Research has shown that Danish Gulf War (GW) veterans reported a significantly higher prevalence of neuropsychological symptoms than did military controls 6 years after GW deployment. To explore the possible central nervous system determinants of these complaints, neuropsychological tests were administered to stratified, random samples of the Danish cohort of 916 GW-deployed veterans and 236 non–GW-deployed participants. Multivariate analyses of covariance were used to analyze neuropsychological test outcomes among the 215 male participants (143 GW-deployed and 72 non–GW-deployed soldiers). No significant differences in neuropsychological test performances were found between the GW-deployed and non–GW-deployed groups. Troops deployed to the GW reported significantly more mood complaints (i.e., fatigue and confusion) than their nondeployed counterparts. Because they were assigned to the Gulf region during the postcombat phase, Danish GW soldiers differed from the majority of American GW-deployed troops in military assignments and possible toxicant exposures. 相似文献
In this paper I argue that pluralism at the level of logical systems requires a certain monism at the meta-logical level, and so, in a sense, there cannot be pluralism all the way down. The adequate alternative logical systems bottom out in a shared basic meta-logic, and as such, logical pluralism is limited. I argue that the content of this basic meta-logic must include the analogue of logical rules Modus Ponens (MP) and Universal Instantiation (UI). I show this through a detailed analysis of the ‘adoption problem’, which manifests something special about MP and UI. It appears that MP and UI underwrite the very nature of a logical rule of inference, due to all rules of inference being conditional and universal in their structure. As such, all logical rules presuppose MP and UI, making MP and UI self-governing, basic, unadoptable, and (most relevantly to logical pluralism) required in the meta-logic for the adequacy of any logical system.