The fundamental model of deep disagreements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Lavorerio
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Model ◽  
Deep Disagreements

Public Opinion in Israel: The Sociodemographic Nexus

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Hermann
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Strategic Issues ◽  
National Consensus ◽  
Deep Disagreements ◽  
Political Right ◽  
The Impact

In Israel, as in many other countries, the impact of public opinion on national policymaking has increased dramatically over the last few decades. In fact, public opinion has practically developed into one of the prime political inputs in Israel. This chapter argues that this increased impact, which could have contributed to improving the Israeli democracy, is in fact often undermined by the increasing overlapping of the main cleavages within Israel: between the political Right and Left, between Jews and Arabs, and between religious and secular Israelis. This extreme overlapping has severely eroded the national consensus and accelerated the emergence of deep disagreements in public opinion over strategic issues, such as the nature of the state (Jewish? Democratic?), the main challenges facing the nation (including the best way of dealing with the protracted Israeli–Palestinian conflict), and the desired collective future.

Dissecting transmetalation reactions at the molecular level: C–B versus F–B bond activation in phenyltrifluoroborate silver complexes

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 1496-1506
Author(s):  
Fiona Bathie ◽  
Adam W. E. Stewart ◽  
Allan J. Canty ◽  
Richard A. J. O'Hair
Keyword(s):  
Gas Phase ◽  
Bond Activation ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Silver Complexes ◽  
Fundamental Model ◽  
Model Reactions

Gas-phase experiments and computation provide fundamental model reactions for aryl and fluoride transfer between silver and boron centres.

A fundamental model of an industrial-scale jaw crusher

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 69-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Johansson ◽  
Magnus Bengtsson ◽  
Magnus Evertsson ◽  
Erik Hulthén
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Scale ◽  
Jaw Crusher ◽  
Fundamental Model

Prediction of soot formation rates: a new approach

1974 ◽  
Vol 338 (1614) ◽  
pp. 375-396 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soot Formation ◽  
Rocket Engine ◽  
Experimental Results ◽  
Intermediate Species ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Fundamental Model ◽  
Gas Reactions ◽  
Gaseous Hydrocarbons ◽  
Controlling Processes ◽  
Exhaust Jet

Five processes controlling the production of soot from gaseous hydrocarbons are distinguished: gas reactions producing radical fragments on which nucleation may begin; nucleation; coagulation; growth; and oxidation. A fundamental model capable of taking into account all these processes is described. The model is applied to the conditions of a practical rocket engine, in which production of soot in the exhaust jet is governed by the rate of pyrolysis of methane in the chamber. Predictions made for these conditions agree with experimental results. The rate controlling processes and key intermediate species are identified.

scholarly journals Deep disagreement and hinge epistemology

Synthese ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 197 (11) ◽  
pp. 4975-5007
Author(s):  
Chris Ranalli
Keyword(s):  
World Views ◽  
Epistemic Relation ◽  
Entitlement Theory ◽  
Deep Disagreement ◽  
Hinge Epistemology ◽  
Epistemic Theory ◽  
Deep Disagreements ◽  
Rational Evaluation

Abstract This paper explores the application of hinge epistemology to deep disagreement. Hinge epistemology holds that there is a class of commitments—hinge commitments—which play a fundamental role in the structure of belief and rational evaluation: they are the most basic general ‘presuppositions’ of our world views which make it possible for us to evaluate certain beliefs or doubts as rational. Deep disagreements seem to crucially involve disagreements over such fundamental commitments. In this paper, I consider pessimism about deep disagreement, the thesis that such disagreements are rationally irresolvable, and ask whether the Wittgensteinian account of deep disagreement—according to which such disagreements are disagreements over hinge commitments—provides adequate support for pessimism. I argue that the answer to this question depends on what hinge commitments are and what our epistemic relation to them is supposed to be. I argue for two core claims. First, that non-epistemic theories of hinge commitments provide adequate support for pessimism. Nevertheless, such theories have highly implausible consequences in the context of deep disagreement. Secondly, at least one epistemic theory of hinge commitments, the entitlement theory, permits optimism about such disagreements. As such, while hinge epistemology is mainly pessimistic about deep disagreement, it doesn’t have to be.

scholarly journals The Epistemic Value of Deep Disagreements

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk Lougheed
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Epistemic Value ◽  
Peer Disagreement ◽  
Epistemology Of Disagreement ◽  
Epistemic Peer ◽  
Deep Disagreement ◽  
The Face ◽  
Deep Disagreements

In the epistemology of disagreement literature an underdeveloped argument defending the claim that an agent need not conciliate when she becomes aware of epistemic peer disagreement is based on the idea that there are epistemic benefits to be gained from disagreement. Such benefits are unobtainable if an agent conciliates in the face of peer disagreement. I argue that there are good reasons to embrace this line of argument at least in inquiry-related contexts. In argumentation theory a deep disagreement occurs when there is a disagreement between fundamental frameworks. According to Robert J. Fogelin disagreements between fundamental frameworks are not susceptible to rational resolution. Instead of evaluating this claim I argue that deep disagreements can lead to epistemic benefits, at least when inquiry is in view. Whether rational resolution is possible in cases of deep disagreements, their existence turns out to be epistemically beneficial. I conclude by examining whether this line of argument can be taken beyond research-related contexts.Dans la littérature sur l'épistémologie du désaccord, un argument sous-développé pour une approche non conciliatoire se fonde sur l'idée qu'il y a des bénéfices épistémiques à tirer du désaccord. De tels bénéfices sont impossibles à obtenir si un agent se concilie face au désaccord avec ses pairs, du moins dans les contextes liés à la recherche. Dans la théorie de l'argumentation, un désaccord profond se produit lorsqu'il y a un désaccord entre des propositions cadres. Je soutiens que des désaccords profonds peuvent mener à des avantages épistémiques, du moins dans le contexte de la recherche. Que la résolution rationnelle soit ou non possible en cas de désaccord profond, leur existence s'avère être bénéfique sur le plan épistémologique.

Crossing the Borders

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-190
Author(s):  
Sergio Casali
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Model ◽  
Intertextual Dialogue

All of Mercury’s three interventions in the Aeneid are engaged in a profound intertextual dialogue with Homer and Apollonius. Mercury’s first visit to Carthage (Aen. 1.297–304) echoes Athena’s intervention at Od. 13.300–2, and also the only intervention of Hermes as messenger/emissary of Zeus in the Argonautica (Arg. 3.584–8). This suggests a parallelism between Dido and Aeetes that will resurface again at Aen. 4.563–4 and 604–6. Furthermore, Jupiter’s sending of Mercury to Carthage and the god’s flight recall both Zeus’ sending of Hermes to Ogygia in the Odyssey and Aphrodite’s sending of Eros to Aea. Vergil’s fundamental model for Jupiter’s dispatch of Mercury to Aeneas (Aen. 4.219–78) is Zeus’ dispatch of Hermes to Calypso to free Odysseus at Od. 5.28–42. Finally, Mercury’s dream apparition to Aeneas (Aen. 4.553–70) is modeled on Hermes’ second visit to Priam at Il. 24.677–95.

scholarly journals The Exact Groundwater Divide on Water Table between Two Rivers: A Fundamental Model Investigation

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peng-Fei Han ◽  
Xu-Sheng Wang ◽  
Li Wan ◽  
Xiao-Wei Jiang ◽  
Fu-Sheng Hu
Keyword(s):  
Water Level ◽  
Water Table ◽  
Catchment Area ◽  
River Basins ◽  
Two Dimensional ◽  
Local Flow ◽  
Fundamental Model ◽  
Through Flow ◽  
Flow Systems ◽  
Pass Through

The groundwater divide within a plane has long been delineated as a water table ridge composed of the local top points of a water table. This definition has not been examined well for river basins. We developed a fundamental model of a two-dimensional unsaturated–saturated flow in a profile between two rivers. The exact groundwater divide can be identified from the boundary between two local flow systems and compared with the top of a water table. It is closer to the river of a higher water level than the top of a water table. The catchment area would be overestimated (up to ~50%) for a high river and underestimated (up to ~15%) for a low river by using the top of the water table. Furthermore, a pass-through flow from one river to another would be developed below two local flow systems when the groundwater divide is significantly close to a high river.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document