegro 0.741
 Russia 0.738
 Kazakhstan 0.737
 Portugal 0.732
 Romania 0.717
 Bulgaria 0.710
 Chile 0.710
 Argentina 0.707
 Iran 0.707
 Albania 0.706
 Ukraine 0.701
 Uruguay 0.689
 Mauritius 0.683
 Georgia 0.682
 Azerbaijan 0.681
 Armenia 0.680
 Barbados 0.669

text: Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: Taiwan, Liechtenstein, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Andorra, Qatar, Brunei, Bahrain, Oman, Bahamas, Kuwait and Malaysia.

text: 2016 Human Development Index[edit]

text: The 2016 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 21 March 2017, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2015. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:[12]

text:
= increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
The number in parentheses represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2015 report.

text:
Rank

Country or region

Score

2016 estimates for 2015[15]

Change in rank from previous year[15]

2016 estimates for 2015[15]

Change from previous year[15]

1

 Norway
0.949
 0.001

2

 Australia
0.939
 0.002

2

  Switzerland
0.939
 0.001

4
 (2)
 Germany
0.926
 0.002

5
 (1)
 Denmark
0.925
 0.002

5
 (6)
 Singapore
0.925
 0.013

7
 (1)
 Netherlands
0.924
 0.001

8

 Ireland
0.923
 0.003

9
 (7)
 Iceland
0.921
 0.002

10
 (1)
 Canada
0.920
 0.001

10
 (2)
 United States
0.920
 0.002

12

 Hong Kong
0.917
 0.001

13
 (4)
 New Zealand
0.915
 0.002

14
 (1)
 Sweden
0.913
 0.004

15
 (1)
 Liechtenstein
0.912
 0.001

16
 (4)
 United Kingdom
0.909
 0.003

17
 (3)
 Japan
0.903
 0.001

18

 South Korea
0.901
 0.002

19

 Israel
0.899
 0.001

20

 Luxembourg
0.898
 0.002

21
 (1)
 France
0.897
 0.003

22
 (1)
 Belgium
0.896
 0.001

23

 Finland
0.895
 0.002

24

 Austria
0.893
 0.001

25
 (2)
 Spain
0.892
 0.005

26

 Slovenia
0.890
 0.002

27
 (1)
 Italy
0.887
 0.006

28

 Czech Republic
0.878
 0.003

29

 Greece
0.866
 0.001

30
 (10)
 Slovakia
0.865
 0.020

31
 (1)
 Estonia
0.865
 0.002

32

 Andorra
0.858
 0.001

33
 (1)
 Cyprus
0.856
 0.002

33
 (2)
 Malta
0.856
 0.003

33

 Qatar
0.856
 0.001

36

 Poland
0.855
 0.003

37

 Lithuania
0.848
 0.002

38
 (4)
 Chile
0.847
 0.002

38

 Saudi Arabia
0.847
 0.002

41

 Portugal
0.843
 0.002

42

 United Arab Emirates
0.840
 0.004

43

 Hungary
0.836
 0.002

44

 Latvia
0.830
 0.002

45
 (5)
 Argentina
0.827
 0.001

45
 (1)
 Croatia
0.827
 0.004

47
 (1)
 Bahrain
0.824
 0.001

48
 (1)
 Montenegro
0.807
 0.003

49
 (1)
 Russia
0.804
 0.001

50
 (1)
 Romania
0.802
 0.004

51
 (1)
 Kuwait
0.800
 0.001

text: Inequality-adjusted HDI[edit]

text: The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[16] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

text: The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 206).

text:
Norway 0.898
 Iceland 0.868
 Australia 0.861
 Netherlands 0.861
 Germany 0.859
  Switzerland 0.859
 Denmark 0.858
 Sweden 0.851
 Ireland 0.850
 Finland 0.843
 Canada 0.839
 Slovenia 0.838
 United Kingdom 0.836
 Czech Republic 0.830
 Luxembourg 0.827
 Belgium 0.821
 Austria 0.815
 France 0.813
 United States 0.796
 Slovakia 0.793
 Japan 0.791
 Spain 0.791
 Estonia 0.788
 Malta 0.786
 Italy 0.784
 Israel 0.778
 Poland 0.774
 Hungary 0.771
 Cyprus 0.762
 Lithuania 0.759
 Greece 0.758
 Portugal 0.755
 South Korea 0.753
 Croatia 0.752
 Latvia 0.742
 Montenegro 0.736
 Russia 0.725
 Romania 0.714
 Argentina 0.698
 Chile 0.691

text: Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: Taiwan, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

text: 2015 Human Development Index[edit]

text: The 2015 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 14 December 2015, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2014. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries:[17][18][19]

text:
= increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2014 report.

text:
Rank

Country

Score

2015 estimates for 2014[20]

Change in rank from previous year[20]

2015 estimates for 2014[20]

Change from previous year[20]

1

 Norway
0.944
 0.002

2

 Australia
0.935
 0.002

3

  Switzerland
0.930
 0.002

4

 Denmark
0.923

5

 Netherlands
0.922
 0.002

6

 Germany
0.916
 0.001

6
 (2)
 Ireland
0.916
 0.004

8
 (1)
 United States
0.915
 0.002

9
 (1)
 Canada
0.913
 0.001

9
 (1)
 New Zealand
0.913
 0.002

11
 (2)
 Singapore
0.912
 0.003

12

 Hong Kong
0.910
 0.002

13

 Liechtenstein
0.908
 0.001

14

 Sweden
0.907
 0.002

14
 (1)
 United Kingdom
0.907
 0.005

16

 Iceland
0.899

17

 South Korea
0.898
 0.003

18

 Israel
0.894
 0.001

18

 Macau
0.894
[21]

19

 Luxembourg
0.892
 0.002

20
 (1)
 Japan
0.891
 0.001

21

 Belgium
0.890
 0.002

22

 France
0.888
 0.001

23

 Austria
0.885
 0.001

24

 Finland
0.883
 0.001

25

 Taiwan
0.882
[22]

26

 Slovenia
0.880
 0.001

27

 Spain
0.876
 0.002

28

 Italy
0.873

29

 Czech Republic
0.870
 0.002

30

 Greece
0.865
 0.002

31

 Estonia
0.861
 0.002

32

 Brunei
0.856
 0.004

33

 Cyprus
0.850

33
 (1)
 Qatar
0.850
 0.001

34

 Andorra
0.845
 0.001

35
 (1)
 Slovakia
0.844
 0.005

36
 (1)
 Poland
0.843
 0.003

37

 Lithuania
0.839
 0.002

37

 Malta
0.839
 0.002

39

 Saudi Arabia
0.837
 0.001

40

 Argentina
0.836
 0.003

41
 (1)
 United Arab Emirates
0.835
 0.002

42

 Chile
0.832
 0.002

43

 Portugal
0.830
 0.002

44

 Hungary
0.828
 0.003

45

 Bahrain
0.824
 0.003

46
 (1)
 Latvia
0.819
 0.003

47
 (1)
 Croatia
0.818
 0.001

48
 (1)
 Kuwait
0.816

49

 Montenegro
0.802
 0.001

text: Inequality-adjusted HDI[edit]

text: The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[17] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

text: Note: The green arrows (), red arrows (), and blue dashes () represent changes in rank. The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 216).

text:
Norway 0.893 ()
 Netherlands 0.861 ( 1)
  Switzerland 0.861 ( 1)
 Australia 0.858 ( 2)
 Denmark 0.856 ( 3)
 Germany 0.853 ( 1)
 Iceland 0.846 ( 1)
 Sweden 0.846 ( 1)
 Ireland 0.836 ( 1)
 Finland 0.834 ( 1)
 Canada 0.832 ( 2)
 Slovenia 0.829 ()
 United Kingdom 0.829 ( 3)
 Czech Republic 0.823 ( 1)
 Luxembourg 0.822 ( 1)
 Belgium 0.820 ( 1)
 Austria 0.816 ( 4)
 France 0.811 ()
 Slovakia 0.791 ( 2)
 Estonia 0.782 ( 4)
 Japan 0.780 ( 1)
 Israel 0.775 ( 3)
 Spain 0.775 ( 1)
 Italy 0.773 ( 1)
 Hungary 0.769 ( 2)
 Malta 0.767 ()
 Poland 0.760 ( 2)
 United States 0.760 ()
 Cyprus 0.758 ( 1)
 Greece 0.758 ( 5)
 Lithuania 0.754 ()
 South Korea 0.751 ( 1)
 Portugal 0.744 ( 1)
 Croatia 0.743 ( 1)
 Belarus 0.741
 Latvia 0.730

text: Countries in the top quartile of HDI ("very high human development" group) with a missing IHDI: Taiwan, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Cuba, and Kuwait.

text: 2014 Human Development Index[edit]

text: The 2014 Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme was released on 24 July 2014 and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2013. Below is the list of the "very high human development" countries or regions:[23][18][19]

text:
= increase.
 = steady.
 = decrease.
The number in brackets represents the number of ranks the country or region has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in the 2013 report.

text:
Rank

Country or Region

HDI

New 2014 estimates for 2013[24]

Change in rank between 2014 report and 2013 report[24]

New 2014 estimates for 2013[24]

Change compared between 2014 report and 2013 report[24]

1

 Norway
0.944
 0.011

2

 Australia
0.933
 0.002

3

  Switzerland
0.917
 0.001

4

 Netherlands
0.915

5

 United States
0.914
 0.002

6

 Germany
0.911

7

 New Zealand
0.910
 0.002

8

 Canada
0.902
 0.001

9
 (3)
 Singapore
0.901
 0.002

10

 Denmark
0.900

11
 (3)
 Ireland
0.899
 0.017

12
 (1)
 Sweden
0.898
 0.001

13

 Iceland
0.895
 0.002

14

 United Kingdom
0.892
 0.002

14

 Macau
0.892
[21]

15

 Hong Kong
0.891
 0.002

15
 (1)
 South Korea
0.891
 0.003

17
 (1)
 Japan
0.890
 0.002

18
 (2)
 Liechtenstein
0.889
 0.001

19

 Israel
0.888
 0.002

20

 France
0.884

21

 Taiwan
0.882
[22]

22

 Austria
0.881
 0.001

22

 Belgium
0.881
 0.001

22

 Luxembourg
0.881
 0.001

23

 Finland
0.879

24

 Slovenia
0.874

25

 Italy
0.872

26

 Spain
0.869

27

 Czech Republic
0.861

28

 Greece
0.853
 0.001

29

 Brunei
0.852

30

 Qatar
0.851
 0.001

31

 Cyprus
0.845
 0.003

32

 Estonia
0.840
 0.001

33

 Saudi Arabia
0.836
 0.003

34
 (1)
 Lithuania
0.834
 0.003

34
 (1)
 Poland
0.834
 0.001

35

 Andorra
0.830

35
 (1)
 Slovakia
0.830
 0.001

36

 Malta
0.829
 0.002

37

 United Arab Emirates
0.827
 0.002

38
 (1)
 Chile
0.822
 0.003

38

 Portugal
0.822

39

 Hungary
0.818
 0.001

40

 Bahrain
0.815
 0.002

40

 Cuba
0.815
 0.002

41
 (2)
 Kuwait
0.814
 0.001

42

 Croatia
0.812

43

 Latvia
0.810
 0.002

44

 Argentina
0.808
 0.002

text: Countries not included[edit]

text: Some countries were not included for various reasons, primarily due to the lack of necessary data. The following United Nations Member States were not included in the 2014 report:[23] North Korea, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Tuvalu.

text: Inequality-adjusted HDI[edit]

text: The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)[23] is a "measure of the average level of human development of people in a society once inequality is taken into account".

text: Note: The green arrows (), red arrows (), and blue dashes () represent changes in rank. The rankings are not relative to the HDI list above due to the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data (p. 168).

text:
Norway 0.891 ()
 Australia 0.860 ()
 Netherlands 0.854 ( 1)
  Switzerland 0.847 ( 3)
 Germany 0.846 ()
 Iceland 0.843 ( 2)
 Sweden 0.840 ( 4)
 Denmark 0.838 ( 1)
 Canada 0.833 ( 4)
 Ireland 0.832 ( 4)
 Finland 0.830 ()
 Slovenia 0.824 ( 2)
 Austria 0.818 ( 1)
 Luxembourg 0.814 ( 3)
 Czech Republic 0.813 ( 1)
 United Kingdom 0.812 ( 3)
 Belgium 0.806 ( 2)
 France 0.804 ()
 Israel 0.793 ( 1)
 Japan 0.779 (New)
 Slovakia 0.778 ( 1)
 Spain 0.775 ( 2)
 Italy 0.768 ( 1)
 Estonia 0.767 ( 1)
 Greece 0.762 ( 2)
 Malta 0.760 ( 3)
 Hungary 0.757 ( 1)
 United States 0.755 ( 12)
 Poland 0.751 ( 1)
 Cyprus 0.752 ( 1)
 Lithuania 0.746 ( 2)
 Portugal 0.739 ()
 South Korea 0.736 ( 5)
 Latvia 0.725 ( 1)
 Croatia 0.721 ( 4)
 Argentina 0.680 ( 7)
 Chile 0.661 ( 4)

text: Past top countries[edit]

text: The list below displays the top-ranked country from each year of the Human Development Index. Norway has been ranked the highest fourteen times, Canada eight times, and Japan three times. Iceland has been ranked highest twice.

text: In each original HDI[edit]

text: The year represents when the report was published. In parentheses is the year for which the index was calculated.

text:
2018 (2017):  Norway
2016 (2015):  Norway
2015 (2014):  Norway
2014 (2013):  Norway
2013 (2012):  Norway
2011 (2011):  Norway
2010 (2010):  Norway
2009 (2007):  Norway
2008 (2006):  Iceland
2007 (2005):  Iceland
2006 (2004):  Norway
2005 (2003):  Norway
2004 (2002):  Norway
2003 (2001):  Norway
2002 (2000):  Norway
2001 (1999):  Norway
2000 (1998):  Canada
1999 (1997):  Canada
1998 (1995):  Canada
1997 (1994):  Canada
1996 (1993):  Canada
1995 (1992):  Canada
1994 (????):  Canada
1993 (????):  Japan
1992 (1990):  Canada
1991 (1990):  Japan
1990 (????):  Japan

text: Geographical coverage[edit]

text: The HDI has extended its geographical coverage: David Hastings, of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, published a report geographically extending the HDI to 230+ economies, whereas the UNDP HDI for 2009 enumerates 182 economies and coverage for the 2010 HDI dropped to 169 countries.[25][26]

text: Country/region specific HDI lists[edit]

text:
African countries
Argentine provinces
Australian states
Brazilian states
Canadian provinces and territories
Chilean regions
Chinese administrative divisions
Ethiopian regions
European countries
German states
Indian states
Indonesian provinces
Iranian provinces
Italian regions
Japanese prefectures
Latin American countries
Mexican states
Pakistani districts
Philippine provinces
Russian federal subjects
South African provinces
Spanish communities
U.S. states (American Human Development Report (AHDR))
Venezuelan states
World, regional (Sub-national HDI by GDL)

text: Criticism[edit]

text: The Human Development Index has been criticized on a number of grounds, including alleged lack of consideration of technological development or contributions to the human civilization, focusing exclusively on national performance and ranking, lack of attention to development from a global perspective, measurement error of the underlying statistics, and on the UNDP's changes in formula which can lead to severe misclassification in the categorisation of 'low', 'medium', 'high' or 'very high' human development countries.[27]

text: Sources of data error[edit]

text: Economists Hendrik Wolff, Howard Chong and Maximilian Auffhammer discuss the HDI from the perspective of data error in the underlying health, education and income statistics used to construct the HDI. They identified three sources of data error which are due to (i) data updating, (ii) formula revisions and (iii) thresholds to classify a country's development status and conclude that 11%, 21% and 34% of all countries can be interpreted as currently misclassified in the development bins due to the three sources of data error, respectively. The authors suggest that the United Nations should discontinue the practice of classifying countries into development bins because: the cut-off values seem arbitrary, can provide incentives for strategic behavior in reporting official statistics, and have the potential to misguide politicians, investors, charity donors and the public who use the HDI at large.[27]

text: In 2010, the UNDP reacted to the criticism and updated the thresholds to classify nations as low, medium, and high human development countries. In a comment to The Economist in early January 2011, the Human Development Report Office responded[28] to a 6 January 2011 article in the magazine[29] which discusses the Wolff et al. paper. The Human Development Report Office states that they undertook a systematic revision of the methods used for the calculation of the HDI, and that the new methodology directly addresses the critique by Wolff et al. in that it generates a system for continuously updating the human-development categories whenever formula or data revisions take place.

text: In 2013, Salvatore Monni and Alessandro Spaventa emphasized that in the debate of GDP versus HDI, it is often forgotten that these are both external indicators that prioritize different benchmarks upon which the quantification of societal welfare can be predicated. The larger question is whether it is possible to shift the focus of policy from a battle between competing paradigms to a mechanism for eliciting information on well-being directly from the population.[30]