This paper aims to construct a logic of alternative-I that provides a proper conceptual framework for talk of possible-I in decision-making context, and thereby solves what we call the paradox of possible-I. The model of our logic, Alt-I model, is an adaptation of N. Belnap’s branching-time model, and the STIT (see to it that) operator defined on the model serves to represent choices and decisions made by actual and counterfactual agents. We conclude this paper by discussing the application of Alt-I (...) model to the case of digital twins, digital copies of a person. (shrink)

The question of what firms do internally in the fight against bribery is probably as important to the successful outcome of that fight as formal anti-bribery law and enforcement. This paper looks at corporate approaches to anti-bribery commitment and compliance management using an inventory of 246 codes of conduct. It suggests that, while bribery is often mentioned in the codes of conduct, there is considerable diversity in the language and concepts adopted in anti-bribery commitments. This diversity is a feature of (...) the language used in describing parties to bribery and in defining which activities are prohibited (e.g. promising bribes versus actually giving them, gifts and entertainment, and solicitation. This diversity of language and concepts suggests that it might be useful to extend and deepen efforts in business associations and international organisations to build consensus on the meaning of bribery and corruption. In contrast, the bribery codes show evidence of an emerging consensus on managerial approaches to combating bribery. This involves the deployment of a distinctive mix of management tools, including financial record keeping, statements by executive officers, internal monitoring, whistle-blowing facilities, creation of compliance offices and threats of disciplinary action. (shrink)

the historians of science have only recently learned of the existence of a sixth volume of the grandly conceived work of the abbé raffaello caverni entitled storia del metodo sperimentale in italia. five volumes had already been published between 1891 and 1898. the sixth volume was published, one might say, in an almost furtive way. in fact, the first notice of it was given in a journal by aldo mieli just a few months ago. among materials he is collecting under (...) the heading, “for a biography of the italian historians of science,” in addition to other things already said about caverni in a previous issue, mieli has published the following “information received from g. vacca”: “the printing of the sixth volume of the history of the experimental method in italy dealing with the history of hydraulics had been started but was interrupted by the author's death. about 450 pages have been printed, the greater part of the copies of the loose sheets have been lost.”. (shrink)

Objective: This study aims to compare the acoustic vocal analysis results of a group of transgender women relative to those of cisgender women.Methods: Thirty transgender women between the ages of 19 and 52 years old participated in the study. The control group was composed of 31 cisgender women between the ages of 20 and 48 years old. A standardized questionnaire was administered to collect general patient data to better characterize the participants. The vowel /a/ sounds of all participants were collected (...) and analyzed by the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program advanced system.Results: Statistically significant differences between cisgender and transgender women were found on 14 measures: fundamental frequency, maximum fundamental frequency, minimum fundamental frequency, standard deviation of fundamental frequency, absolute jitter, percentage or relative jitter, fundamental frequency relative average perturbation, fundamental frequency perturbation quotient, smoothed fundamental frequency perturbation quotient, fundamental frequency variation, absolute shimmer, relative shimmer, voice turbulence index, and soft phonation index. The mean fundamental frequency value was 159.046 Hz for the cases and 192.435 Hz for the controls.Conclusion: Through glottal adaptations, the group of transgender women managed to feminize their voices, presenting voices that were less aperiodic and softer than those of cisgender women. (shrink)

antonio favaro was born in padua on 21 may 1847 to a cultivated family of lower nobility. after having accomplished his studies in mathematics at the university of padua in 1866, he went to turin, where he specialized as an engineer at the scuola d’applicazione in 1869. as early as 1872, he was appointed as extra-ordinary professor at the university of padua. for fifty years he taught graphical statics there. during different periods he also gave courses in infinitesimal calculus (...) and projective geometry. since 1878 favaro, as one of the first in an italian university, also taught history of mathematics. he died in padua on 30 september 1922, shortly after his retirement. (shrink)

When Favaro compiled his magisterial 20-volume edition of Galileo’s works, he left aside a large quantity of manuscripts in Galileo’s hand, dating apparently from his youth. The Juvenilia, as Favaro called them, are written in Latin and deal with the standard topics covered in courses in natural philosophy and logic at that time. Two different dates of composition have been proposed: c. 1584, when the twenty-year-old Galileo was a student at the University of Pisa and c. 1590 when (...) he was already a lecturer at that university. Were the treatises transcribed by him from the class notes of one or more of his teachers? Were they compiled by him while still a student as part of his class work? Or were they composed by him as his own "official" class notes when he began to teach? Scores of authors, classical and contemporary, are quoted in them. To what extent does this reflect research on Galileo’s own part? Do the treatises reflect any innovation of doctrine or method attributable to Galileo himself? (shrink)

Liliana Popescu, Politica sexelor, Maiko, Bucuresti, 2004.

The most reliable source for a reconstruction of Galileo's progress toward a science of motion is the series of undated fragmentary notes on that subject preserved in Codex A of the Galilean manuscripts at Florence. A gathering of such fragments was published by Favaro in the National Edition of Galileo's works, following the Discorsi. The more sophisticated fragments are clearly associated with the composition of that work, and show a definite and consistent understanding of acceleration. Eliminating those, it will (...) be found that the earlier notes fall into recognizable groups. First, there are some that refer to “moment of gravity”, or to the impetus of a body along a line of descent, and are associated with the discussion of inclined planes in De motu. Second, some refer to descent along arcs and chords of circles, associated with Galileo's letter of 29 November 1602 to Guido Ubaldo. These first two groups of notes do not explicitly refer to accelerated motion, and should not be assumed to do so implicity, where such an assumption can be avoided. (shrink)

more than a century ago three eminent galileo scholars, raffaello caverni, antonio favaro, and emil wohlwill, discussed the emergence of galileo's science of motion and the documentary evidence pertaining to it. among the works of these scholars, only favaro's edizione nazionale of galileo's works is still widely used, while the contents of their other writings only play a minor if any role in the current english-speaking literature. the disappearance from historical memory of many of the substantial contributions by (...) these authors is closely associated with a narrowing of the perspective under which galileo's science and its context have been discussed in more recent scholarship. (shrink)

Abstract Galileo Then and Now (Draft of paper to be discussed at the Conference, HPD1, to be held at the Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 11-14 October 2007) William R. Shea, University of Padua The aim of this paper is to stimulate discussion on how shifts in philosophical fashion and societal moods tell us not only what to read but how to go about it, and how history and philosophy of science can jointly deepen our grasp of (...) the issues at stake. The first part highlights some of the things that have occurred in the field of Galileo studies between the monumental edition of Galileo Opere in twenty volumes, edited by Antonio Favaro between 1890 and 1909, and the new enlarged edition that will be published from 2009 onwards by a team of scholars working under Paolo Galluzzi. Part One. From Favaro to Galluzzi "Publish or perish" is an injunction that resonated as clearly in the ears of assistant professors at the end of the 19th century as it does in the first decade of the 21st. But publishing can also mean perishing when what is being edited is the work of an eminent scientist of the past. It simply does not do to offer material that is not what readers expect even if it was written by someone as famous as Galileo, and well authenticated sources were sometimes disregarded when they appeared to be of no interest. It is largely for this reason that a new national edition of Galileo's works is required. Of course, over the last hundred years, a number of letters from and to Galileo as well as a few laudatory or damning comments about his personality or his work have been uncovered, but this would not have been enough to drum up financial and scholarly support for a major editorial project. But the interesting material is Favaro had left out. Before mentioning what this material is, allow me a disclaimer. I'm not focusing on Favaro because he is a singularity, but because he illustrates how a conscientious historian can ride slipshod over evidence because of a philosophical commitment that he is only vaguely aware of, in this case naïve positivism. So what did Favaro to leave out? The answer is large chunks of three collections of manuscript notes that are bound in some of the 347 volumes of the Galilean material in the National Library in Florence. The first of these collections deals with logical treatises and related essays on Aristotelian philosophy, the second with Galileo's laboratory notes on the experiments that he carried out on the pendulum and inclined planes; and the third with astrological computations. Favaro rejected the first collection because they were "pre-Galilean" and hence could only have been trite scholastic exercises that "poor" young Galileo had to undergo in high school. He neglected the second because he had trouble making sense of them The third, astrological collection, he set aside with more trepidation since Galileo cast horoscopes for himself (at least twice), his children and his friends. But the fact that they were also, epistemologically speaking, "pre-Galilean", was enough to cast them into the outer darkness (in this case a dimly lit corridor of the National Library in Florence). The Aristotelian notes that Favaro had neglected were made available by William Wallace, who showed that Galileo culled long passages from professors at the Roman College. Galileo attacked several of Aristotle's ideas, but he never queried Aristotle's scientific realism–namely, the view that there is a uniquely true physical theory, discovered by human powers of reason and observation, and that alternative theories are consequently falls. Wallace made this the basis of his claim that Galileo created, in the heaven above and here on earth, a new science of motion by following the Aristotelian cannons laid down in the Posterior Analytics. On this view, Galileo used Aristotle's logic to subvert Aristotelian physics. It is interesting to contrast Wallace's thesis with that of philosophers of different allegiance, who offer a reconstruction of Galileo's methodology along lines that are much more modern and in which the epistemological core is no longer Aristotelian logic, but common sense instrumentalism. This is not to deny that experiments sometimes speak with a forked tongue, but to stress that methodological rules have also been known to be no more than clashing cymbals. Recent writers have also stressed that Galileo aimed his arguments at a specific audience, and that we must take cognizance of the values and whims of the society in which he operated. The sociology of science can help us understand the background against which Galileo's arguments were assessed and the reasons why he favored some rhetorical strategies over other ones. Mario Biagoli's Galileo Courtier sheds light on the Tuscan court and the Roman famiglia (as the popes styled their entourage), where Galileo found many of his readers and most of his critics. But Galileo was much more than a courtier, and I shall argue that we should use our enhanced knowledge of Galileo's education, his language, his style, and his emoluments to understand his science, not to supplant it. History and philosophy of science can combine their insights to achieve a more critical and balanced view of what actually occurred and why. (shrink)

I saggi che compongono questo libro intendono presentare in maniera organica e interdisciplinare, anche se da una prospettiva fondazionale logico-filosofica, il ruolo che il concetto di prova svolge in differenti ambiti del sapere. L’elemento innovativo e caratterizzante del volume è quello di stabilire e formulare quali sono le condizioni di adeguatezza materiale e formale per una corretta esplicazione del concetto di prova nelle sue differenti applicazioni. Si cercherà, inoltre, di cogliere cosa ha qualificato storicamente e qualifica tuttora il concetto di (...) prova tentando di individuarne, da un lato, le caratteristiche persistenti o invarianti e, dall’altro, le differenze specifiche che esso assume in molteplici settori della ricerca. Vengono così presentati sette saggi che spaziano sui seguenti temi: dalle procedure logiche di prova medievali (Alfredo Di Giorgio), si va alla nozione di prova da Frege a Wittgenstein (Carlo Penco), al problema delle verità delle proposizioni gödeliane (Sergio Galvan), alla fondazione delle leggi logiche (Ciro De Florio), ai fondamenti del linguaggio pragmatico (Antonio Negro e Davide Sergio), alla relazione tra conoscibilità e prova (Massimiliano Carrara e Daniele Chiffi), fino all’analisi del paradosso del buon samaritano (Andrea Favaro e Silvia Gaio). (shrink)

V pričujočem sklopu so prevedena izbrana pisma Galilea Galileija ter njegovih korespondentov o problematiki razmerja med naravoslovnim oz. filozofskim raziskovanjem in Svetim pismom in s to problematiko povezani dokumenti iz Vatikanskega tajnega arhiva iz obdobja t. i. Galileijevega prvega procesa. Sklop zaključuje Galileijeva Razprava o morskem plimovanju, ki vsebinsko sicer ne zadeva omenjene problematike, je pa nastala kot posledica takratnega dogajanja. Vsa pisma so prevedena po kritični izdaji Galileijevih del, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, ur. Antonio Favaro, Barbèra, Firence (...) 1890–1909. Dokumenti iz Vatikanskega tajnega arhiva so prevedeni po kritični izdaji I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei. Nuova edizione accresciuta, rivista e annotata da Sergio Pagano, Archivio segreto vaticano, Mesto Vatikan 2009. Prevod Mojca Mihelič. Besedili Galileo Galilei poklican h kardinalu Bellarminu in Ukor kardinala Roberta Bellarmina Galileu Galileiju je prevedel Gašper Kvartič. Opombe in komentarji Matjaž Vesel in Mojca Mihelič. (shrink)

The fourth centenary of the birth of Galileo Galilei was celebrated at the University of Notre Dame by a Congress in April 1964. The present volume is a collection of essays on Galilean topics: some are papers delivered at the Congress; some are essays contributed by invitation by other contemporary Galilean scholars; and some are English translations of notable papers of Galilean interest from scholars of a former generation. A lengthy appendix to the volume includes a bibliography of writings on (...) Galileo published between 1940 and 1964, thus bringing up to date the old Carli-Favaro Bibliografia Galileiana and the Boffito supplement. (shrink)