Quantifier expressions like “many” and “at least” are part of a rich repository of words in language representing magnitude information. The role of numerical processing in comprehending quantifiers was studied in a semantic truth value judgment task, asking adults to quickly verify sentences about visual displays using numerical or proportional quantifiers. The visual displays were composed of systematically varied proportions of yellow and blue circles. The results demonstrated that numerical estimation and numerical reference information are fundamental in encoding the meaning (...) of quantifiers in terms of response times and acceptability judgments. However, a difference emerges in the comparison strategies when a fixed external reference numerosity is used for numerical quantifiers, whereas an internal numerical criterion is invoked for proportional quantifiers. Moreover, for both quantifier types, quantifier semantics and its polarity biased the response direction. Overall, our results indicate that quantifier comprehension involves core numerical and lexical semantic properties, demonstrating integrated processing of language and numbers. (shrink)
In their critique of Klein (2014a), Trafimow and Earp present two theses. First, they argue that, contra Klein, a well-specified theory is not a necessary condition for successful replication. Second, they contend that even when there is a well-specified theory, replication depends more on auxiliary assumptions than on theory proper. I take issue with both claims, arguing that (a) their first thesis confuses a material conditional (what I said) with a modal claim (T&E’s misreading of what I said), (...) and (b) their second thesis has the unfortunate consequence of refuting their first thesis. (shrink)
In this article I want to alert investigators who are familiar only with our neuropsychological investigations of self-knowledge to our earlier work on model construction. A familiarity with this foundational research can help avert concerns and issues likely to arise if one is aware only of neuropsychological extensions of our work.
At lunch one day a colleague and I had a friendly argument over occupational licensing. I attacked it for being anticompetitive, arguing that licensing boards raise occupational incomes by restricting entry, advertising, and commercialization. My colleague, while acknowledging anticompetitive aspects, affirmed the need for licensing on the grounds of protecting the consumer from frauds and quacks. In many areas of infrequent and specialized dealing, consumers are not able, ex ante or even ex post, to evaluate competence. I countered by suggesting (...) voluntary means by which reputational problems might be handled and by returning to the offensive. I said that in fact the impetus for licensing usually comes from the practitioners, not their customers, and that licensing boards seldom devote their time to ferreting out incompetence but rather simply to prosecuting unlicensed practitioners. I mentioned cross-sectional findings, such as those on state licensure, prices, and occupational incomes. Overall, I characterized the professional establishment as a group of dastardly operators, who set the standards, write the codes, and enforce behavior to enhance their own material wellbeing - in brief, as venal rent-seekers. (shrink)
This book casts new light on the traditional disagreement between those who hold that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions if they are causally determined, and those who deny this. Klein suggests that reflection on the relation between justice and deprivation offers a way out of this perplexity.
This is the third draft of a paper that aims to clarify the apparent contradictions in the views presented in certain standards and other specifications of health informatics systems, contradictions which come to light when the latter are evaluated from the perspective of realist philosophy. One of the origins of this document was Klein’s discussion paper of 2005-07-02 entitled “Conceptology vs Reality” and the responses from Smith, as well as the several hours of discussions during the 2005 MIE meeting (...) in Geneva. (shrink)
Topology change is discussed as a barrier penetration process and illustrated by explicit calculations in Witten's Kaluza-Klein bubble geometry. Initial values are given for other bubble geometries, including ones with negative total mass.
Between June 1702 and December 1708 the astronomer, Kirch in Berlin and the philosopher, Leibniz in Hannover exchanged eleven letters. The letters from Leibniz to Kirch were published in 1900. The author will prove in this article, that the letters, which are kept in the Leibniz-Archives in Hannover, are Kirch's original answers to Leibniz. For first time, these letters will be published here in extracts.
La présente étude se propose de repérer les traits principaux de la théorie des systèmes autopoïétiques qui a, depuis le début des années 80, fortement marqué les discours des sciences sociales en Allemagne. Notre analyse se réfère aux concepts-clé de ce nouveau paradigme, élaboré par Niklas Luhmann, et montre leur fonctionnement. La genèse du sens telle quelle s'opère dans la société moderne se trouve au centre de l'intérèt. Avec ses trois dimensions constituantes , le sens peut être mieux observé dans (...) l'ensemble des systèmes, qui est englobé par un environnement de plus en plus complexe. Finalement nous observerons, à titre d'essai, le système littéraire pour y relever les possibilités et les limites de cette nouvelle approche.In the past decade, the mainstream-discourses in German Social Sciences have been strongly influenced by the theoretical design proposed by Niklas Luhman, which is generally called Systems Theory. In the present article I will discuss the dominant conceptions of this extremely abstract approach and focalize my reflections on the problem of the sense : How does sense evolve in social systems and how can it be observed ? Is a better observation garanteed by the unfolding three dimensions of sense ? An exemple like the literary system will show the possibilities and limits of this new paradigm in Social Sciences. (shrink)
Hegels Denken ist keineswegs von bloß historischem Interesse, sondern erweist sich stets von neuem als gegenwartsrelativ systematisch faszinierend. Dies gilt in besonderem Maße für jenes Werk, das für gründlichstes und systematisch anspruchsvollstes Denken unserer Tradition steht: die "Wissenschaft der Logik". Diese Logik ist keine weltlose, sondern schlechthin überall, wo wir auch leben und hinblicken, ist sie ausgebreitet wirklich und gegenständlich - in organischen Bildungen, Gefühlen, Meinungen, Institutionen, Kunstwerken, religiösen Formen, bis hin zu Konstrukten und Zahlen. Alles Natürliche und Geistige ist (...) eine realphilosophisch zu fassende Wirklichkeitsweise von Logischem. Dieser nachzuspüren wird in den Beiträgen dieses Bandes unternommen. Beiträge von Johannes Berchtold, Leo Dorner, Max Gottschlich, Friedrich Grimmlinger, Leo Hemetsberger, Thomas Sören Hoffmann, Heimo Hofmeister, Michael Höfler, Hans-Dieter Klein, Wilhelm Lütterfelds, Wolfgang Pesendorfer, Urs Richli, Josef Simon, Michael Wladika, Kurt Walter Zeidler. (shrink)
Felix Klein and Abraham Fraenkel each formulated a criterion for a theory of infinitesimals to be successful, in terms of the feasibility of implementation of the Mean Value Theorem. We explore the evolution of the idea over the past century, and the role of Abraham Robinson's framework therein.
According to Peter Klein, foundationalism fails because it allows a vicious form of arbitrariness. The present article critically discusses his concept of arbitrariness. It argues that the condition Klein takes to be necessary and sufficient for an epistemic item to be arbitrary is neither necessary nor sufficient. It also argues that Klein's concept of arbitrariness is not a concept of something that is obviously vicious. Even if Klein succeeds in establishing that foundationalism allows what he regards (...) as arbitrariness, this does not yet mean that he confronts it with a sound objection. (shrink)
This paper evaluates Peter Klein’s objection to foundationalism. According to Klein, foundationalism fails because it allows arbitrariness “at the base.” I first explain that this objection can be interpreted in two ways: either as targeting dialectical foundationalism or as targeting epistemic foundationalism. I then clarify Klein’s concept of arbitrariness. An assertion or belief is assumed to be arbitrary if and only if it lacks a reason that is “objectively and subjectively available.” Drawing on this notion, I evaluate (...)Klein’s objection. I first argue that his objection construed as targeting dialectical foundationalism fails, since nothing prevents dialectical foundationalism from ruling out arbitrary assertions. I then argue that the objection seen as targeting epistemic foundationalism cannot be disqualified in the way some foundationalists believe. However, I show that also the objection so construed does not succeed, since epistemic foundationalism need not countenance arbitrary beliefs. (shrink)
The regress of reasons threatens an epistemic agent’s right to claim that any beliefs are justified. In response, Peter Klein’s infinitism argues that an infinite series of supporting reasons of the right type not only is not vicious but can make for epistemic justification. In order to resist the sceptic, infinitism needs to provide reason to think that there is at least one justified belief in the world. Under an infinitist conception this involves showing that at least one belief (...) is supported by an infinite series of supporting reasons. This paper argues that showing this makes problems for the infinitist. The finite minds problem that prevents completion of an infinite series is well documented. This paper examines alternative attempts to provide evidence of infinity that the infinitist might take, whether by using a notion of justification without infinite reasons or by altering the notion of evidence. It concludes that both of these fail and consequently infinitism is unable to offer a solution to Agrippa’s trilemma. (shrink)