Chapter Eight. ULTIMATE EXPLANATION

Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bonin ◽  
Margaux Gelin ◽  
Betty Laroche ◽  
Alain Méot ◽  
Aurélia Bugaiska

Abstract. Animates are better remembered than inanimates. According to the adaptive view of human memory ( Nairne, 2010 ; Nairne & Pandeirada, 2010a , 2010b ), this observation results from the fact that animates are more important for survival than inanimates. This ultimate explanation of animacy effects has to be complemented by proximate explanations. Moreover, animacy currently represents an uncontrolled word characteristic in most cognitive research ( VanArsdall, Nairne, Pandeirada, & Cogdill, 2015 ). In four studies, we therefore investigated the “how” of animacy effects. Study 1 revealed that words denoting animates were recalled better than those referring to inanimates in an intentional memory task. Study 2 revealed that adding a concurrent memory load when processing words for the animacy dimension did not impede the animacy effect on recall rates. Study 3A was an exact replication of Study 2 and Study 3B used a higher concurrent memory load. In these two follow-up studies, animacy effects on recall performance were again not altered by a concurrent memory load. Finally, Study 4 showed that using interactive imagery to encode animate and inanimate words did not alter the recall rate of animate words but did increase the recall of inanimate words. Taken together, the findings suggest that imagery processes contribute to these effects.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (S283) ◽  
pp. 384-385
Author(s):  
Richard B. C. Henry ◽  
Angela Speck ◽  
Amanda I. Karakas ◽  
Gary J. Ferland

AbstractWe carefully consider numerous explanations for the sulfur abundance anomaly in planetary nebulae. No one rationale appears to be satisfactory, and we suggest that the ultimate explanation is likely to be a heretofore unidentified feature of the nebular gas which significantly impacts the sulfur ionization correction factor.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-169
Author(s):  
Martin Sahlén

Modern scientific cosmology pushes the boundaries of knowledge and the knowable. This is prompting questions on the nature of scientific knowledge, and the emergence of the new field “Philosophy of Cosmology.” One central issue is what defines a “good” model. I discuss how “good” models are conventionally chosen, and how those methods operate in data-sparse situations: enabling the implicit introduction of value judgments, which can determine inference and lead to inferential polarization, e.g., on the question of ultimate explanation. Additional dimensions for comparing models are needed. A three-legged comparison is proposed: evidence, elegance and beneficence. This explicitly considers the categories of criteria that are always at least implicitly used. A tentative path to an implementation of the proposed model comparison framework is presented. This extends the Bayesian statistical framework. Model comparison methodology is fertile ground for dialogue between the sciences and the humanities. The proposed framework might facilitate such a dialogue.


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 756-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.M. Lesher

The preferential localization of Fe–Ni–Cu–PGE sulfides within the horizontal components of dike–sill–lava flow complexes in large igneous provinces (LIPs) indicates that they were fluid dynamic traps for sulfide melts. Many authors have interpreted them to have collected sulfide droplets transported upwards, often from deeper “staging chambers”. Although fine (<1–2 cm) dilute (<10%–15%) suspensions of dense (∼4–5 g/cm3) sulfide melt can be transported in ascending magmas, there are several problems with upward-transport models for almost all LIP-related deposits: (1) S isotopic data are consistent with nearby crustal sources, (2) xenoliths appear to be derived from nearby rather than deeper crustal sources, (3) lateral sheet flow or sill facies of major deposits contain few if any sulfides, (4) except where there is evidence for a local S source, sulfides or chalcophile element enrichments rarely if ever occur in the volcanic components even where there is mineralization in the subvolcanic plumbing system, and (5) some lavas are mildly to strongly depleted in PGE >>> Cu > Ni > Co, indicating that unerupted sulfides sequestered PGEs at depth. Two potential solutions to this paradox are that (i) natural systems contained surfactants that lowered sulfide–silicate interfacial tensions, permitting sulfide melts to coalesce and settle more easily than predicted from theoretical/experimental studies of artificial/analog systems, and (or) (ii) sulfides existed not as uniformly dispersed droplets, as normally assumed, but as fluid-dynamically coherent pseudoslugs or pseudolayers that were large and dense enough that they could not be transported upwards. Regardless of the ultimate explanation, it seems likely that most high-grade Ni–Cu–PGE sulfide deposits in LIPs formed at or above the same stratigraphic levels as they are found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document