“A Minority View” Gian-Carlo Rota’s Phenomenological Realism

2009 ◽  
pp. 251-260
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Palombi
Science ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 196 (4291) ◽  
pp. 778-778
Author(s):  
J. R. HEIRTZLER
Keyword(s):  

Bionomina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
RAINER BREITLING

The genus Theraphosa was established by Thorell (1870) as the type genus of the simultaneously published family Theraphosidae, the most diverse group of mygalomorph spiders. This authorship and publication date have long been accepted by the majority of authors. However, there has been a long-standing minority view that the genus name should be attributed to Walckenaer (1805), and the publication date of the family name changed to 1869.             A thought-provoking recent publication has examined this case. Based on a limited selection of the relevant literature, the authors struggled to make sense of their sources and prematurely concluded that the minority opinion might indeed be correct. They overlooked the potentially destabilising implications of this reattribution.             This paper revisits the evidence in the light of a much wider range of relevant publications, places it in its important historical context and, on the basis of the current rules of nomenclature, concludes that the traditional consensus has indeed been correct.                 Thus, Theraphosa Thorell, 1870 is the type genus of Theraphosidae Thorell, 1870 and a nomen protectum, while Theraphosa Schinz, 1823 is a nomen oblitum, mostly limited to the German textbook literature of the early 19th century. Teraphosa Eichwald, 1830 and Teraphosa Gistel, 1848 are junior synonyms of Avicularia Lamarck, 1818 (syn. nov.). Theraphosa Walckenaer, 1805 is a suprageneric name of the class-series (synonymous to Mygalomorphae) and not available at the genus level.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine E. Snow

The lessons I have learned over the last many years seem always to come in pairs – a lesson about the findings that brings with it a lesson about life as a researcher...Lesson 1. Even as a doctoral student, I believed that the sorts of social interactions young children had with adults supported language acquisition. In 1971, when I completed my dissertation, that was a minority view, and one ridiculed by many. I was, unfortunately, deflected from a full-on commitment to research on the relationship between social environment and language development for many years by the general atmosphere of disdain for such claims. In the intervening years, of course, evidence to support the claim has accumulated, and now it is generally acknowledged that a large part of the variance among children in language skills can be explained by their language environments. This consensus might have been achieved earlier had I and others been braver about pursuing it.[Download the PDF and read more...]


Elenchos ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-349
Author(s):  
Diego E. Machuca

Abstract Sextus Empiricus associates the Pyrrhonian stance with the activity of inquiry or investigation. In this paper, I propose to examine the skeptic’s involvement in that activity because getting an accurate understanding of the nature and purpose of skeptical inquiry will make it possible to delineate some of the distinctive traits of Pyrrhonism as a kind of philosophy. I defend the minority view among specialists according to which (i) Sextus describes both the prospective Pyrrhonist and the full-fledged Pyrrhonist as inquirers into truth, and (ii) the full-fledged Pyrrhonist can, without inconsistency, engage in truth-directed inquiry.


2021 ◽  
pp. 21-40
Author(s):  
Cynthia Estlund

Chapter 2 digs more deeply into the outlook for job destruction and job creation, and adds some theory and data to Chapter 1’s anecdotes about how machines can replace human workers. It reports an emerging consensus among leading scholars that automation is already contributing to the polarization, or hollowing out, of the labor market by destroying more middle-skill jobs than it is creating. And it reports on the more concerning prediction—still a minority view though more than plausible—that machines are destined to produce overall net job losses as they continually whittle away at humans’ comparative advantages. The chapter arrives at a working premise for the rest of the book that straddles those two forecasts: We are facing a future of less work—at least less work for those with ordinary human skills and without advanced education, and perhaps less work overall. While that straddle might seem untenable, either forecast is similarly bleak for most workers—if we do not respond constructively; and when it comes to the shape of a constructive response, both forecasts point largely in the same direction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document