Controlled natural languages (CNL) with a direct mapping to formal logic have been proposed to improve the usability of knowledge representation systems, query interfaces, and formal specifications. Predictive editors are a popular approach to solve the problem that CNLs are easy to read but hard to write. Such predictive editors need to be able to “look ahead” in order to show all possible continuations of a given unfinished sentence. Such lookahead features, however, are difficult to implement (...) in a satisfying way with existing grammar frameworks, especially if the CNL supports complex nonlocal structures such as anaphoric references. Here, methods and algorithms are presented for a new grammar notation called Codeco, which is specifically designed for controlled natural languages and predictive editors. A parsing approach for Codeco based on an extended chart parsing algorithm is presented. A large subset of Attempto Controlled English has been represented in Codeco. Evaluation of this grammar and the parser implementation shows that the approach is practical, adequate and efficient. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Editor’s NoteJessica HeybachThis final installation of Education and Culture’s special theme issue on Dewey, Data, and Technology coincides with what feels like a technological paradigm shift. As I sat down to write this editor’s note, a former student forwarded me Stephen Marche’s December 6, 2022 piece in The Atlantic titled “The College Essay is Dead” wherein he offers a critique of the humanities as dependent on traditional forms of (...) assignments and assessment (i.e. writing), and their historically persistent inability to sufficiently respond to technology and be in conversation with the technologists. Ultimately Marche argues that the humanists and technologists need each other now more than ever with the development of naturallanguage processing. In November 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT (GPT stands for generative pre-trained transformer), a large language model chatbot capable of answering any question posed by a user. From “What was John Dewey’s theory of experience?” to chocolate cake recipes, ChatGPT offers users answers to their questions by predicting text (similar to autocorrect). The chatbot can answer fairly sophisticated questions, translate text, and write code, all of which previously used to require a human curator to achieve. Interestingly, ChatGPT was trained through a model of learning reflective of what B.F. Skinner (1938) proposed in The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis.1 Specifically, to train ChatGPT, creators utilized reinforcement learning and a system of rewards: “a human ‘labeler’ assigns rewards to various outputs the model generates by ranking them from the best to the worst. Thus, ChatGPT is trained by incorporating human intuition—specifically in terms of preferences in verbal combinations—and learning from it.”2Like all educational technologies, ChatGPT has been met with polarizing reactions—you either love it or hate it. Yet without much debate, educators and educational consultants immediately absorbed the technology as an educational good and started proselytizing. With little regard as to how the technology works, who created it, or why it was created, many educators have become early adopters. What is most curious about educators’ response is how many are not alarmed by the inaccuracy of the text produced by ChatGPT (imagine if calculators gave us wrong answers), or the issues of privacy inherent in becoming a user of AI (imagine if the overhead projector sold our behavioral data to other corporate entities), or the notion of academic integrity and thought itself in the face of AI (imagine if the blackboard became a coauthor). Rather, our addiction to novelty and technological fantasies is on display in this technological paradigm shift. Most universities now have webpages filled with links to resources and have filled their professional development calendars with AI-related webinars related to revising [End Page 1] assignments and assessments and creating syllabus policies for AI-produced materials.Although there is much to debate and decades of scholarship will interrogate ChatGPT in all disciplines, for the purposes of this editor’s note I want to pause and focus on the reactive early adopters of ChatGPT. As a regular observer of the educational Twitter-verse, I’m struck by how quickly this technology has been championed by school leaders and classroom educators. Since educators are users only, rather than the designers of said technology, ChatGPT in the classroom can be seen as the ultimate form of outsourcing available to date. I want to emphasize that ChatGPT is different than the calculator, overhead projector, or blackboard, as it is part of a culture already in motion that is interested in the destruction of the teaching profession writ large. Of course, Dewey would caution us against either/or thinking and the fatalism embedded in my own early reaction to ChatGPT, but I implore educators to consider ChatGPT in light of recent political attacks in P-20 educational settings and the increasing legislative moves to destroy progressive and reconstructive educational aims of education.One educational consultant declared just one month after its release: “#ChatGPT is here to stay and efforts against it are futile.” This consultant goes on to list its usefulness in the following tasks: “generating lesson plans, creating quizzes, providing feedback on student writing, summarizing and paraphrasing texts, personalized learning, grading student work, generating... (shrink)

In the last few decades we have become aware of the ecological problem, a problem of unprecedented scale and urgency. It consists of the danger that within our or the succeeding generation all life on earth, including the human species, will become extinct. This possibility rests on the one hand on the conspicuous changes in the global environment that are being effeted by human activity and, on the other, on a new physical theory of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. According to this discipline, (...) complex dynamic systems like the earth's biosphere are extremely unstable. When internal or external fluctuations exceed a certain threshold, such systems collapse into a state of chaos, the outcome of which is in principle unpredictable. The new systems that emerge from chaos are more complex, flexible, and efficient in utilizing free energy, but their components and structure cannot be foreseen. By applying this theory to our biosphere we can infer that if the man-caused disturbances in it exceed a certain level, the biosphere will break down and, eventually, a radically different environment will form. Such catastrophes have already occurred in the course of evolution, wiping out chains of interdependent species and restructuring the biosphere. As two of our authors—V. I. Kurashov and V. I. Danilov-Danil'ian—point out, the fact that we cannot determine our biosphere's threshold and predict at what point the biosphere will descend into chaos is no comfort; on the contrary, it makes our situation all the more dangerous. It is clear that we must immediately drastically reduce our impact on the natural environment. How to do so is not at all clear. (shrink)

One of the most interesting tendencies in contemporary philosophical developments in Russia is the basic elaboration of issues of the philosophy of culture. The interest in this problematic, which appeared back in the Soviet period in response to, among other developments, Western research in the realm of the theory of culture and civilization, led to the formation of a new philosophical discipline called culturology in Russia. For all the nuances and distinctions in the treatment of culturology and its subject matter (...) by representatives of different schools and tendencies of the contemporary philosophy of culture in Russia, its most widely accepted descriptive definition is the one cited in a culturology textbook: "The object of culturology is the genesis, functioning, and development of culture as a specifically human mode of life, which unfolds historically as a process of cultural transmission, externally similarly to, but nonetheless distinct from, life in nature. The task of culturology is to construct a 'genetics of culture' that would not only explain the historico-cultural process but would also predict and control it."'. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 34 (winter 2014–15): 131–4 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036–01631; online 1913–8032 c:\users\ken\documents\type3402\rj 3402 050 red.docx 2015-02-04 9:19 PM _ibliography NEW PERIODICAL ARTICLES BY RUSSELL Kenneth Blackwell here are 35 new C entries since 1993 for A Bibliography of Bertrand Russell, and more for all Parts of Vol. 2. With many thanks to several readers. C15.18a [RECONSTRUCTION OF (...) INTELLECTUAL INTERNATIONALISM AFTER THE WAR]. Svenska Dagbladet, Stockholm, 18 July 1915, sec. b, p. 5. Published under the general title “Det kulturella samarbetets återupptagande efter kriget” [The re-establishment of cultural cooperation after the war]. There is a subtitle : “Tre nya svar på Svenska Dagbladets världsenquête” [Three new responses to Svenska Dagbladet’s world enquiry].—Ms. (ra3 rec. acq. 1,325).—In English in Russell, n.s. 18 (1998): 141–3 (ed. K. Blackwell). C16.07a THE CASE OF MR. E. CHAPPELOW. The Manchester Guardian, 19 April 1916, p. 6. Six sentences, introduced thus: “The Hon. Bertrand Russell writes”.—Russell makes reference to the Everett case. C16.10a THE CASE OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. The Freethinker, 36 (14 May 1916): 310. “… the country is drifting into the infliction of serious persecution upon a large number of young men.…”—Reprinted, with two-thirds omitted, in Jim Herrick, Vision and Realism: a Hundred years of The Freethinker (London: Foote, 1982), pp. 51–2. C22.39 INSTINCT, HABIT, AND INTELLIGENCE. Hull Weekly Recorder, no. 1 (16 Dec. 1922): 6–9. Reprinted in Collected Papers 16 (in preparation). C23.10a BERTRAND RUSSELL PREDICTS U.S. WILL EVENTUALLY CONTROL THE ENTIRE WORLD. The Daily Argus, Mt. Vernon, ny, 7 March 1923, p. 3. Subtitled “Famous British Philosopher Declares America Will Conquer through Economic Causes What Others Have Tried to Win by Force”.—A note states: “Written exclusively for I.N.S.” (International News Service).—Reprinted in Collected Papers 16 (in preparation). C28.02a WHAT I THINK OF COMPANIONATE MARRIAGE. Children, the Magazine for Parents, Chicago, 3 (Feb. 1928): 17. Russell’s contribution—one of four under the title, the others being by Ernest R. Groves, Stephen S. Wise, and Anna Garlin Spencer, pp. 17, 47—is five sentences long.—Reprinted in Collected Papers 18 (in preparation). C28.02b [ADVICE ON WRITING]. The Daily Illini (U. of Illinois), Champaign, il, 12 Feb. 1928, p. 15. Letter to the author on developing a writing style, quoted fully in Newton York, q= 132 kenneth blackwell c:\users\ken\documents\type3402\rj 3402 050 red.docx 2015-02-04 9:19 PM “What Authors Advise”, ibid.—Part of Russell’s advice is to “read Gibbon all through, at least twice.” —Reprinted in Collected Papers 18 (in preparation). C32.39a MR. BERTRAND RUSSELL’S QUESTIONS. The Manchester Guardian, 27 June 1932, p. 10. Letter to a Coventry correspondent, under the title, “The Dismissed Teacher”. C34.36a ROMAN-CELTIC FARM SITE. The Times, 18 Sept. 1934, p. 7. Letter in “Points from Letters”, signed by John Russell, Telegraph House, Harting, Petersfield, referring to S. E. Winbolt’s “A Roman-Celtic Farm Site; Discovery near Harting, Sussex”, ibid., 10 Sept. 1934, p. 7. The writer states that his part was “not so great” as it appears in the account.—The composition of the letter is ascribed here to Bertrand Russell because a draft, with the exception of a phrase added later, is entirely in his fluent hand. That of his 13-year-old son is not present.—The draft was crossed out, and the verso became folio 1 of the ms. of “On Ceremony” (C34.48). C34.55a [THE AMERICAN LIBRARY OF NAZI BANNED BOOKS]. Jewish Daily Bulletin, New York, 11, no. 3,030 (23 Dec. 1934): 1. A telegram congratulating the Brooklyn Jewish Center for “inaugurating an American Library for Nazi burnt books”.—The allusion is to the Nazi bonfire of banned books on 10 May 1933.—The dinner celebrating the Library and mentioned in Russell’s telegram is the subject of Joseph Goldberg, “ ‘A Splendid and Historic Gathering’: Brooklyn Jewish Center Inaugurates Library of Nazi Banned books”, Brooklyn Jewish Center Review... (shrink)

Dear Editor,The April 2014 issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics [1] presented eight essays regarding the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research. While I appreciate the essays concerning contemporary research—which were well written and offered new thinking from the fields of ethics and ethology—I believe the journal, via the topics and the authors chosen, failed to communicate the most important fact regarding the current science pertinent to the use of nonhuman animals in research.The foundational reason for using chimpanzees and (...) other animals in research is their predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. This was alluded to by several of the authors when they discussed the necessity of using nonhuman animals. For example, Smith writes: “A common assumption in the selection of nonhuman animal subjects for research and the approval of research is that, if the risks of a procedure are too great for humans, and if there is a so-called scientific necessity, .. (shrink)

Ever since the first meeting of the proponents of the emerging Logical Empiricism in 1923, there existed philosophical differences as well as personal rivalries between the groups in Berlin and Vienna, headed by Hans Reichenbach and Moritz Schlick, respectively. Early theoretical tensions between Schlick and Reichenbach were caused by Reichenbach's (neo) Kantian roots (esp. his version of the relativized a priori), who himself regarded the Vienna Circle as a sort of anti-realist "positivist school"—as he described it in his Experience and (...) Prediction (1938). One result of this divergence was Schlick's preference of Carnap over Reichenbach for a position at the University of Vienna (in 1926), and his decision not to serve as a co-editor with Reichenbach for the journal Erkenntnis that they jointly established in 1930 (which was then co-edited by Carnap and Reichenbach from 1930 to 1938). A second split rooted in different views on induction and probability, which culminated in the Hans Reichenbach's refusal to serve as an invited author on probability within the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science series ed. by Rudolf Carnap, Charles Morris and Otto Neurath from 1938 onwards. In this regard it is remarkable that also Richard von Mises, who was the second leading figure of Logical Empiricism in Turkish exile, criticized the theory of probability put forward by his former Berlin colleague. In this paper I analyse this controversial exchange, drawing on the relevant correspondence and asking whether these (meta) philosophical differences were a typical feature of the pluralism inherent in Logical Empiricism in general. (shrink)

Hospital-based professionals who manage cases of family violence are often unclear about the benefits and costs of particular interventions to their clients. Operating under conditions of potential lethality, both to them and family members, clinicians often experience conflict between legal and ethical recommendations or between strategies intended to provide safety to victims of domestic (spousal) violence and those meant to protect children from abuse. This article presents a situation of family violence and the dilemmas of decision-making confronting both social worker (...) and lawyer. It discusses such issues as professional role, reporting requirements, and duties to warn, emphasizing the difficulty of implementing a plan and of predicting its consequences. It recommends substantive and procedural guidelines that may help protect victims while allowing professionals to emotionally sustain themselves during the management ordeal. (shrink)

Ever since the first meeting of the proponents of the emerging Logical Empiricism in 1923, there existed philosophical differences as well as personal rivalries between the groups in Berlin and Vienna, headed by Hans Reichenbach and Moritz Schlick, respectively. Early theoretical tensions between Schlick and Reichenbach were caused by Reichenbach’s Kantian roots, who himself regarded the Vienna Circle as a sort of anti-realist “positivist school”—as he described it in his Experience and Prediction. One result of this divergence was Schlick’s preference (...) of Carnap over Reichenbach for a position at the University of Vienna, and his decision not to serve as a co-editor with Reichenbach for the journal Erkenntnis that they jointly established in 1930. A second split rooted in different views on induction and probability, which culminated in the Hans Reichenbach’s refusal to serve as an invited author on probability within the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science series ed. by Rudolf Carnap, Charles Morris and Otto Neurath from 1938 onwards. In this regard it is remarkable that also Richard von Mises, who was the second leading figure of Logical Empiricism in Turkish exile, criticized the theory of probability put forward by his former Berlin colleague. In this paper I analyse this controversial exchange, drawing on the relevant correspondence and asking whether these philosophical differences were a typical feature of the pluralism inherent in Logical Empiricism in general. (shrink)