Topic
Class (philosophy)
About: Class (philosophy) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 821 publications have been published within this topic receiving 28000 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: Schueler as discussed by the authors has made a series of reservations about the treatment of indirect contexts, on behalf of the position I have called "quasi-realism" and his opposition is, I think, as complete as could be: it is not only that my treatment has been incomplete, but also that its formulation has been defective, which I am prepared to believe.
Abstract: G. F. Schueler's paper puts in a forceful way various reservations about my treatment of indirect contexts, on behalf of the position I have called "quasi-realism."1 His opposition is, I think, as complete as could be: it is not only that my treatment has been incomplete, which I happily concede, or that its formulation has been defective, which I am prepared to believe, but also that nothing like it could possibly succeed. That at least is the proper consequence of some of his views-on logical form, and on validity, and on the nature of commitment. For example, if to show that an inference has "the logical form" or "is an instance" of modus ponens involves taking it as "the realist picture" has it, then no attempt to explain it in other terms will be compatible with its having that form. Again, if validity is ("as it is used in logic") defined in terms of the impossibility of premises being true and conclusions false, then persons reluctant to apply truth and falsity to any of the elements of an inference will have to admit that the inference is not valid, as the term is used in logic. Third, if "talk of 'commitments' is problematic for the antirealist" then antirealism will make no headway by thinking of a more general class of commitments than those with representative or realistic truth conditions. Fortunately, none of these contentions seems to me correct. Since the survival of quasi-realism even in spirit demands their rebuttal, I shall start by considering them in turn. 1. It is not too clear what it is for an argument to have the logical form of modus ponens. If that is a remark about syntactical form, then obviously having that logical form is compatible with any number of deep and different semantics for the components. To show this compare "P. P->Q, so Q" with the implication taken as truth-functional, with the same seeming argument taken as some suppose the English take it: P->Q is the commitment of one who attributes a high probability to Q conditional upon P. Which is the true modus ponens? If we plump for either exclusively, we face the uncomfortable consequence that it becomes
118 citations
Book•
28 Jun 1991
TL;DR: This paper aims to provide a history of the phylum "sarcomastigophora" and its role in the evolution from "superficialylum" to "ylum"
Abstract: Preface Phylum "sarcomastigophora" (protozoa) Class "dinoflagellida" Phylum "cnidaria" Class "hydrozoa" Class "scyphozoa" Phylum "ctenophora" Class "tentaculata" Class "nuda" Phylum "nemertea" Phylum "annilida" Class "polychaeta" Phylum "arthropoda" Class "crustacea" Phylum "chaetognatha" Phylum "bryozoa" Class "gymnolaemata" Phylum "phoronida" Phylum "mollusca" Class "polyplacophora" Class "gastropoda" Class "lamellibranchia" Class "cephalopoda" Phylum "echinodermata" Class "asteroidea" Class "ophiuroidea" Class "echinoidea" Phylum "hemichordata" Class "enteropneusta" Phylum "urochordata" Class "larvacea" Class "ascidiacea" Class "thaliacea" Phylum "chordata" Class "osteichthyes"
117 citations
TL;DR: In a Natural Approach (NA) class as mentioned in this paper, the focus is on the acquisition of second language knowledge from the target language, rather than the product of learning, which is said to result from conscious attention to some part of target language.
Abstract: suggests the incorporation of two sources of knowledge of the target language into the teaching context.1 Following "second language acquisition theory" (henceforth "L2 theory") as formulated by Krashen, the terms "acquisition" and "learning" are used to refer to these two sorts of linguistic knowledge.2 Acquisition is the process which is said to lead to subconscious knowledge about language, a "feel" for correctness, while the product of learning is said to result from conscious attention to some part of the target language. Accordingly, in a Natural Approach (NA) class, we attempt to provide the students with opportunities for both sorts of language experiences. Emphasis in NA is given to acquisition. This decision is based on L2 theory. Krashen hypothesizes that fluency, specifically the production of utterances, depends primarily on acquired knowledge, while learned knowledge is useful to a speaker mainly as a "monitor," a mental processor which enables the speaker to make corrections in an utterance before and as it is spoken. According to this view, most speech production is based on acquired knowledge, since speakers are not able to monitor to any great degree while engaged in normal conversation. Thus even if some rule of grammar is explained, practiced, and "learned" in a language class, this knowledge is not readily available to most speakers in normal conversation. Krashen maintains that acquisition takes place whenever the acquirer interacts with comprehensible input in the target language.3 According to this hypothesis it is not necessary to "program" specific grammar points in a lesson since, if the acquirer receives enough compre-
113 citations
TL;DR: This paper shows that no RCC model can be interpreted extensionally anyway and hence give a negative answer to a conjecture raised by Bennett, and attaches to each cell entry in the RCC8 CT a superscript to indicate in what circumstances an extensional interpretation is possible.
112 citations
Patent•
IBM1
TL;DR: In this article, a system and method for reasoning about concepts, relations and rules having a semantic network comprising at least one node from a predetermined set of node types, at least 1 link from a certain set of link types, and zero or more rules from a specified set of rule types, each node and each link being associated with a set of rules, is presented.
Abstract: A system and method for reasoning about concepts, relations and rules having a semantic network comprising at least one node from a predetermined set of node types, at least one link from a predetermined set of link types, and zero or more rules from a predetermined set of rule types, a subset of the rule types being matching rule types, each node and each link being associated with a set of zero or more rules; a network reasoning data structure having a reasoning type database having at least one regular expression, each of the regular expressions being a class of sequences having at least three node types and two link types, wherein the network reasoning data structure further has a context being a set of rules; and a reasoning engine having an activator for activating one or more activated paths in the semantic network, the set of activated paths having a common starting node in the semantic network, wherein the reasoning engine further has a validator for selecting a subset of the activated paths being valid paths, each rule from the set of rule matching types that is associated with one or more path elements on each valid path being matched by one or more rules in the context and wherein the reasoning engine further has a legal inferencer for selecting a subset of the set of valid paths being legal and valid paths, the legal and valid paths matching at least one of the regular expressions.
112 citations