Dialogue Foundations: Dialogue Logic Revisited: Erik C. W. Krabbe

In an attempt to redeem the Lorenzen-type dialogues from their detractors, it is perhaps best first to provide a survey of the various benefits these dialogues have been supposed to yield. This will be done in Section I. It will not be possible, within the confines of this paper, to scrutinize them all, but in Section II we shall delve deeper into the capacity of this type of dialogue to yield a model for the immanent criticism of philosophical positions. Section III will extend the concept of a dialogue in such a way as to conform better with our intuitive conceptions of what a rational discussion of a position should contain. This will be followed up by a concept of 'winning a dialogue' that takes position midway between the old conception of 'winning one play' and that of the full-fledged presentation of a winning strategy (a proof). Concepts of 'rational discussion' are thus shown to be, plausibly, more fundamental than those of proof. In Section IV, I shall discuss the specific problems about dialogical foundations put forward by Wilfrid Hodges.     

Olfaction and young children’s preferences: A comparison of odor and visual cues

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - This research compared the relative contributions of odor and visual cues in determining young children’s preferences. Thirty-two children were...     

Vowel perception: A neuroradiological localization of the perception of vowels in the human cortex

Whether the perception of vowels takes place in the right or left cerebral hemisphere, or is dependent on bilateral cortical processes, is of importance in our treatment of patients with language deficiencies. To investigate this problem a phonetic test with a series of vowellike stimuli was administered to 68 right-handed adult patients with cerebral lesions, mainly of vascular origin. The results were compared to the results in a control group of 19 speech therapists. Second, a neuroradiologic method was developed in order to visualize the anatomic site of Wernicke's area in the left hemisphere on CT scans. This method formed the basis for an evaluation of the extent and localization of the patients' lesions in Wernicke's area. Of 46 patients with lesions in the left hemisphere, 19 had no perceptual disturbances and 27 had severe perceptual disturbances with lesions predominantly located in Wernicke's area. Twenty-two patients with lesions in the corresponding area in the right hemisphere showed no perceptual disturbances. The results of this investigation appear to indicate that the perception of vowels in right-handed persons is unilaterally located in Wernicke's area in the left hemisphere.     

Policy evaluation: Design and utilization

In the 1960s when evaluation research came into fashion in the US, the assumption was that it would be used by public policymakers in an instrumental way for purposes of problem solving. This entailed a linear, knowledge-driven model for research utilization in which a direct relationship exists between knowing and doing (i.e., knowledge leads to action). The model combined the “rational” paradigm of organizational theory and the “scientific” paradigm of positivist philosophy of science into a consistent model of how evaluation research should be conducted and would be utilized. Both with respect to its normative and its empirical dimensions, original evaluation research model failed. Today evaluation research and its utilization are seen in quite a different perspective. However, though a parallel paradigm revolution or shift has taken place both with respect to the organization theory of evaluation research and its methodological basis, no new comprehensive and coherent evaluation research model has emerged to replace the original linear one. Erik Albaek is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. One of his main research areas is the utilization of social science in public policymaking.     

The gnosis of knowledge navigation on the Net

A set of activities developed to expose liberal arts undergraduates to global networking software and resources is detailed. Using a suite of Internet software tools and Macintosh computers, teams of students collaborated with faculty searching the World-Wide Web for on-line resources. Detailed student logs provide insights into the challenges of searching for Internet resources. Project shortcomings include difficulty in accessing information sites and poor organization of the final written reports. Ideas for improving the project in the future include allowing more time for the search process and replacing the written report with a WWW home page. The class project enhances the utilization of technology in the curriculum while equipping the students with computer skills to enhance their education.     

Creative reasoning in formal discussion

Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to criticize the tenability or the relevance of the reasons advanced. Thus the usefulness of formal dialectic systems as models for reasonable argument is vindicated.It is then proposed to make these systems more realistic by incorporating in them a norm of Creative Reasoning that removes the severe restrictions to which the Proponent's arguing was hitherto subject. As a consequence, a certain type of irrelevant reason is no longer automatically excluded. Therefore, it is proposed to extend the Opponent's rights to exert relevance criticism. The new dialectic systems are shown to be strategically equivalent to the original ones. Finally, it is stressed that the Opponent's criticism should not be designated as arguing against the thesis. The Opponent criticizes, but does not argue.