Based on the analysis of 267 tokens derived from editorial columns primarily drawn from two Persian newspapers, following on earlier studies by Chafe, Jahani, Lazard, Dahl, Adel, and Dafouze, and inspired by a series of Hyland’s studies on metadiscourse signals, this study has aimed at investigating evidential markers in these columns. In order to come to grips with the types of evidentials, first, we classify them into two major types – inferential and reportative; the reportative evidentials are further classified into (...) four types. The reportative classification is based, in the first place, on whether the source of information comes from an individual or from a government body, hence institutional. The further classifications are based on their identifiability/specificity. Results show that inferential evidentials comprise about 15% of all the tokens. Among the four reportative types, those whose source is individual and identified/specified and those that are institutional and unidentified/unspecified, coded as TYPE 1 and TYPE 4, respectively, have the highest frequency. The results overall show that Persian editorials in these two papers feature a high frequency of attribution of information to identified sources when the source is individual, but to unidentified sources when the source is institutional. The results also support other authors who claim that the imperfective aspect marker mi-, which is frequent in Persian, is a marker worthy of consideration in evidentiality. (shrink)

We have been discussing some of the fundamental features of the classical calculus of probability. The equiprobability of rival events was seen to be a major assumption of the calculus. Moreover, it is an assumption which the pure mathematician need not bother to justify. He need only present his formal system as follows.

In this 1958 book, Professor Hanson turns to an equally important but comparatively neglected subject, the philosophical aspects of research and discovery.

New Blackfriars, Volume 102, Issue 1101, Page 694-705, September 2021.

History of science and philosophy of science are not logically related: to claim that they are would be either to underestimate or to misunderstand the genetic fallacy. But one risk of inferring that there is no connection at all between the two is the risk that philosophers of science may not know what they are talking about. The philosopher of science who does not know intimately the history of the scientific problem with which he is exercised may be discussing no (...) genuine state of affairs. On the other hand, The historian and philosopher of science are both concerned with the structure of scientific ideas, And these concerns are fused into one when the scientific "argumentation" of the past is the issue. (staff). (shrink)

This third volume of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science contains papers which are based upon Colloquia from 1964 to 1966. In most cases, they have been substantially modified subsequent to presentation and discussion. Once again we publish work which goes beyond technical analysis of scientific theories and explanations in order to include philo sophical reflections upon the history of science and also upon the still problematic interactions between metaphysics and science. The philo sophical history of scientific ideas has (...) increasingly been recognized as part of the philosophy of science, and likewise the cultural context of the genesis of such ideas. There is no school or attitude to be taken as de fining the scope or criteria of our Colloquium, and so we seek to under stand both analytic and historical aspects of science. This volume, as the previous two, constitutes a substantial part of our final report to the U. S. National Science Foundation, which has continued its support of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science by a grant to Boston University. That report will be concluded by a subse quent volume of these Studies. It is a pleasure to record our thanks to the Foundation for its confidence and funds. We dedicate this book to the memory of Norwood Russell Hanson. During this academic year of 1966-67, this beloved and distinguished American philosopher participated in our Colloquium, and he did so before. (shrink)

Norwood Russell Hanson was one of the most important philosophers of science of the post-war period. Hanson brought Wittgensteinian ordinary language philosophy to bear on the concepts of science, and his treatments of observation, discovery, and the theory-ladenness of scientific facts remain central to the philosophy of science. Additionally, Hanson was one of philosophy's great personalities, and his sense of humor and charm come through fully in the pages of Perception and Discovery. Perception and Discovery, originally published in 1969, (...) is Hanson's posthumous textbook in philosophy of science. The book focuses on the indispensable role philosophy plays in scientific thinking. Perception and Discovery features Hanson's most complete and mature account of theory-laden observation, a discussion of conceptual and logical boundaries, and a detailed treatment of the epistemological features of scientific research and scientific reasoning. This book is of interest to scholars of philosophy of science, particularly those concerned with Hanson's thought and the development of the discipline in the middle of the 20th century. However, even fifty years after Hanson's early death, Perception and Discovery still has a great deal to offer all readers interested in science. (shrink)

I. In some celebrated passages, the Physics conveys to us that.

Norwood Russell Hanson was one of the most important philosophers of science of the post-war period. Hanson brought Wittgensteinian ordinary language philosophy to bear on the concepts of science, and his treatments of observation, discovery, and the theory-ladenness of scientific facts remain central to the philosophy of science. Additionally, Hanson was one of philosophy’s great personalities, and his sense of humor and charm come through fully in the pages of Perception and Discovery. Perception and Discovery, originally published in 1969, (...) is Hanson’s posthumous textbook in philosophy of science. The book focuses on the indispensable role philosophy plays in scientific thinking. Perception and Discovery features Hanson’s most complete and mature account of theory-laden observation, a discussion of conceptual and logical boundaries, and a detailed treatment of the epistemological features of scientific research and scientific reasoning. This book is of interest to scholars of philosophy of science, particularly those concerned with Hanson’s thought and the development of the discipline in the middle of the 20th century. However, even fifty years after Hanson’s early death, Perception and Discovery still has a great deal to offer all readers interested in science. (shrink)

This highly readable book is aimed at anyone with an interest in the food they eat. In conversational tone, and avoiding academic jargon, it provides an honest and objective account of the consequences of food consumption choices and policies, through the lens of economics.

This thesis divides naturally into two parts, each concerned with the extent to which the theory of $L$ can be changed by forcing.The first part focuses primarily on applying generic-absoluteness principles to how that definable sets of reals enjoy regularity properties. The work in Part I is joint with Itay Neeman and is adapted from our paper Happy and mad families in $L$, JSL, 2018. The project was motivated by questions about mad families, maximal families of infinite subsets of $\omega (...) $ of which any two have only finitely many members in common. We begin, in the spirit of Mathias, by establishing a strong Ramsey property for sets of reals in the Solovay model, giving a new proof of Törnquist’s theorem that there are no infinite mad families in the Solovay model.In Chapter 3 we stray from the main line of inquiry to briefly study a game-theoretic characterization of filters with the Baire Property.Neeman and Zapletal showed, assuming roughly the existence of a proper class of Woodin cardinals, that the boldface theory of $L$ cannot be changed by proper forcing. They call their result the Embedding Theorem, because they conclude that in fact there is an elementary embedding from the $L$ of the ground model to that of the proper forcing extension. With a view toward analyzing mad families under $\mathsf {AD}^+$ and in $L$ under large-cardinal hypotheses, in Chapter 4 we establish triangular versions of the Embedding Theorem. These are enough for us to use Mathias’s methods to show that there are no infinite mad families in $L$ under large cardinals and that $\mathsf {AD}^+$ implies that there are no infinite mad families. These are again corollaries of theorems about strong Ramsey properties under large-cardinal assumptions and $\mathsf {AD}^+$, respectively. Our first theorem improves the large-cardinal assumption under which Todorcevic established the nonexistence of infinite mad families in $L$. Part I concludes with Chapter 5, a short list of open questions.In the second part of the thesis, we undertake a finer analysis of the Embedding Theorem and its consistency strength. Schindler found that the the Embedding Theorem is consistent relative to much weaker assumptions than the existence of Woodin cardinals. He defined remarkable cardinals, which can exist even in L, and showed that the Embedding Theorem is equiconsistent with the existence of a remarkable cardinal. His theorem resembles a theorem of Harrington–Shelah and Kunen from the 1980s: the absoluteness of the theory of $L$ to ccc forcing extensions is equiconsistent with a weakly compact cardinal. Joint with Itay Neeman, we improve Schindler’s theorem by showing that absoluteness for $\sigma $ -closed $\ast $ ccc posets—instead of the larger class of proper posets—implies the remarkability of $\aleph _1^V$ in L. This requires a fundamental change in the proof, since Schindler’s lower-bound argument uses Jensen’s reshaping forcing, which, though proper, need not be $\sigma $ -closed $\ast $ ccc in that context. Our proof bears more resemblance to that of Harrington–Shelah than to Schindler’s.The proof of Theorem 6.2 splits naturally into two arguments. In Chapter 7 we extend the Harrington–Shelah method of coding reals into a specializing function to allow for trees with uncountable levels that may not belong to L. This culminates in Theorem 7.4, which asserts that if there are $X\subseteq \omega _1$ and a tree $T\subseteq \omega _1$ of height $\omega _1$ such that X is codable along T, then $L$ -absoluteness for ccc posets must fail.We complete the argument in Chapter 8, where we show that if in any $\sigma $ -closed extension of V there is no $X\subseteq \omega _1$ codable along a tree T, then $\aleph _1^V$ must be remarkable in L.In Chapter 9 we review Schindler’s proof of generic absoluteness from a remarkable cardinal to show that the argument gives a level-by-level upper bound: a strongly $\lambda ^+$ -remarkable cardinal is enough to get $L$ -absoluteness for $\lambda $ -linked proper posets.Chapter 10 is devoted to partially reversing the level-by-level upper bound of Chapter 9. Adapting the methods of Neeman, Hierarchies of forcing axioms II, we are able to show that $L$ -absoluteness for $\left |\mathbf {R}\right |\cdot \left |\lambda \right |$ -linked posets implies that the interval $[\aleph _1^V,\lambda ]$ is $\Sigma ^2_1$ -remarkable in L.prepared by Zach Norwood.E-mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

Georg. I. 36 sq.:quidquid eris,—nam te nec sperant Tartara regem, nec tibi regnandi ueniat tam dira cupido;—Mr. Page's note puts well what seems the customary view of this famous parenthesis: ‘The force of nam deserves attention. Having used the phrase quidquid eris, which sums up the whole passage from line 24, as though there were no other form of deity left which Augustus could assume, Vergil adds this explanatory sentence to show why he had not mentioned the fourth division into (...) which deities were divided, viz. those of the underworld. The fourfold division of deities being well known, Vergil cannot omit the fourth without stating the reason for which he does so.’. (shrink)

These forty-five short tales about workers’ lives, originally published in British socialist periodicals between 1884 and 1914, differ strikingly from the narrative that most contemporary labor and...

Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,--the so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation." The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of (...) their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend. (shrink)

Originally published in 1963, The Concept of the Positron forms a detailed analysis of quantum theory. Whilst it is not as well known as Professor Hanson's previous book, Patterns of Discovery, the text has many interesting aspects. In many ways it goes further than Hanson's earlier work in approaching the problems of theory competition and the rationality of science, topics that have since become central to the philosophy of science. It is also notable for a rigorous and forthright defence of (...) the Copenhagen Interpretation. Taken together, the ideas presented in this book constitute a first-rate achievement in the history and philosophy of science. This paperback reissue comes with a new preface from Matthew Lund, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Rowan University. (shrink)

1. The philosophical version of the primary-secondary distinction concerns (a) the 'real' properties of matter, (b) the epistemology of sensation, and (c) a contrast challenged by Berkely as illusory. The scientific version of the primary-secondary distinction concerns (a') the physical properties of matter, (b') a contrast essential within the history of atomism, and (c') a contrast challenged by 20th century microphysics as de facto untenable. 2. The primary-secondary distinction within physics can be interpreted in two ways: a. it can refer (...) to content; e.g. 'Matter has the properties of mass, shape, density... etc. -- it only appears to have the properties of warmth, fragrance, etc.' Or, b. it can refer to form; e.g. 'Whatever properties our best theories accord to primary matter, e.g., electrons, these are by definition primary. All other properties of, e.g., macromatter, are derivative.' Concerning 2.a., this interpretation is simply false when 17th, 18th, or 19th century values for the property-variables are introduced. Concerning 2.b., this either uninformative or misleading. It is uninformative when it constitutes no more than a decision to use the word 'primary' as an umbrella-word for all the properties contemporary micro-physics accords to fundamental material particles, whatever these may be. It is misleading when it turns on an implicit contrast between certain properties particles may be said to have when 'harnessed' to a detector, and certain other properties these particles have when free and unharnessed to any detector. This contrast does not exist. Quantum-theoretic information is always about particles-and-their-detectors-in-combination. Dissolve this combination and you destroy any possible knowledge of the particle. Hence the notion of 'completely objectifiable properties of particles' is in principle unsound. (shrink)