DOCSLIB.ORG

Objectivity, Language, and Communication

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Objectivity, Language, and Communication Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Eric Kevin Carter, M. A. Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Stewart Shapiro, Advisor David Sanson Kevin Scharp Copyright by Eric Kevin Carter 2011 Abstract HIS DISSERTATION IS a study of objectivity, language, and communication. T While most of us take for granted that scientific discourse is objective, when it comes to other discourses, our inclinations are different. For example, we take for granted that humor discourse is not objective. While these attitudes about ob- jectivity are commonplace, they raise questions about the factors that influence ob- jectivity. The primary thesis that I defend is that a discourse’s status with respect to objectivity is influenced by how a speaker uses that discourse, especially what a speaker takes for granted about the information that everyone in a conversation shares. When we talk to one another, we take for granted that there is a question that everyone is discussing. However, when a speaker uses an objective discourse in a conversation, someone in a disagreement over the question under discussion must be inattentive, biased, confused, or otherwise cognitively at fault. We take other things for granted in a conversation too, especially about the attitudes that the conversation serves to coordinate. A speaker who uses an objective discourse takes for granted that the discussion serves only to coordinate either epistemic or doxastic attitudes. While conversational requirements are a mark of objective discourse, conver- sational latitude is a mark of non-objective discourse. Objectivity requires that a speaker take for granted that the discussion addresses a question that does not al- ii low for cognitively faultless disagreement. Objectivity also requires that a speaker take for granted that the conversation only serves to influence either epistemic or doxastic attitudes. However, given that we are dealing with a discourse that is not objective, things are different. When a speaker uses a discourse that is not objec- tive, a speaker might take for granted that there is a question is under discussion that gives rise to cognitively faultless disagreement. In addition, a speaker might take for granted that conversation serves to coordinate attitudes other than either knowledge or belief. For example, when a speaker uses a discourse that is not ob- jective, a speaker might take for granted that conversation functions to coordinate desires, hopes, or even feelings. iii Dedication To my family, especially my parents, Rick and Sandy Carter iv Acknowledgments AM EXTREMELY grateful to my advisor, Stewart Shapiro. I benefited in count- I less ways from his wisdom, enthusiasm, and generosity. I cannot thank him enough. I am also deeply indebted to both my current and my former disserta- tion committee members, including Ben Caplan, David Sanson, Kevin Scharp, and William W. Taschek. I learned from each of them, and I appreciate their guidance, support, and commitment. Along with my advisor and committee, I owe a spe- cial thanks to Michael P. Lynch, Craige Roberts, and Crispin Wright. Not only did their research deeply influence my dissertation project, but I appreciate their collegiality and involvement. I value both Michael’s support and his feedback on my work. Craige and Crispin attended multiple talks, and they met with me on several occasions to discuss my work. I am fortunate to be surrounded by a large group of helpful and supportive colleagues, and, as a result, there are many people that deserve credit for help- ful feedback on my research. In particular, I thank Louise Antony, Andrew Arlig, William Bauer, David Blanks, Steven Brown, John Carroll, Julian Cole, Kevin Con- nor, Justin D’Arms, Philip Ebert, Douglas Edwards, Salvatore Florio, Timothy Fuller, Johannes Hafner, Carol Hay, Dai Heide, Ole Hjortland, Torfinn Huvenes, Gabrielle M. Johnson, Nicholaos J. Jones, Alison Duncan Kerr, Owen King, Robert Kraut, Dustin Locke, Michael Martin, William Melanson, David Merli, Sebastiana v Moruzzi, Michael Miller, Cathleen Müller, Robby Newman, Nikolaj Jang Peder- son, Michael Pendlebury, Graham Priest, Diana Raffman, Patrick Reeder, Marcus Rossberg, Robert Rupert, Timothy Schroeder, Anders J. Schoubye, Lisa Shabel, Joshua Smith, Martin Smith, Declan Smithies, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Chiara Tabet, Neil Tennant, Brad Tuggle, Daniel Wilkenfield, Lucian Zagan, and Elia Zardini. Over the past several years, I have given talks based on chapters of my disser- tation at different venues, including the Alabama Philosophical Society, the Arché Philosophical Research Centre at the University of St. Andrews, the German So- ciety for Linguistics, the Florida Philosophical Association, the North Carolina Philosophical Society, North Carolina State University, The Ohio State University’s Internal Graduate Colloquium, the Society for Exact Philosophy, and the Tampa Workshop on Syntax, Semantics, and Phonology. I thank the organizers of these events for supporting my research, and I thank the audience members for their helpful feedback. I was awarded a research grant from the College of Arts and Humanities at The Ohio State University in 2010, and I am grateful for their support, especially since the grant made it possible for me to attend the Subjective Meaning Workshop – Alternatives to Relativism. My family has always supported my educational pursuits, including my grad- uate career at The Ohio State University. I am especially thankful for my parents, Rick and Sandy, my older brother and his wife, Todd and Kari, their two chil- dren, Anna and Gracie, and lastly, my younger brother and his wife, Blayne and Sarah, and their two children, Paige and Landon. I appreciate their love and de- votion. Along with my immediate family, I also acknowledge my extended fam- ily, especially my grandparents, Virgil and Helen Carter, as well as Ken and Bon- nie Morgan. My grandparents showed a constant interest in my education, and I vi thank them for their involvement. In addition to my family, I thank several oth- ers for their friendship, encouragement, and humor, including Ike Blake, Joanna Blake, Lesley Cline, Thomas Evans, Greg Goudy, Michael Martin, William Melan- son, Robby Newman, Joshua Smith, Brad Tuggle, and Ann Wells. vii Vita 2011 . Ph. D., Philosophy, The Ohio State University 2002 . M. A., Philosophy, Texas Tech University 2000 . B. F. A., Visual Arts, Auburn University 1995 . Austin High School Field of Study Major Field: Philosophy viii Contents Abstract . ii Dedication . iv Acknowledgments . v Vita . viii Contents . ix 1 Objectivity, Language, and Communication . 1 1.1 Introduction . 1 1.2 Discursive Objectivity . 5 Objectivity, Language, and Frege’s Influence . 6 Truth Talk: Inflation, Substance, and Pluralism . 8 The Deflationist-Inflationist Contrast . 9 The Insubstantial-Substantial Contrast . 10 1.3 Against Semantic Discursivism . 11 Disagreement and Cognitive Fault . 14 Judge-Dependence, Subjective Attitudes, and Vagueness . 15 1.4 Beyond Semantic Discursivism . 17 ix Acceptability, Dynamics, and Linguistic Communication . 18 Questions, Attitudes, and Objectivity . 20 Speaker Discursivism . 21 How Objectivity Influences Communication . 22 1.5 Conclusion . 24 I Discursive Objectivity . 26 2 Objectivity, Language, and Frege’s Influence . 27 2.1 Introduction . 28 2.2 Frege, Objectivity, and Truth in the Scientific Sense . 30 Mathematical and Scientific Objectivity . 31 Truth in the Scientific Sense . 33 2.3 Dummett, Bivalence and Recognition-Independent Truth . 36 Bivalence . 37 Recognition-Independent Truth . 38 2.4 Williams, Substantial Truth, and Deflationism . 40 Substantial Truth and Deflationism . 42 2.5 Tarski’s T-Schema . 45 2.6 Conclusion . 50 3 Truth Talk: Inflation, Substance, and Pluralism . 51 3.1 Introduction . 52 Substantial Truth . 53 3.2 Deflationary Truth . 56 Classical Deflationism . 57 Another Alternative . 58 x Inferential Deflationism . 60 Alethic Inferences . 61 Disquotational Schema . 63 3.3 Inflationary Truth . 66 Inflationary Truth . 67 Motivating Inflationary Truth . 69 Compositionality Considerations . 70 Choice Negation and Inflated Truth . 72 3.4 Insubstantial Truth . 78 Alethic Minimalism . 80 Alethic Pluralism . 83 Insubstantial Truth . 85 3.5 Substantial Truth . 87 Is ’Substance’ a Univocal Notion? . 89 What We Can Know . 90 Cognitive Fault . 92 3.6 Semantic Discursivism . 96 3.7 Conclusion . 98 II Against Semantic Discursivism . 100 4 Disagreement and Cognitive Fault . 101 4.1 Introduction . 101 4.2 Disagreement and Cognitive Fault . 102 A Subjective Use of ’For Me’ . 103 4.3 Disagreement, Cognitive Fault, and Cognitive Command . 106 Cognitive Command . 108 xi The Challenge of Scientific Disagreement . 109 Cognitive Immodesty . 109 4.4 Quotidian Disagreement and Cognitive Fault . 112 Modal Idioms . 112 Circumstantiality . 113 Gradation . 114 Modality and Quotidian Disagreement . 115 Are Cognitively Immodest Disagreements Still Problematic? . 117 4.5 Cognitive Modesty and Cognitive Fault Talk . 118 Cognitive Fault Talk in Context . 120 Cognitive Standards . 121 Explanatory Faults . 123 Is Cognitive Modesty Problematic? . 125 4.6 Conclusion . 127 5 Judge-Dependence, Subjective Attitudes, and Vagueness . 129 5.1 Introduction . 129 5.2 Judge-Dependence and Compositional Semantics . 130 Judge-Dependent Truth . 131 Standard Approaches . 133 Compositional Semantics . 134 Vague Sentences . 135 5.3 Subjective Attitude.
Recommended publications
  • Cognitive Expressivism, Faultless Disagreement, and Absolute but Non- Objective Truth

    Cognitive Expressivism, Faultless Disagreement, and Absolute but Non- Objective Truth

    1 Cognitive Expressivism, Faultless Disagreement, and Absolute but Non- Objective Truth §0 Introduction I offer a new solution to the puzzle of faultless disagreement. Its essence is that truth for some domains of sentences is absolute but non-objective: so the objectivity of truth can come apart form the absoluteness of truth. I take faultless disagreement to be the following phenomenon illustrated by statements of taste. Smith asserts V below, savouring a salty dollop of black paste, and Jones denies V, shrinking from a proffered smearing: V: Vegemite is tasty. Assuming that both assert sincerely, and clear-headedly in the light of their food preferences is either Smith or Jones in error here? I say that neither is in error. No epistemic principle is violated, no one has insufficient evidence for their claims, no norm governing assertion is flouted, such as asserting what is false. Furthermore, Smith and Jones are not confused in arguing with each other. In short, Smith and Jones are faultless in their disagreement. Not only is there no error with respect to truth—we cannot say either asserts something false or untrue—there is also no dialectical error—neither is wrong to dispute with the other. There is no truth- or dialectical error. The phenomenon of faultless disagreement is puzzling since any attempt to find a theoretical basis for the claim that Smith and Jones make no truth-error seems to undermine the claim that they make no dialectical error. Let me explain. Assume that Smith and Jones use V to convey the same propositional content.
  • In Search of Faultless Disagreement1 MARIÁN ZOUHAR

    In Search of Faultless Disagreement1 MARIÁN ZOUHAR

    Prolegomena 13 (2) 2014: 335–350 In Search of Faultless Disagreement 1 MARIÁN ZOUHAR Institute of Philosophy, Slovak Academy of Sciences Klemensova 19, 811 09 Bratislava, Slovak Republic [email protected] ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE / RECEIVED: 310814 ACCEPTED: 201014 ABSTRACT: It is sometimes claimed that there are disagreements about matters of per- sonal taste that are faultless; in such a case, the disputing speakers believe incompat- ible propositions about taste while both of them are correct in what they believe. The aim of the paper is to show that it is rather difficult to find such a notion of disa- greement that would permit faultlessness in the required sense. In particular, three possible notions of disagreement are discussed; neither of them is found to be satis- factory to those who would like to make room for faultless disagreements. The first notion is derived from ordinary instances of disagreement about matters of fact; it is claimed that no faultless disagreement is possible if disagreement is understood along these lines. The second notion is based on certain ideas derived from relativism about truth; it is argued that, though permitting faultlessness, it leads to counterintuitive results. More precisely, certain cases classified as disagreements in this sense would be, rather, taken as instances of agreement from an intuitive viewpoint and certain cases that are not classified as disagreements in this sense are, intuitively, instances of disagreement. The third notion is derived by omitting one feature of the second notion; it is argued that the resulting notion is so weak that it cannot capture what is essential to disagreement proper.
  • 2020 Sky Miss (2020)

    2020 Sky Miss (2020)

    TesioPower Rancho San Antonio 2020 Sky Miss (2020) Caro Fortino II 4 Siberian Express Chambord 3 Indian Call Warfare 4 In Excess (1987) La Morlaye 13 Saulingo Sing Sing 13 Kantado Saulisa 3-i Vi Vilmorin 7-d Indian Charlie (1995) Dotterel 4-n Sovereign Dancer NORTHERN DANCER 2 Leo Castelli Bold Princess 5 Suspicious Native RAISE A NATIVE 8 Soviet Sojourn (1989) Be Suspicious 4-n Diplomat Way NASHUA 3 Political Parfait Jandy 22-c Peach Butter Creme Dela Creme A4 Uncle Mo (2008) Slipping Round 21-a Roberto Hail To Reason 4-n Kris S Bramalea 12 Sharp Queen PRINCEQUILLO 1 Arch (1995) Bridgework 10-a Danzig NORTHERN DANCER 2 Aurora Pas De Nom 7 Althea Alydar 9 Playa Maya (2000) Courtly Dee A4 NORTHERN DANCER Nearctic 14 Dixieland Band Natalma 2 Mississippi Mud Delta Judge 12 Dixie Slippers (1995) Sand Buggy 4-m CYANE TURN-TO 1 Cyane's Slippers Your Game 16-b Hot Slippers Rollicking 4 Uncle Brennie (2013) Miss Fairfield 8-c Bold Reasoning Boldnesian 4 Seattle Slew Reason To Earn 1-k My Charmer Poker 1 A P Indy (1989) Fair Charmer 13-c Secretariat BOLD RULER 8 Weekend Surprise SOMETHINGROYAL 2 Lassie Dear Buckpasser 1 Malibu Moon (1997) Gay Missile 3-l RAISE A NATIVE NATIVE DANCER 5 MR PROSPECTOR Raise You 8 Gold Digger NASHUA 3 Macoumba (1992) Sequence 13-c Green Dancer Nijinsky II 8 Maximova Green Valley 16-c Baracala Swaps A4 Moon Music (2007) Seximee 2-s RAISE A NATIVE NATIVE DANCER 5 MR PROSPECTOR Raise You 8 Gold Digger NASHUA 3 Smart Strike (1992) Sequence 13-c Smarten CYANE 16 Classy 'n Smart Smartaire A13 No Class Nodouble A1 Strike
  • Expressivism About Making and Truth -Making

    Expressivism About Making and Truth -Making

    EXPRESSIVISM ABOUT MAKING AND TRUTH-MAKING EL EXPRESIVISMO ACERCA DE LAS DECISIONES Y LA VERDAD EN LA TOMA DE DECISIONES STEPHEN BARKER University of Nottingham, UK. [email protected] RECIBIDO EL 25 DE MARZO DE 2014 Y APROBADO EL 25 DE JUNIO DE 2014 RESUMEN ABSTRACT El objetivo es iluminar la verdad acerca My goal is to illuminate truth-making de la toma de decisiones a modo de dar by way of illuminating the relation of luces sobre la relación de las decisiones. making. My strategy is not to ask what La estrategia no es preguntar lo qué es una making is; in the hope of a metaphysi- decisión; con la esperanza de una teoría cal theory about is nature. It’s rather to metafísica sobre lo que la naturaleza es. look first to the language of making. The Es, más bien, observar primero el lenguaje metaphor behind making refers to agency. de las decisiones. La metáfora detrás de la It would be absurd to suggest that claims toma de decisiones se remite a la agencia. about making are claims about agency. It No es absurdo, sin embargo, proponer is not absurd, however, to propose that que el concepto de toma de decisiones the concept of making somehow emerges de alguna manera se desprende de una from some feature to do with agency. característica que tiene que ver con la That’s the contention to be explored in agencia. Esta es la afirmación que explora this paper. The way to do this is through este trabajo. La manera de hacerlo es a expressivism.
  • “Gödel's Modernism: on Set-Theoretic Incompleteness,” Revisited

    “Gödel's Modernism: on Set-Theoretic Incompleteness,” Revisited

    “G¨odel'sModernism: on Set-Theoretic Incompleteness," revisited∗ Mark van Atten and Juliette Kennedy As to problems with the answer Yes or No, the con- viction that they are always decidable remains un- touched by these results. —G¨odel Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Questions of incompleteness On Friday, November 15, 1940, Kurt G¨odelgave a talk on set theory at Brown University.1 The topic was his recent proof of the consistency of Cantor's Con- tinuum Hypothesis, henceforth CH,2 with the axiomatic system for set theory ZFC.3 His friend from their days in Vienna, Rudolf Carnap, was in the audience, and afterward wrote a note to himself in which he raised a number of questions on incompleteness:4 (Remarks I planned to make, but did not) Discussion on G¨odel'slecture on the Continuum Hypothesis, November 14,5 1940 There seems to be a difference: between the undecidable propo- sitions of the kind of his example [i.e., 1931] and propositions such as the Axiom of Choice, and the Axiom of the Continuum [CH ]. We used to ask: \When these two have been decided, is then everything decided?" (The Poles, Tarski I think, suspected that this would be the case.) Now we know that (on the basis of the usual finitary rules) there will always remain undecided propositions. ∗An earlier version of this paper appeared as ‘G¨odel'smodernism: on set-theoretic incom- pleteness', Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 25(2), 2004, pp.289{349. Erratum facing page of contents in 26(1), 2005. 1 1. Can we nevertheless still ask an analogous question? I.e.
  • Value Disagreement and Two Aspects of Meaning

    Value Disagreement and Two Aspects of Meaning

    Croatian Journal of Philosophy Vol. XVII, No. 51, 2017 Value Disagreement and Two Aspects of Meaning ERICH RAST New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal The problem of value disagreement and contextualist, relativist and metalinguistic attempts of solving it are laid out. Although the metalin- guistic account seems to be on the right track, it is argued that it does not suf� ciently explain why and how disagreements about the meaning of evaluative terms are based on and can be decided by appeal to exist- ing social practices. As a remedy, it is argued that original suggestions from Putnams The Meaning of Meaning ought to be taken seriously. The resulting dual aspect theory of meaning can explain value disagree- ment in much the same way as it deals with disagreement about general terms. However, the account goes beyond Putnams by not just defend- ing a version of social externalism, but also defending the thesis that the truth conditional meaning of many evaluative terms is not � xed by experts either and instead constantly contested as part of a normal func- tion of language. Keywords: Disagreement, meaning vectors, externalism, metalin- guistic negotiation, truth-conditions. 1. Introduction Within the recent debate about relativist semantics of evaluative pred- icates and the corresponding notion of faultless disagreement attention has shifted towards more general discussion of value disagreement. The problem is how to account for substantive value disagreements without degrading them to merely verbal disputes. For it seems that if two people disagree about what is good in a given situation, for in- stance, if they associate different criteria with words like good and better than and one of them says Capitalism is good and the other one replies No, it is not, then it might appear as if they only disagree about the meaning of good and in the end only argue about words.
  • The Formation and Early History of the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben As Shown by Omaha Newspapers

    The Formation and Early History of the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben As Shown by Omaha Newspapers

    University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO Student Work 11-1-1962 The formation and early history of the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben as shown by Omaha newspapers Arvid E. Nelson University of Nebraska at Omaha Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork Recommended Citation Nelson, Arvid E., "The formation and early history of the Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben as shown by Omaha newspapers" (1962). Student Work. 556. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/556 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r m formation t m im u t m s toot of THE KNIQHTS OF A&~SAR-BBK AS S H O M nr OSAKA NEWSPAPERS A Thaoia Praaentad to the Faculty or tha Dapartmant of History Runic1pal University of Omaha In Partial Fulfilimant of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Art# by Arvld & liaison Ur. November 1^62 UMI Number: EP73194 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI EP73194 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
  • On Moral Understanding

    On Moral Understanding

    COMMENTTHE COLLEGE NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO 147 | MAY 2003 TOM WHIPPS On Moral Understanding DNA pioneers: The surviving members of the King’s team, who worked on the discovery of the structure of DNA 50 years ago, withDavid James Watson, K Levytheir Cambridge ‘rival’ at the time. From left Ray Gosling, Herbert Wilson, DNA at King’s: DepartmentJames Watson and of Maurice Philosophy Wilkins King’s College the continuing story University of London Prize for his contribution – and A day of celebrations their teams, but also to subse- quent generations of scientists at ver 600 guests attended a cant scientific discovery of the King’s. unique day of events celeb- 20th century,’ in the words of Four Nobel Laureates – Mau- Orating King’s role in the 50th Principal Professor Arthur Lucas, rice Wilkins, James Watson, Sid- anniversary of the discovery of the ‘and their research changed ney Altman and Tim Hunt – double helix structure of DNA on the world’. attended the event which was so 22 April. The day paid tribute not only to oversubscribed that the proceed- Scientists at King’s played a King’s DNA pioneers Rosalind ings were relayed by video link to fundamental role in this momen- Franklin and Maurice Wilkins – tous discovery – ‘the most signifi- who went onto win the Nobel continued on page 2 2 Funding news | 3 Peace Operations Review | 5 Widening participation | 8 25 years of Anglo-French law | 11 Margaret Atwood at King’s | 12 Susan Gibson wins Rosalind Franklin Award | 15 Focus: School of Law | 16 Research news | 18 Books | 19 KCLSU election results | 20 Arts abcdef U N I V E R S I T Y O F L O N D O N A C C O M M O D A T I O N O F F I C E ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION - FINDING SOMEWHERE TO LIVE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy WARNING: Under no circumstances inshould the this University document be of taken London as providing legal advice.
  • UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Perspectives on Syntactic Dependencies Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1dg340gf Author Gluckman, John Daniel Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Perspectives on Syntactic Dependencies A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by John Gluckman 2018 © Copyright by John Gluckman 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Perspectives on Syntactic Dependencies by John Gluckman Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Dominique L Sportiche, Chair This dissertation examines how intensional content, i.e., belief ascription, constrains antecedent- gap chains. I defend the proposal that antecedent-gap chains are intensionally uniform: the an- tecedent and the gap must refer to the same thing. The core focus is defective intervention (Chom- sky, 2000, 2001). Previous accounts have attributed defective intervention to syntactic mechanisms (Chomsky, 2001; Nevins, 2004; Preminger, 2014). These accounts are shown to be at best entirely stipulative and at worst empirically inadequate. I make two new generalizations concerning defective intervention. The first is that defective interveners are all attitude holders. I support this generalization by closely examining the class of tough-predicates, which permit various kinds of arguments to be projected in the syntax be- tween the antecedent and the gap. The second generalization is that defective intervention only arises when the antecedent-gap chain connects two thematic positions. I justify this generalization by looking broadly at all the cases of defective intervention reported in the literature, and more closely at the tough-construction, which has itself inspired decades of research.
  • Omaha Beach out of Derby with Entrapped Epiglottis

    Omaha Beach out of Derby with Entrapped Epiglottis

    THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2019 WEDNESDAY’S TRACKSIDE DERBY REPORT OMAHA BEACH OUT OF by Steve Sherack DERBY WITH ENTRAPPED LOUISVILLE, KY - With the rising sun making its way through partly cloudy skies, well before the stunning late scratch of likely EPIGLOTTIS favorite Omaha Beach (War Front) rocked the racing world, the backstretch at Churchill Downs was buzzing on a warm and breezy Wednesday morning ahead of this weekend’s 145th GI Kentucky Derby. Two of Bob Baffert’s three Derby-bound ‘TDN Rising Stars’ Roadster (Quality Road) and Improbable (City Zip) were among the first to step foot on the freshly manicured surface during the special 15-minute training window reserved for Derby/Oaks horses at 7:30 a.m. Champion and fellow ‘Rising Star’ Game Winner (Candy Ride {Arg}) galloped during a later Baffert set at 9 a.m. Cont. p3 IN TDN EUROPE TODAY Omaha Beach & exercise rider Taylor Cambra Wednesday morning. | Sherackatthetrack CALYX SENSATIONAL IN ROYAL WARM-UP Calyx (GB) (Kingman {GB}) was scintillating in Ascot’s Fox Hill Farms’s Omaha Beach (War Front), the 4-1 favorite for G3 Pavilion S. on Wednesday. Saturday’s GI Kentucky Derby Presented by Woodford Reserve, Click or tap here to go straight to TDN Europe. will be forced to miss the race after it was discovered that he has an entrapped epiglottis. “After training this morning we noticed him cough a few times,” Hall of Fame trainer Richard Mandella said. “It caused us to scope him and we found an entrapped epiglottis. We can’t fix it this week, so we’ll have to have a procedure done in a few days and probably be out of training for three weeks.
  • Georg Kreisel Papers SC0136

    Georg Kreisel Papers SC0136

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4k403759 No online items Guide to the Georg Kreisel Papers SC0136 Daniel Hartwig & Jenny Johnson Department of Special Collections and University Archives October 2010 Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford 94305-6064 [email protected] URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Note This encoded finding aid is compliant with Stanford EAD Best Practice Guidelines, Version 1.0.This encoded finding aid is compliant with Stanford EAD Best Practice Guidelines, Version 1.0. Guide to the Georg Kreisel Papers SC0136 1 SC0136 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Title: Georg Kreisel papers creator: Kreisel, Georg Identifier/Call Number: SC0136 Physical Description: 24.75 Linear Feet Date (inclusive): 1957-1984 Language of Material: English Language of Material: English Abstract: Correspondence with professional colleagues, collaborators, students, and others, primarily from 1962 to 1984, lecture notes, manuscripts and other writings. Ownership & Copyright All requests to reproduce, publish, quote from, or otherwise use collection materials must be submitted in writing to the Head of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, California 94304-6064. Consent is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission from the copyright owner. Such permission must be obtained from the copyright owner, heir(s) or assigns. See: http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/pubserv/permissions.html. Restrictions also apply to digital representations of the original materials. Use of digital files is restricted to research and educational purposes. Biographical/Historical Sketch Professor of Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics at Stanford University.
  • Bridging the Gap: Curlin=S Turf Frontier

    Bridging the Gap: Curlin=S Turf Frontier

    FRIDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2019 BLUE ON POINT AT MEYDAN BRIDGING THE GAP: By Kelsey Riley = Last year=s G1 King=s Stand S. winner Blue Point (Shamardal) CURLIN S TURF FRONTIER towered above his G2 Meydan Sprint rivals on paper, and he ran to form on Thursday to win eased down by five lengths on seasonal debut. The 5-year-old will now target the G1 Al Quoz Sprint on Mar. 30. He was scratched behind the gate of that contest last year as the favourite after blood was discovered in his nostrils. Rerouted to Hong Kong=s G1 Chairman=s Sprint Prize over six furlongs a month later, the >TDN Rising Star= trailed home last of nine but he looked much more like himself back to five furlongs in the King=s Stand in June, winning by 1 3/4 lengths from the highly regarded Battaash (Ire) (Dark Angel {Ire}). Back up to six for the July Cup, he was beaten 4 3/4 lengths in seventh and was 2 1/4 lengths off the near dead heat of Alpha Delphini (GB) (Captain Gerrard {Ire}) and Mabs Cross (GB) (Dutch Art {GB}) when third when last seen in the G1 Nunthorpe S. in August. Sitting back in third on Thursday as Faatinah (Aus) (Nicconi Curlin has been chosen as the first mate {Aus})Bhis closest-rated rival and the winner of a handicap over for Lady Aurelia | Sarah Andrew this track and trip on Jan. 3Bset the pace, Blue Point responded when given a shake of the reins by William Buick at the 300- meter mark.