The Helen of Gorgias is designed to provoke the aspiring speaker to consider his relationship with society as a whole. The speech's extreme claims regarding the power of logos reflect simplistic ideas about speaker-audience relations current among Gorgias' target audience, ideas reflected in an interpretive stance towards model speeches that privileges method over truth. The Helen pretends to encourage this conception of logos and interpretive stance in order to expose the intense desire and naïve credulity that drive a coolly technical (...) appraisal of model speeches. The Helen thus manifests, with a playfulness suited to its liminal position, a concern for the ethical and social formation of those who might accept the invitation to study logos. (shrink)

Aristotle's statement that the spectator of epideictic rhetoric judges dynamis is problematic because it seems to direct audience judgment towards the ability of the speaker as opposed to the subject-matter of his speech. I argue that, as a reference to the speaker's ability, the remark indexes the peculiar competitive structure in which speeches of praise and blame are conventionally involved. Thus understood, it is essential to Aristotle's taxonomy of genres and helps resolve the dilemma created by naming the genre of (...) praise and blame after a mode of performance, epideixis, compatible with speeches of any formal description. (shrink)

Stimulated by late-1990s debate in the UK on quality, effectiveness and usefulness of educational research (reports by OFSTED, DFEE and NFER), this book shows ...

To whatever extent the use of a behavioral, not an evidential, interpretation of decisions in the Lindley-Savage argument for Bayesian theory undermines its cogency as a criticism of typical standard practice, it also undermines the Neyman-Pearson theory as a support for typical standard practice. This leaves standard practice with far less theoretical support than Bayesian methods. It does nothing to resolve the anomalies and paradoxes of standard methods. (Similar statements apply to the common protestation that the models are not real (...) anyway.) The appropriate interpretation of tests as evidence, if possible at all, is difficult and counterintuitive. Any attempt to support tests as more than rules of thumb is doomed to failure. (shrink)

On trouve dans les écrits de Descartes trois théories psychologiques : 1° Mécanisme, 2° Interaction, 3° Occasionalisme. La troisième a pour motif de concilier la première et la seconde, mais elle n’y réussit pas du tout. L’interaction est une interprétation des faits empiriques. Le mécanisme est le résultat de la vue rationaliste du monde physique ; il se fonde donc finalement sur la volonté de croire. Dans la maturité de sa pensée, Descartes tend toujours plus vers la théorie de l’Interaction. (...) Les critiques dirigées contre cette théorie ont peu de force, et ce que ces successeurs y ont substitué a peu de rigueur. (shrink)