HOW TO TALK TO YOURSELF OR KRIPKE's WITTGENSTEIN's SOLITARY LANGUAGE ARGUMENT AND WHY IT FAILS

Abstract: In Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Kripke's Wittgenstein argues that it is possible for individuals in communities to speak a language and otherwise follow rules, but impossible for a single, conceptually isolated individual to do so. I show that the roots of the argument lie in his general account of the legitimacy of practices, and that he actually argues for two distinct conclusions: (a) solitary individuals cannot have useful practices of rule‐following and (b) solitary individuals cannot place substantive restrictions on their own behavior. I show that if it is, in fact, possible for individuals in communities to use language and follow rules, then both of Kripke's Wittgenstein's anti‐solitary language arguments fails; and, furthermore, that his general account not only fails to exclude the possibility of solitary language‐use and rule‐following, it actually guarantees their possibility.     

No Evidence of Suicide Increase Following Terrorist Attacks in the United States: An Interrupted Time‐Series Analysis of September 11 and Oklahoma City

There is substantial evidence of detrimental psychological sequelae following disasters, including terrorist attacks. The effect of these events on extreme responses such as suicide, however, is unclear. We tested competing hypotheses about such effects by employing autoregressive integrated moving average techniques to model the impact of September 11 and the Oklahoma City bombing on monthly suicide counts at the local, state, and national level. Unlike prior studies that provided conflicting evidence, rigorous time series techniques revealed no support for an increase or decrease in suicides following these events. We conclude that while terrorist attacks produce subsequent psychological morbidity and may affect self and collective efficacy well beyond their immediate impact, these effects are not strong enough to influence levels of suicide mortality.     

Logical Foundations for Belief Representation

This essay presents a philosophical and computational theory of the representation of de re, de dicto, nested, and quasi-indexical belief reports expressed in natural language. The propositional Semantic Network Processing System (SNePS) is used for representing and reasoning about these reports. In particular, quasi-indicators (indexical expressions occurring in intentional contexts and representing uses of indicators by another speaker) pose problems far natural-language representation and reasoning systems, because—unlike pure indicators—they cannot be replaced by coreferential NPs without changing the meaning of the embedding sentence. Therefore, the referent of the quasi-indicator must be represented in such a way that no invalid coreferential claims are entailed. The importance of quasi-indicators is discussed, and it is shown that all four of the above categories of belief reports can be handled by a single representational technique using belief spaces containing intensional entities. Inference rules and belief-revision techniques for the system ore also examined.     

Resolving Compensation Disputes with Three-party Job Evaluation

Des conflits naissent dans les organisations a propos du montant de la retribution versee aux titulaires de certains postes. Aux Etats-Unis par exem-ple, le probleme de la contribution-retribution a provoque recemment plusieurs conflits autour des postes traditionnellement reserves aux femmes. Mediation et arbitrage sont les procedures habituellement retenues, mais une evaluation du travail regroupant trois partenaires est une solution originate dont les retombees favorables sur l'organisation depassent la resolution d'un conflit particulier.
Un groupe tripartite a exploite pour 1'evaluation du travail des dimensions pourvues d'echelles precises. Des equipes de deux personnes representant les parties adverses ont evalue des postes "convenablement retribues" a partir des dimensions sus-mentionnees. Les donnees ont été statistiquement synthetisees. Des equipes de deux personnes ont ensuite evalue tous les postes defendus par le syndicat implique dans le conflit. Cet eventail de postes incluait ceux qui etaient en litige.
Une tierce partie neutre devait conseiller les adversaires dans l'application d'une methode d'evaluation du travail qui resolvait le conflit, depistait les postes susceptibles de poser probleme a l'avenir et fournissait un moyen pour retribuer equitablement les nouveaux postes.