When Rhesus was composed and by whom is still debated, and we shall probably never have unequivocal answers. Regardless of whether it was written by Euripides, who was known for experimenting, or by someone else, could we reasonably consider it a pro-satyric play (i. e. a light play that concludes a tetralogy instead of a satyr play), due to similarities with the Alcestis in its treatment of serious themes, certain satyric features, and some of the play’s unconventional elements, such as (...) lack of pathos, deflation of ethos, and the humor of some scenes? Could the play have been presented in place of the burlesque satyr-play which usually provided humor and release from the tragic tension created by the three preceding full-scale tragedies performed in the agōn? We know that in 438 BCE Euripides presented the Alcestis, which is neither a satyr-play, nor a full-fledged tragedy, as a pro-satyric play. The likelihood that the play was pro-satyric would support the view advanced by some scholars that Euripides preferred pro-satyric plays to satyr-plays, and would thus help explain the low number of satyr-plays (eight) in the catalogue of Euripides’ plays (estimated at ca 92). (shrink)

INTRODUCTION TO ASPECTS OF FACE PROCESSING: TEN QUESTIONS IN NEED OF ANSWERS. HD Ellis 1. INTRODUCTION These proceedings of the first international ...

The Search for the Legacy of the USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee is a collection of essays from experts in a variety of fields seeking to redefine the legacy of the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The essayists place the legacy of the study within the evolution of racial and ethnic relations in the United States. Contributors include two leading historians on the study, two former United States Surgeons General, and other prominent scholars from a wide range of fields.

Problems for strict and convex Bayesianism are discussed. A set-based Bayesianism generalizing convex Bayesianism and intervalism is proposed. This approach abandons not only the strict Bayesian requirement of a unique real-valued probability function in any decision-making context but also the requirement of convexity for a set-based representation of uncertainty. Levi's E-admissibility decision criterion is retained and is shown to be applicable in the nonconvex case.

That brings me to the crux of my disagreement with Hillis Miller. The central contention is not simply that I am sometimes, or always, wrong in my interpretation, but instead that I—like other traditional historians—can never be right in my interpretation. For Miller assents to Nietzsche's challenge of "the concept of 'rightness' in interpretation," and to Nietzsche's assertion that "the same text authorizes innumerable interpretations : there is no 'correct' interpretation."1 Nietzsche's views of interpretation, as Miller says, are relevant to (...) the recent deconstructive theorists, including Jacques Derrida and himself, who have "reinterpreted Nietzsche" or have written "directly or indirectly under his aegis." He goes on to quote a number of statements from Nietzsche's The Will to Power to the effect, as Miller puts it, "that reading is never the objective identifying of a sense but the importation of meaning into a text which had no meaning 'in itself.'" For example: "Ultimately, man finds in things nothing but what he himself has imported into them." "In fact interpretation is itself a means of becoming master of something."2 On the face of it, such sweeping deconstructive claims might suggest those of Lewis Carroll's linguistic philosopher, who asserted that meaning is imported into a text by the interpreter's will to power: "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things.""The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." But of course I don't believe that such deconstructive claims are, in Humpty Dumpty fashion, simply dogmatic assertions. Instead, they are conclusions which are derived from particular linguistic premises. I want, in the time remaining, to present what I make out to be the elected linguistic premises, first of Jacques Derrida, then of Hillis Miller, in the confidence that if I misinterpret these theories, my errors will soon be challenged and corrected. Let me eliminate suspense by saying at the beginning that I don't think that their radically skeptical conclusions from these premises are wrong. On the contrary, I believe that their conclusions are right—in fact, they are infallibly right, and that's where the trouble lies. · 1. "Tradition and Difference," Diacritics 2 : 8, 12.· 2. Ibid. M. H. Abrams’s contributions to Critical Inquiry include "Rationality and Imagination in Cultural History: A Reply to Wayne Booth" and "Behaviorism and Deconstruction: A Comment on Morse Peckham's 'The Infinitude of Pluralism'". (shrink)

In terms of intervening in embodied experience, medical treatment is wonder-full in its ambition and its metaphysical presumption; yet, wonder’s role in clinical medicine has received little philosophical attention. In this paper, I propose, to doctors and others in routine clinical life, the value of an openness to wonder and to the sense of wonder. Key to this is the identity of the central ethical challenges facing most clinicians, which is not the high-tech drama of the popular conceptions of medical (...) ethics but, rather, the routine of patients’ undramatic but unremitting demands for the clinician’s time and respectful attention. Wonder (conceived as an intense and transfiguring attentiveness) is a ubiquitous ethical source, an alternative to the more familiar respect for rational autonomy, a source of renewal galvanizing diagnostic imagination, and a timely recalling of the embodied agency of both patient and clinician. (shrink)

This paper is a study of duality in the absence of canonicity. Specifically it concerns double quasioperator algebras, a class of distributive lattice expansions in which, coordinatewise, each operation either preserves both join and meet or reverses them. A variety of DQAs need not be canonical, but as has been shown in a companion paper, it is canonical in a generalized sense and an algebraic correspondence theorem is available. For very many varieties, canonicity (as traditionally defined) and correspondence lead on (...) to topological dualities in which the topological and correspondence components are quite separate. It is shown that, for DQAs, generalized canonicity is sufficient to yield, in a uniform way, topological dualities in the same style as those for canonical varieties. However topology and correspondence are no longer separable in the same way. (shrink)

In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed changes to the regulations that govern human subjects protection in federally funded research. The proposed changes involve modifying inclusion standards for minimal-risk research and removing the necessity of review from certain categories of noninvasive research. All studies would instead be required to comply with privacy protections as initiated by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act . We argue that relying on HIPAA to protect participants from participation-related risks in noninvasive (...) research is insufficient to protect the autonomy and psychological health of potential research participants. Instead, we suggest a streamlined review format for these categories of research. (shrink)

We distinguish three different readings of the intuitionistic notions of validity, soundness, and completeness with respect to the quantification occurring in the notion of validity, and we establish certain relations between the different readings. For each of the meta-logicalnotions considered we suggest that the "most natural" reading (which is not the same for all cases) is precisely the one which is required by the recent intuitionistic completeness theorems for IPC.