Nonaka’s ‘Dynamic Theory of Knowledge Creation’ (1994)

Author(s):  
Robert M. Grant
Author(s):  
B. R. Ahn ◽  
N. J. Kim

High energy approximation in dynamic theory of electron diffraction involves some intrinsic problems. First, the loss of theoretical strictness makes it difficult to comprehend the phenomena of electron diffraction. Secondly, it is difficult to believe that the approximation is reasonable especially in the following cases: 1) when accelerating voltage is not sufficiently high, 2) when the specimen is thick, 3) when the angle between the surface normal of the specimen and zone axis is large, and 4) when diffracted beam with large diffraction angle is included in the calculation. However, until now the method to calculate the many beam dynamic electron diffraction without the high energy approximation has not been proposed. For this reason, the authors propose a method to eliminate the high energy approximation in the calculation of many beam dynamic electron diffraction. In this method, a perfect crystal with flat surface was assumed. The method was applied to the calculation of [111] zone axis CBED patterns of Si.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-271
Author(s):  
Tamás Demeter

This paper sketches a recently emerging divide between two interpretations of Hume's methodology and philosophy of science. On the first interpretation Hume relies on an inductive methodology and provides a (Newtonian) dynamic theory of the mind, and his philosophy of science reflects this methodology. On the second, Hume relies on inferences to the best explanation via comparative analysis of instances, and offers an anatomy of the mind relying on a chemical and organic imagery. The paper also aspires to lean the reader's sympathies toward the latter interpretation while outlining some of its potential consequences for the character of Hume's psychology, the limits of associationism, and his empiricism.


Author(s):  
Richard Foley

A woman glances at a broken clock and comes to believe it is a quarter past seven. Yet, despite the broken clock, it really does happen to be a quarter past seven. Her belief is true, but it isn't knowledge. This is a classic illustration of a central problem in epistemology: determining what knowledge requires in addition to true belief. This book finds a new solution to the problem in the observation that whenever someone has a true belief but not knowledge, there is some significant aspect of the situation about which she lacks true beliefs—something important that she doesn't quite “get.” This may seem a modest point but, as the book shows, it has the potential to reorient the theory of knowledge. Whether a true belief counts as knowledge depends on the importance of the information one does or doesn't have. This means that questions of knowledge cannot be separated from questions about human concerns and values. It also means that, contrary to what is often thought, there is no privileged way of coming to know. Knowledge is a mutt. Proper pedigree is not required. What matters is that one doesn't lack important nearby information. Challenging some of the central assumptions of contemporary epistemology, this is an original and important account of knowledge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document