Important Parameters and Settings in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Aim: The article presents a set of parameters and settings for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), which is crucial in the operational work of the fire brigade and its importance for the quality of the final material obtained from an RGB camera or a thermal imaging camera. Introduction: Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are more often and more boldly used by various uniformed formations, including pilots of the State Fire Service and Volunteer Fire Brigades. Currently, they are used to perform recognition of situations and coordination of activities with the use of RGB and thermal imaging cameras. There are also other applications of UAV, including firefighting, but at the moment they are only conceptual solutions, as they have not been tested during an actual firefighting operation. According to the authors, a drone is currently only a carrier of additional devices and its functionality during the operation depends largely on certainty and reliability of a given UAV structure, as well as on the type and quality of the elements and sensors mounted on it. Methodology: A review of literature and press reports, as well as the authors’ experience in working with UAVs and the results of their research were used to analyse the topic. Conclusions: Indicating a set of key parameters for the UAVs used by fire brigade users is only possible to define its application. Therefore, in this study, the authors presented the most common use of unmanned aerial vehicles, for which key parameters were indicated and the impact of these factors on the obtained results of drones was described. Due to the frequent neglect of camera operation and the importance of their parameters, the authors described the most frequently set parameters of photographs and their impact on the final result, which is of key importance for the usefulness of the collected material.

Justification and Doubt (1919)

This chapter addresses the first of the book’s key questions concerning the justification of the doubter: How did Tillich land theologically after the war? This chapter therefore creates a point of reference against which Tillich’s development can be measured. There is a detailed account of Rechtfertigung und Zweifel from 1919, occasionally drawing out contrasts and continuity with the publication of the same title from 1924. Tillich frames the theme as a quest to overcome the division between religious and cultural life, finding unity in one theological principle derived from the doctrine of justification: The principle takes up doubt into itself in believing affirmation of the absolute paradox, i.e. to affirm that doubt does not preclude standing in the truth. In long excursions on certainty and the critique of apologetics as ‘intellectual work’ analogous to works-righteousness, Tillich contrasts his position with Karl Heim (1874–1958) in particular. Against Heim, Tillich insists the doubter should be left with his good truth-conscience since we relate truly to God ‘through unending doubt’.

Schelling and History (1909–11)

This chapter gathers Tillich’s academic work from 1909 to 11, including two dissertations on Schelling and his lecture on certainty and the historical Jesus. Schelling provided Tillich and his modern-positive tradition with a way of thinking about Christianity in the light of the history of religions, after the challenge of Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923) to separate historical and dogmatic method. Tillich notes Schelling’s insistence that humanity is God-positing regardless of unbelief. It is also significant that Tillich affirms the notion of an undoubtable condition of thought, whether as Schelling’s concept of ‘unpreconceivable being’ or Fichte’s I (das Ich). With Schelling, Tillich sees a wider application for justification than the ethical sphere. However, it is first in the Kassel lecture on the historical Jesus that he connects the idealist notion that knowledge is limited to the self-certainty of the subject with the claim that autonomy is justification in the area of thought. This is expressed as the rejection of the misunderstanding that faith is an intellectual work. This could have been the influence of his Lutheran tradition, encouraged by Schelling. The chapter argues it emerged from Tillich’s engagement with Wilhelm Herrmann (1846–1922).

Wittgenstein on Scepticism. An Interpretation of Wittgenstein's On Certainty

<p>The thesis puts forward a new interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s On Certainty and contrasts it with the standard reading of the book, also known in literature as the Framework Reading. The Framework Reading sees hinge propositions, that is our most basic and indubitable beliefs, as framing our practice of talking about the world, and, therefore, external to this practice. As such, they are seen as not truth-apt, purely regulative in character and our relation to them as non-epistemic. According to the interpretation put forward in this thesis, we should instead see hinges as uncontroversially correct moves in our practice of talking about the world, and, therefore, we should see them as obviously true and playing both a regulative and a descriptive role.</p>

Wittgenstein on Scepticism. An Interpretation of Wittgenstein's On Certainty

<p>The thesis puts forward a new interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s On Certainty and contrasts it with the standard reading of the book, also known in literature as the Framework Reading. The Framework Reading sees hinge propositions, that is our most basic and indubitable beliefs, as framing our practice of talking about the world, and, therefore, external to this practice. As such, they are seen as not truth-apt, purely regulative in character and our relation to them as non-epistemic. According to the interpretation put forward in this thesis, we should instead see hinges as uncontroversially correct moves in our practice of talking about the world, and, therefore, we should see them as obviously true and playing both a regulative and a descriptive role.</p>

Hinges, Deep Disagreement and Fixed Points in the Argumentation Logic

In his treatise ‘On Certainty’ (1969) L. Wittgenstein compared the propositions ex- pressing basic principles to the hinges enabling both doubting and justifying knowledge. In 1985 Robert Fogelin proposed the conception of deep disagreement in argumentation analysis and in his description of it he referred to the hinges. We continue Wittgenstein’s hinges metaphor and compare pulling and pushing the door of knowledge to adopting contrary standings about principal issues, which can result in the deep disagreements. We suggest looking at the hinges enabling those door moves as at the fixed points in the extension semantic of the argumen- tation logic. Interpreting the hinges as the fixed points allows viewing rejected arguments as isolated deadlocks of the deep disagreements, or anti-extensions, and opens a possibility for a compromise on the basis of certain extensions. В трактате «О достоверности» (1969) Л. Витгенштейн сравнил предложения, выражающие ключевые принципы знаний людей, с дверными петлями, без которых невозможно ни обосновывать знание, ни сомневаться в нём. В 1985 году Роберт Фогелин предложил понятие глубокого несогласия для анализа аргументации и, описывая его свойства, сослался на дверные петли Витгенштейна. Если продолжить метафору дверных петель Витгенштейна, то, если дверь познания толкают или тянут, это ведет к глубоким разногласиям по принципиальным вопросам. В русле этого мы предлагаем посмотреть на дверные петли как на неподвижные точки в семантике расширения логики аргументации. Это позволяет рассматривать отклоненные аргументы как изолированные тупики глубоких разногласий и открывает возможность для компромисса на основе определённых расширений.

Certainty and Uncertainty in Education - A Contemporary Challenge for Teachers

This study is a reflection on educational reality based on certainty and uncertainty coordinates. Exploring the significance of the binomial reality, generated by the different degrees of certainty, perceived by the actors involved in teaching, the article proposes a few acting options, in order to develop an appropriate orientation of the teacher training process, in a contemporary society marked by the “certainty of uncertainty”. Embracing the unknown, coping with unfamiliar situations, reflecting constructively on one’s own mistakes, as part of a teacher daily activity, are generated by a genuine positioning towards uncertainty in education, raising it from the status of a problem to the hypostasis of an opportunity. Mapping uncertainty through resilience, building confidence in experiencing doubt, reshaping learning by daring to approach dilemmas and stepping out of inaction can be viewed as valid alternatives in developing a professional self in a changing environment. That claims a rethinking of teacher training in terms of developing abilities for sustaining appropriate responses and a proper understanding of the relationship between certainty and uncertainty in education, having the intention of building quality learning experiences. The concepts of choice and change are about to conquer the ideas of standards and stability in educational context as proofs of a renewed approach in order to delineate core drivers of human development in contemporaneity. That is why rethinking teacher training needs to focus on articulating the reflective practicing with experiencing a constant change, integrating the multiplicity of opportunities in a supportive learning environment for developing a global competence, in order to respond effectively to the contemporary challenges.

When Knowledge is Blinding: The Dangers of Being Certain About the Future

Despite much research on certainty and future thought, it remains unclear how certainty about the future influences the ways people think, feel, and act. Three studies (N = 1218) examined how certainty about the future impacts people’s cognition, affect, and behavior during two major events of future uncertainty; the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. In Study 1, certainty about the future of COVID-19 predicted ignorance of medical information and lower objective knowledge about the virus. In line with these findings, in Study 2, certainty about the future of COVID-19 predicted endorsing riskier health behaviors. Turning to the 2020 Presidential Election, in Study 3, being certain that one’s preferred candidate would win the election predicted greater claims that the election was rigged (after the election) and identifying with Capitol insurrectionists. These findings introduce certainty about the future as a psychological phenomenon that entails intellectual blindness across diverging domains.