scholarly journals Management of COVID patients with convalescent plasma: Do we have the final word?

Author(s):  
Francesco Menichetti ◽  
Marco Falcone ◽  
Giusy Tiseo
Keyword(s):  
1981 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-129
Author(s):  
Rosalind L. Feierabend
Keyword(s):  

1984 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 440-440
Author(s):  
Linda S. Siegel
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Sarah Pawlett-Jackson

In this paper I offer a comparative evaluation of two types of “fundamental hope”, drawn from the writing of Rebecca Solnit and Rowan Williams respectively. Arguments can be found in both, I argue, for the foundations of a dispositional existential hope. Examining and comparing the differences between these accounts, I focus on the consequences implied for hope’s freedom and stability. I focus specifically on how these two accounts differ in their claims about the relationship between hope and (two types of) necessity. I argue that both Solnit and Williams base their claims for warranted fundamental hope on a sense of how reality is structured, taking this structure to provide grounds for a basic existential orientation that absolute despair is never the final word. For Solnit this structure is one of unpredictability; for Williams it is one of excess. While this investigation finds both accounts of fundamental hope to be plausible and insightful, I argue that Williams’s account is ultimately more satisfying on the grounds that it offers a realistic way of thinking about a hope necessitated by what it is responsive to, and more substantial in responding to what is necessary.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaroslaw Roman Lelonkiewicz ◽  
Chiara Gambi

While language production is a highly demanding task, conversational partners are known to coordinate their turns with striking precision. Among the mechanisms that allow them to do so is listeners’ ability to predict what the speaker will say, and thus to prepare their response in advance. But do speakers also play a role in facilitating coordination? We hypothesised that speakers contribute by using coordination smoothers – in particular by making their turns easier to predict. To test this, we asked participants to type definitions for common English words, either on their own (n = 26 individuals) or interacting with a partner (n = 18 pairs), and we measured the timing with which they produced the definitions. In a post-test, additional participants (n = 55) attempted to predict the final word of these definitions and rated them for quality. We found that interacting speakers initiated their turns with less variable delays than solo individuals. In contrast, our post-test measures suggested that jointly produced definitions were in fact of lower predictability and quality than those produced by individuals, but the analysis revealed these findings were likely confounded by task difficulty. We propose that the reduction in temporal variability observed for interacting speakers may facilitate prediction and thus act as a coordination smoother in linguistic interactions. [NOTE: Please cite this paper as: Lelonkiewicz, J. R., & Gambi, C. (2020). Making oneself predictable in linguistic interactions. Acta Psychologica, 209, 103125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103125 ]


BDJ Student ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Sophia Antoniou
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Palmquist

Abstract After summarizing the content of my book, Kant and Mysticism (Palmquist 2019), I warn against four preliminary misconceptions. The book never argues that Kant viewed himself as a mystic, fully acknowledges Kant’s negative view of mysticism, offers no comprehensive overview of mystical traditions, and aims to initiate a dialogue, not to have the final word. I then respond to the foregoing essays by the five critics.


Evolution ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert F. Bennett
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document