哲学・宗教学の高等教育教員

教育・図書館職 · 職務スキル・コンピテンシー · SOC 25-1126 · 420 件の skills

並び替え

▶O*NET の 3 件の代表的タスク

Evaluate and grade students' class work, assignments, and papers.
Initiate, facilitate, and moderate classroom discussions.
Prepare and deliver lectures to undergraduate or graduate students and the community on topics such as ethics, logic, and contemporary religious thought.

タスクデータは USDOL/ETA の O*NET® 29.1 Database から抜粋し、CC BY 4.0 に基づき使用しています。

confucian-educational-method

baojie/shiji-kb

Use when designing curricula for moral education, mentorship, or self-cultivation programs. Applies Confucius's four teachings (文行忠信), four eliminations (绝四), and heuristic pedagogy (不愤不启) to develop comprehensive character through progressive mastery.

tech-ethics-advisor

FerroxLabs/wayland

Expert guide to technology ethics covering AI fairness and bias, data privacy and surveillance, algorithmic accountability, design ethics and dark patterns, digital rights, platform governance, and structured frameworks for evaluating ethical implications of technology decisions. Use when the user asks about tech ethics advisor, related techniques, best practices, or needs guidance in this domain. Do NOT use when the request is outside the scope of tech ethics advisor or requires a different specialized skill.

thought-experiment-lab

FerroxLabs/wayland

Interactive exploration of classic and original philosophical thought experiments, with structured analysis methodology, scenario construction techniques, discussion facilitation guides, and exercises for developing philosophical reasoning through hypothetical scenario analysis. Use when the user asks about thought experiment lab, related techniques, best practices, or needs guidance in this domain. Do NOT use when the request is outside the scope of thought experiment lab or requires a different specialized skill.

grad-pragmatism

asgard-ai-platform/skills

Apply pragmatist philosophy (Peirce, James, Dewey) to frame knowledge as instrumental for action, evaluate ideas by their practical consequences, and conduct inquiry as problem-solving. Use this skill when the user needs to bridge theory and practice, evaluate competing theories by their usefulness, employ abductive reasoning to generate hypotheses, or when they ask 'which theory is more useful here', 'how do I move from abstract ideas to actionable knowledge', or 'what practical difference does this distinction make'.

s4h-epistemology-justification

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Analyzes what would actually justify believing a claim. Maps the justification structure (foundationalist, coherentist, reliabilist) and identifies the weakest link in the chain. Use when you say 'what would it actually take to know this', 'is this belief actually justified', 'what's the foundation for this assumption', 'we keep citing the same evidence for everything', 'I believe this but I can't say why', 'what would change my mind', or when a claim feels supported but you want to make the support structure explicit and test it.

s4h-epistemology-knowledge-types

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Maps what kind of knowing is actually in play for a claim or question. Distinguishes a priori from a posteriori knowledge; propositional (knowing that) from procedural (knowing how) from acquaintance (knowing of); and knowledge sourced from perception, inference, testimony, intuition, or memory. Use when you say 'what kind of claim is this', 'is this something we can reason our way to or do we need evidence', 'they're treating this as obvious but I don't think it is', 'is this really an empirical question', or when you need to assess what standards of justification apply before testing whether a claim is true.

s4h-epistemology-limits

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Identifies what can't be known and why, then clarifies what can be established within those limits and reframes the question into its answerable part. Distinguishes fundamental limits (Gödel, underdetermination, observer effects), practical limits (evidence is unavailable, destroyed, or counterfactual), and conceptual limits (the question is malformed). Use when you say 'can this even be known', 'we keep investigating and it doesn't settle', 'is this question actually answerable', 'I need to know X but X might be unknowable', 'we have a hard epistemological limit here', or when investigation has been thorough but the question remains open.

s4h-epistemology

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Entry point for the epistemology toolkit. Routes to the right skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'what do I actually know here', 'is this knowable', 'how certain should I be', 'what would justify believing this', 'what kind of claim is this', 'am I confusing assumption with knowledge', 'what are the limits of what we can establish', or want philosophical rigor applied to questions of knowledge without knowing which specific tool fits.

s4h-ethics-check

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

A fast, comprehensive ethics report on any decision, action, or situation — runs all five ethical frameworks in a single pass. Lighter than ethics-council (no peer review, no HTML report), heavier than ethics-impact-scan. Triggers: 'ethics check', 'quick ethics review', 'full ethics report', 'check this ethically', 'run an ethics check', any request for a complete ethical assessment without full council process.

s4h-ethics-council

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Run any decision, feature, policy, or action through a council of 5 ethical framework advisors who independently analyze it from different moral foundations, peer-review each other's reasoning, and synthesize a final verdict. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'ethics council this', 'run the ethics council', 'ethical pressure-test', 'is this ethical', 'sanity check the ethics'. STRONG TRIGGERS: any decision with clear stakeholder harm potential, trade-offs between competing values, questions about fairness or rights, situations where someone's interests are being weighed against others. Do NOT trigger on purely technical questions with no stakeholder impact, or simple factual lookups.

s4h-ethics-crisis-triage

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity

Rapid multi-framework ethical assessment when something has already gone wrong — a data breach, a harmful outcome, a discriminatory incident, a policy failure, or any situation requiring an urgent ethical response. Use when the user is dealing with an active incident or has just discovered something went wrong. TRIGGERS: 'ethics triage', 'something went wrong', 'incident ethics', 'how do we handle this', any post-incident or mid-incident situation where the ethical dimensions of a response need to be worked out fast.

K-Dense-AI/mimeographs

Applies the foundationalist reasoning and methodological doubt of René Descartes (17th-century French rationalist philosopher). Use this skill whenever the user is questioning fundamental assumptions, seeking absolute certainty in a decision, dismantling flawed systems, or trying to rebuild a project from first principles. Trigger this skill for topics involving epistemology, rationalism, radical doubt, systemic reconstruction, or separating objective truth from sensory illusion. Reach for this whenever a user needs to cut through probabilities and consensus to find an indubitable 'Archimedean point' to build upon.