Throughout the biological and biomedical sciences there is a growing need for, prescriptive ‘minimum information’ (MI) checklists specifying the key information to include when reporting experimental results are beginning to find favor with experimentalists, analysts, publishers and funders alike. Such checklists aim to ensure that methods, data, analyses and results are described to a level sufficient to support the unambiguous interpretation, sophisticated search, reanalysis and experimental corroboration and reuse of data sets, facilitating the extraction of maximum value from data sets (...) them. However, such ‘minimum information’ MI checklists are usually developed independently by groups working within representatives of particular biologically- or technologically-delineated domains. Consequently, an overview of the full range of checklists can be difficult to establish without intensive searching, and even tracking thetheir individual evolution of single checklists may be a non-trivial exercise. Checklists are also inevitably partially redundant when measured one against another, and where they overlap is far from straightforward. Furthermore, conflicts in scope and arbitrary decisions on wording and sub-structuring make integration difficult. This presents inhibit their use in combination. Overall, these issues present significant difficulties for the users of checklists, especially those in areas such as systems biology, who routinely combine information from multiple biological domains and technology platforms. To address all of the above, we present MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations); a web-based communal resource for such checklists, designed to act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for those exploring the range of extant checklist projects, and to foster collaborative, integrative development and ultimately promote gradual integration of checklists. (shrink)

Letters commenting on Hardwig, J "Is There a Duty to Die?" with a reply to those letters by the author.

Hume discusses the distinction of reason to explain how we distinguish things inseparable, and so identical, e.g., the color and figure of a white globe. He says we note the respect in which the globe is similar to a white cube and dissimilar to a black sphere, and the respect in which it is dissimilar to the first and similar to the second. Unfortunately, Hume takes these differing respects of resemblance to be identical with the white globe itself. Contradiction results, (...) undermining his theory of abstraction. The way out is apparently to admit an intrinsic complexity in even simple things. (shrink)

The late G.A. Cohen is routinely considered a founding father of luck egalitarianism, a prominent responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. David Miller argues that Cohen’s considered beliefs on distributive justice are not best understood as luck egalitarian. While the relationship between distributive justice and personal responsibility plays an important part in Cohen’s work, Miller maintains that it should be considered an isolated theme confined to Cohen’s exchange with Dworkin. We should not understand the view Cohen defends in this (...) exchange as Cohen’s considered view. Accepting this thesis would change both our understanding of Cohen’s political philosophy and many recent luck egalitarian contributions. Miller’s argument offers an opportunity to reassess Cohen’s writings as a whole. Ultimately, however, the textual evidence against Miller’s argument is overwhelming. Cohen clearly considers the exchange with Dworkin to be about egalitarianism as such rather than about the best responsibility-sensitive version of egalitarianism. Furthermore, Cohen often offers luck egalitarian formulations of his own view outside of the exchange with Dworkin and uses luck egalitarianism as an independent yardstick for evaluating principles and distributions. (shrink)

The book is an “introductory” reconstruction of Davidson on interpretation —a claim to be taken with a grain of salt. Writing introductory books has become an idol of the tribe. This is a concise book and reflects much study. It has many virtues along with some flaws. Ramberg assembles themes and puzzles from Davidson into a more or less coherent viewpoint. A special virtue is the innovative treatment of incommensurability and of the relation of Davidson’s work to hermeneutic themes. The (...) weakness comes in a certain unevenness. While generally convincing and well written, the book has low points which may leave the reader confused or unconvinced. Davidson is the hero in this book, and our hero is sometimes over idealized. (shrink)

Bjorn T. Ramberg’s book focuses on Davidson’s work in the philosophy of language, published between 1984 and the appearance of the book. Recent papers provide the focus for an overview of Davidson’s philosophy of language and its relations to broader debates and influences. Still, the reader is warned: the author “cannot claim” that the book “is in every detail a faithful representation or development of Davidson’s own current theory.” Instead, what we have is a “reconstruction” of Davidson on language and (...) meaning, an account “Davidsonian in spirit and in all its fundamental features.”1 The result is a projection of Davidson’s views, or important aspects of them, in a particular direction: Davidson and in- terpretation in process. The following critical discussion of main issues in Ramberg’s book should not dis- tract potential readers from this useful and thoughtful overview of Davidson on interpretation and meaning. (shrink)

G. A. Cohen conceptualizes socialism as luck egalitarianism constrained by a community principle. The latter mitigates certain inequalities to achieve a shared common life. This article explores the plausibility of the community constraint on inequality in light of two related problems. First, if it is voluntary, it fails as a response to “the abandonment objection” to luck egalitarianism, as it would not guarantee imprudent people sufficient resources to avoid deprivation and to function as equal citizens in a democratic (...) society. Contra Cohenite socialism, this appears unjust. Second, if it is instead enforced, coercive equalization beyond sufficiency-constrained luck egalitarianism, which is possibly necessary to achieve a shared common life, seems to require unjustified restrictions on liberty. I therefore argue that the constraint is most plausibly specified as requiring enforcement of sufficiency and only voluntary equalization thereafter. I also note, skeptically, why this constraint might be morally preferable to a purely sufficientarian alternative. (shrink)

The Gettier problem has stymied epistemologists. But, whether or not this problem is resolvable, we still must face an important question: Why does the Gettier problem arise in the first place? So far, philosophers have seen it as either a problem peculiar to the concept of knowledge, or else an instance of a general problem about conceptual analysis. But I would like to steer a middle course. I argue that the Gettier problem arises because knowledge is a thick concept, and (...) a Gettier-like problem is just what we should expect from attempts at analyzing a thick concept. Section 2 is devoted to establishing the controversial claim that knowledge is thick, and, in Sect. 3, I show that there is a general problem for analyzing thick concepts of which the Gettier problem is a special instance. I do not take a stand on whether the Gettier problem, or its general counterpart, is resolvable. My primary aim is to bring these problems into better focus. (shrink)

According to the canonical formulation of the modal account of luck [e.g. Pritchard (2005)], an event is lucky just when that event occurs in the actual world but not in a wide class of the nearest possible worlds where the relevant conditions for that event are the same as in the actual world. This paper argues, with reference to a novel variety of counterexample, that it is a mistake to focus, when assessing a given event for luckiness, on events (...) distributed over just the nearest possible worlds. More specifically, our objection to the canonical formulation of the modal account of luck reveals that whether an event is lucky depends crucially on events distributed over all possible worlds–viz., across the modal universe. It is shown that an amended modal account of luck which respects this point has the additional virtue of avoiding a notable kind of counterexample to modal accounts of luck proposed by Lackey (2008). (shrink)

An ongoing debate in the philosophy of action concerns the prevalence of moral luck: instances in which an agent’s moral responsibility is due, at least in part, to factors beyond his control. I point to a unique problem of moral luck for agents who depend upon Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) for bodily movement. BCIs may misrecognize a voluntarily formed distal intention (e.g., a plan to commit some illicit act in the future) as a control command to perform some (...) overt behavior now. If so, then BCI-agents may be deserving of punishment for the unlucky but foreseeable outcomes of their voluntarily formed plans, whereas standard counterparts who abandon their plans are not. However, it seems that the only relevant difference between BCI-agents and their standard counterparts is just a matter of luck. I briefly sketch different solutions that attempt to avoid this type of moral luck, while remaining agnostic on whether any succeeds. If none of these solutions succeeds, then there may be a unique type of moral luck that is unavoidable with respect to deserving punishment for certain BCI-mediated behaviors. (shrink)

*As mentioned in Peter Coy's NYT essay "When Being Good Is Just a Matter of Being Lucky" (2023) -/- ----- -/- How is the problem of free will related to the problem of moral luck? In this essay, I answer that question and outline a new solution to the paradox of moral luck, the source-paradox solution. This solution both explains why the paradox arises and why moral luck does not exist. To make my case, I highlight a (...) few key connections between the paradox of moral luck and two related problems, namely the problem of free will and determinism and the paradox of self-creation. Piecing together intuitions, arguments, and insights from recent work on each of these three problems, I argue that the type of control necessary for moral responsibility can only be had by someone who is a genuine source of his own actions, but the relevant notion of sourcehood admits no coherent characterization. If our commonsense view of moral responsibility is incoherent, it is unsurprising that our commitment to the existence of morally responsible agents commits us to some paradoxical things—e.g. to both the existence and impossibility of moral luck. For more information about this article, please write to gmail account: kristin.mickelson.42. (shrink)

I argue that the phenomenon underlying Bernard Williams’ (1976) “agent-regret” is considerably broader than appreciated by Williams and others. Agent-regret— an anguished response that agents have for harms they have caused, even if faultlessly— I maintain, is a species of a more general response to harms that need not be one’s fault, but which nonetheless impact one’s practical identity in a special way. This broader genus includes as a species what I call “relation-regret”, a pained response to harm caused by (...) a person to whom one is intimately related, as a co-member of a group partly constitutive of one’s practical identity (e.g. one’s family). After providing an account of the moral psychology of relation-regret, I attend to its normative significance, proposing in particular that acceptance of relation-regret provides us with reasons for accepting a novel form of moral luck, namely associative luck: the luck of being vulnerable to responsibility-responses in virtue of one’s attachments to others, despite one’s personal faultlessness. (shrink)

A surprisingly large number of scholars believe that (a) we are blameworthy, and therefore punishable, only for what we have control over; (b) we have control only over our actions and intentions, not the consequences of our actions; and therefore (c) if two agents perform the very same action (e.g., attempting to kill) with the very same intentions, then they are equally blameworthy and deserving of equal punishment – even if only one of them succeeds in killing. This paper argues (...) against these “equivalence theorists” that harmful consequences do make a moral difference, that the harm produced by the killer’s attempt retroactively makes her action more blameworthy, and therefore deserving of more punishment, than the failed attempter’s attempt. The primary argument for this “non-equivalence theory” is an analogy with gambling. Just as a gambler makes a deal with the casino to allow metaphysical luck to retroactively determine the “profit status” of her bet, so too the attempted killer makes a deal with “the casino of morality” to allow metaphysical luck to retroactively determine the moral status of her attempt. She makes the “moral deal” that if her attempt succeeds, her attempt was more blameworthy than if her attempt does not succeed. And it is the greater blameworthiness of the killer’s attempt that justifies our intuition that the killer should be punished more harshly than the failed attempter. (shrink)

Die Wittgenstein-Schülerin Elizabeth Anscombe zählt zu den einflussreichsten Philosophinnen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Mit der Monographie Absicht begründete sie die analytische Handlungstheorie, viele ihrer Abhandlungen gelten als Klassiker, aber nur wenige liegen bislang in deutscher Übersetzung vor. Der vorliegende Band füllt diese Lücke: Er versammelt zwölf von Anscombes wichtigsten Aufsätzen, die thematisch von der praktischen Philosophie über die Metaphysik und die Philosophie des Geistes bis hin zu Aristoteles- und Wittgenstein-Interpretationen reichen, also das ganze Spektrum ihres Denkens repräsentieren. Die Anmerkungen und Erläuterungen (...) der Herausgeber sowie das Nachwort von Anselm W. Müller erschließen die Texte und bieten zusätzliche Einblicke in das facettenreiche Werk dieser solitären Denkerin. (shrink)

Bu çalışmada, bir yandan bilgiye yol açması bağlamında deneyimin inanca kaynak oluşturması, öte yandan insan edimlerine yol açması bağlamında inancın deneyimlenmesine olanak oluşturması nedeniyle inanç-deneyim ilişkisi irdelenecektir. İnanç-deneyim ilişkisinin olanaklılığı ve bu ilişkinin kuşkulu doğası, Davidson ve Wittgenstein gibi iki önde gelen çözümleyici filozofun konuyla ilgili açıklamaları dikkate alınarak araştırılmaktadır.Yazının ana savını şu temel fikir oluşturmaktadır: Sanılanın aksine, ne deneyimler inanç için sağlam ve kesin bir temel oluştururlar ne de deneyimler bilinmek için inançlara gereksinim duyarlar. In this paper, the relationship (...) between belief and experience will be investigated because on the one hand, experience creates a source for beliefs which leads knowledge and on the other hand it makes the experience possible, which leads human actions. Considering the analysis of two prominent analytic philosophers Davidson and Wittgenstein, the relationship of belief and experience, and the questionable nature of this relationship will be studied. The basic claim of this paper consists of the following primary idea: Contrary to what is believed, neither experiences form a firm and certain basis for beliefs, nor experiences are in need of beliefs to be known. (shrink)

Luck egalitarians equalize the outcome enjoyed by people who exemplify the same degree of distributive desert by removing the influence of luck. They also try to calibrate differential rewards according to the pattern of distributive desert. This entails that they have to decide upon, among other things, the rate of reward, i.e., a principled way of distributing rewards to groups exercising different degrees of the relevant desert. However, the problem of the choice of reward principle is a relatively (...) and undeservedly neglected issue among luck egalitarians. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the importance and difficulty of this problem, and to elaborate upon G. A. Cohen's community-oriented response to it. In the last section, I provide a taxonomy of distributive pluralism, contrasting Cohen’s view with other (not so genuine) pluralisms - especially with all-things-considered varieties - while trying to motivate readers to adopt the more robust form of pluralism. (shrink)

In contemporary debates about justice, political philosophers take themselves to be engaged with a subject that’s narrower than the whole of morality. Many contemporary liberals, notably John Rawls, understand this narrowness in terms of context specificity. On their view, justice is the part of morality that applies to the context of a society’s institutions, but only has indirect application to the context of citizens’ personal lives. In contrast, many value pluralists, notably G.A. Cohen, understand justice’s narrowness in terms of singularity (...) against a plural background. On their view, justice is one fundamental value amongst a plurality of fundamental values. The purpose of my thesis is to establish that the pluralist conception of justice’s narrowness is theoretically significant and true. To establish its theoretical significance, I argue that proper attention to the ways in which different understandings of narrowness inform the work of contemporary egalitarians explains a considerable amount of disagreement between them concerning the content and scope of distributive justice. On the one hand, I’ll argue that if we understand justice’s narrowness in the manner Cohen and other pluralists do, i.e., understand a conception of justice to be a conception of a particular fundamental value, then both luck-egalitarianism and the claim that justice extends to the personal context are compelling. On the other hand, I’ll argue that if we understand justice’s narrowness in a contextual manner, i.e., understand justice to comprise one or more all-things-considered principles adopted for the institutional context, then both luck-egalitarianism and the claim that justice extends to the personal context prove implausible. To establish the truth of the pluralist conception of narrowness, I argue first, that the contextual understanding is only plausible if fairness should be understood procedurally instead of substantively; and second, that substantive fairness cannot be eliminated, as specifying the content of procedural fairness requires a substantive criterion. The upshot is that justice’s narrowness is best understood in terms of singularity against a plural background, rather than in terms of context specificity. (shrink)

Intentional action is, in some sense, non-accidental, and one common way action theorists have attempted to explain this is with reference to control. The idea, in short, is that intentional action implicates control, and control precludes accidentality. But in virtue of what, exactly, would exercising control over an action suffice to make it non-accidental in whatever sense is required for the action to be intentional? One interesting and prima facie plausible idea that we wish to explore in this paper is (...) that control is non-accidental in virtue of requiring knowledge – either knowledge-that or knowledge-how (e.g., Beddor and Pavese 2021; cf., Setiya 2008; 2012 and Habgood-Coote 2018). We review in detail some key recent work defending such knowledge-centric theories of control, and we show that none of these accounts holds water. We conclude with some discussion about how control opposes the sort of luck intentional action excludes without doing so by requiring knowledge (that- or how). (shrink)

According to reductive intellectualism, knowledge-how just is a kind of propositional knowledge (e.g., Stanley & Williamson 2001; Stanley 2011a, 2011b; Brogaard, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2011, 2009, 2011). This proposal has proved controversial because knowledge-how and propositional knowledge do not seem to share the same epistemic properties, particularly with regard to epistemic luck. Here we aim to move the argument forward by offering a positive account of knowledge-how. In particular, we propose a new kind of anti-intellectualism. Unlike neo-Rylean anti-intellectualist views, (...) according to which the possession of knowledge-how is just a matter of possessing certain abilities, we submit that knowledge-how is a particular kind of cognitive achievement attained just when cognitive ability is connected in the right way with successful performance. (shrink)

Donald Davidson established causalism, i.e. the view that reasons are causes and that action explanation is causal explanation, as the dominant view within contemporary action theory. According to his “master argument”, we must distinguish between reasons the agent merely has and reasons she has and which actually explain what she did, and the only, or at any rate the best, way to make the distinction is by saying that the reasons for which an agent acts are causes of her (...) action. “Davidson's challenge” to non‐causalists is to come up with an alternative, more convincing, way of drawing the distinction. In this paper, I argue that G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright offer such an alternative. Moreover, I argue that Davidson's own account of interpretation makes no use of his causalist claim. (shrink)

This book is a general defence of Donald Davidson's and G.E.M. Anscombe's 'unifying' approach to the individuation of actions and other events against objections raised by Alvin I. Goldman and others. It is argued that, ironically, Goldman's rival 'multiplying' account is itself vulnerable to these objections, whereas Davidson's account survives them. Although claims that the unifier-multiplier dispute is not really substantive are shown to be unfounded, some room for limited agreement over the ontological status of events is indicated. Davidson's (...) causal criterion of event identity is then defended against charges of triviality or inadequacy. It is concluded that Davidson's criterion is not primarily a criterion for arriving at particular judgments of individuation, but a metaphysical standard for the correctness of such judgments, however arrived at. Contents: Unifiers vs. Multipliers - Davidson's individuation of events - Goldman's act generation - causal, 'by'-relational, and temporal problems - ontology and event constituents - Davidson's causal criterion. This book is unique in providing a detailed survey and analysis of the recent unifier-multiplier dispute, and will be of interest to all researchers in action theory, as well as those working more broadly in metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind. (shrink)

G.A. Cohen is famous for his critique of John Rawls’s view that principles of justice are restricted in scope to institutional structures. In recent work, however, Cohen has suggested that Rawlsians get more than just the scope of justice wrong: they get the concept wrong too. He claims that justice is a fundamental value, i.e. a moral input in our deliberations about the content of action-guiding regulatory principles, rather than the output. I argue here that Cohen’s arguments for extending the (...) scope of justice equivocate across his distinction between fundamental principles of justice, i.e. principles that tell us what justice is; and regulatory principles of justice, i.e. principles that tell us what is required of us, all things – including justice – considered. Though Cohen initially had the regulatory sense of the word ‘justice’ in mind when critiquing the basic structure restriction, his replies to the problem of demandingness presuppose his own, fundamental sense of the word ‘justice’. The upshot is that he escapes demandingness at the cost of sacrificing regulatory justice’s capacity to provide clear guidance. I conclude by considering Peter Singer’s efforts to deal with demandingness in his own work on global poverty. Since Singer manages to deal with demandingness without giving up clarity, his work is a good a place to start in the search for regulatory principles that are suitable for the context of personal choice. (shrink)

Fictional and non-fictional texts rely on the same language to express their meaning; yet many philosophers in the analytic tradition would say, with reason, that fictional texts literally make no truth claims, or more modestly that the rhetorical and literary devices to which fiction and non-fiction writers alike have recourse are unconnected to truth or have no propositional content. These related views are associated with a doctrine in the philosophy of language, most notably advanced by the late Donald Davidson, (...) which holds that we understand the semantic structure of a language by applying to it a theory of truth, which involves discovering the truth conditions of its sentences. This approach to semantic theory raises several seemingly intractable problems, such as the problem of stating the meaning of non-declarative sentences, e.g. questions and imperatives. The chief aim of this paper will be to try to dispel these problems by suggesting an adjustment in Davidson’s account of the relation of truth to meaning, one which will also allow us to picture such troublesome linguistic items as metaphor within a semantic theory, and to expand the range of objects which can be brought into a general theory of meaning. (shrink)

This paper is based on the comments I gave to Alfred Mele regarding his original Zygote Argument during my presentation at a small workshop on manipulation arguments in Budapest back in 2012. After those comments, Mele changed the conclusion of his original Zygote Argument (OZA) from a positive, explanatory conclusion to a negative, non-explanatory conclusion--and, correspondingly, redefined 'incompatibilism' so that it would no longer refer in his work to the view that determinism precludes (undermines, eliminates, destroys, etc.) free will, but (...) refers narrowly to the perhaps spurious association claim that appears in the conclusion of the revised Zygote Argument (Mele 2013+). Yet, over the last decade, Mele has made no comment in print about the changes he made, the invalidity objection that led to them, nor to the fact that his revised Zygote Argument was originally presented by me as a (non-optimal) reaction to my invalidity objection to his original Zygote Argument. To my knowledge, Mele has only mentioned this 2015 paper once, at it was not in the context of understanding manipulation arguments; it was, rather, in the context of defending his revised, non-explanatory definition of 'incompatibilism' at the opening of Aspects of Agency (p. 6, n. 4). There, Mele singles out *just this 2015 paper* as a place where they'll find what Mele degrades as a type of nonstandard/nontraditional definition of 'incompatibilism' that he rejects. This is notable because Mele provides no empirical evidence that his preferred definition is standard, and most (including Lehrer, who coined the term) reject the negative, non-explanatory, association-based definition that Mele came to endorse in the aftermath of my invalidity objection to OZA. So, if Mele had a genuine concern about philosophers who use the term 'incompatibilism', then Mele could have--and should have--named almost any leading figure in free will for this purpose (since most--including Pereboom, Vihvelin, Haji, etc.) reject the non-explanatory definition that Mele-2013+ now endorses. Yet, for untold reasons, Mele isolated the working definition of 'incompatibilism' used in one paper by one unemployed junior researcher to use as his example--even though Neil Levy had used this same definition in previously published work (eg. Levy 2011). Moreover, if Mele were genuinely interested in helping his readers understand the ambiguity of terms like 'compatibilism' and 'incompatibilism' it is a mystery that he referenced a paper in which nothing of substance hung on the definitions given to these terms -- especially considering that he might have instead pointed them to my OTHER 2015 paper, "A Critique of Vihvelin's Three-Fold Classification" in which the MAIN AIM of the paper is to expose the difficulties facing anyone who wants to define the terms 'compatibilism' and 'incompatibilism' in a way that everyone will accept (including a critique of the negative, non-explanatory "incompossibilist" definition that Mele adopted after my objection to OZA). By all appearances, Mele's main aim in citing specifically THIS paper and none of my other work was to give readers the false impression that my working definition of 'incompatibilism' played some role in my charge that his argument is invalid (which it doesn't, given that the term doesn't appear in either the premises or conclusion of that argument). Mele adds to this unseemly rhetorical campaign in his book *Manipulation Agents* where he mentions an invalidity objection in the intro (p. 84) and then discusses that objection in the final lines of Chapter 5 of the book (p. 120-121). The invalidity objection discussed here is completely pedantic, has never been seriously raised in the primary literature (and was previously addressed in multiple places my multiple philosophers, including me), and has nothing whatever to do with my invalidity objection. In other words, Mele was content to discuss an invalidity objection that no one has ever had to an argument that is clearly valid while completely ignoring the ONLY substantive invalidity objection to his argument in print. This is unfortunate, because it has led to serious confusion --including the patently false description of my invalidity objection to OZA as an objection to the revised version of the Zygote Argument that Mele adopted in *response* my objection (e.g., Capes mistakenly claims "Mickelson (2015) contends that arguments like this [i.e. like the revised Zygote Argument] are invalid. But that’s because she defines “incompatibilism” differently than I’ve defined it here" in his "Manipulation Arguments and Direct Arguments" chapter in the 2023 Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Free Will; I did not say this, and the definition of 'incompatibilism' is irrelevant to my objection). In "The Zygote Argument Is Invalid--Now What?", I simply use the invalidity of the simple 2-premise Zygote Argument as a foil to make a series of more philosophically significant points (e.g. regarding the dialectical structure of the free-will debate, the role of best-explanation reasoning, and to develop the first-ever "master manipulation argument"). Mele has yet to address my reasons for calling attention to the non-trivial invalidity of his OZA or to any of my answers to the "Now What?" question in this paper, even though this question and my proposed answers to this question are the paper's main point. For those interested in a more recent discussion of how the logical and metaphilosophical observations made in this "Now What?" paper have helped to move the free-will debate forward, I suggest looking at the discussions of the "paradigm shift" in the free-will debate that helps to explain why the free-will debate has become mired in stalemates and empty verbal disputes that are found, for example, in my contributions to the Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Free Will (Intro and Chapter 4, 2023) and my paper "Free Will, Self-Creation, and the Paradox of Moral Luck" (2019). (shrink)

Did Donald Davidson agree with G.E.M. Anscombe that action requires a distinctive form of agential awareness? The answer is No, at least according to the standard interpretation of Davidson’s account of action. A careful study of Davidson’s early writings, however, reveals a much more subtle conception of the role of agential belief in action. While the role of the general belief in Davidson’s theory is familiar and has been much discussed, virtually no attention has been paid to the singular (...) belief. This essay makes a start on remedying this neglect. I begin, in section 1, by examining Davidson’s claim that for a desire or belief to rationalize and cause an action it must have a suitable generality. It must, he says, be ‘logically independent’ of the action itself. While he was clear about this requirement in the case of the desire that forms part of a person’s primary reason, I show in section 2 that his early treatment of belief confuses general and singular beliefs. This confusion reflects his failure clearly to distinguish the two roles belief can play in his account of action: as rationalizing cause and as agential awareness. Somewhat surprisingly, though, after he carefully drew the distinction and announced that intentional action requires practical knowledge, he pretty much ignored it. This may explain why some have assumed that Davidson parted ways with Anscombe on this. But a careful study of their writings shows that in fact they held remarkably similar views on the nature and need for practical knowledge. (shrink)

Cet article détaille et défend les arguments avancés dans l’ouvrageA Conceptual Investigation of Justiceen réponse aux critiques. Cette mise au point développe certaines des idées contenues dans le livre, mais elle présente également des perspectives inédites, étayant l’argumentaire de sa thèse principale.

I consider what prima facie attractive communitarian ethical perspectives salient among indigenous African peoples entail for distributive justice within a state, and I argue that they support a form of economic egalitarianism that differs in several important ways from varieties common in contemporary Anglo-American political philosophy. In particular, the sort of economic egalitarianism I advance rivals not only luck-oriented variants from the likes of Ronald Dworkin, G. A. Cohen and theorists inspired by them such as Richard Arneson, Carl Knight (...) and Nir Eyal, but also more ‘social’ kinds advocated by Elizabeth Anderson, Samuel Scheffler and Jonathan Wolff. Although I do not argue that these broadly Kantian egalitarianisms are less plausible than the Afro-communitarian version, I do aim to establish that it should be taken as seriously as they, at this stage of the debate. (shrink)

Distributive Justice and Access to Advantage is the most recent anthology devoted to the work of the great and, sadly, late political philosopher G.A. Cohen. Wh.

This essay articulates a kind of conservatism that it argues is the most fundamental and important kind of conservatism, viz. existential conservatism, which involves an affirmative and appreciative stance towards the given world. While this form of conservatism can be connected to political conservatism, as seen with Roger Scruton, it need not be, as seen with G. A. Cohen. It is argued that existential conservatism should be embraced whether or not one embraces political conservatism, though it is also shown that (...) existential conservatism imposes constraints on our political thinking. In particular, it is argued that Cohen's ‘luck egalitarianism’ stands at odds with his existential conservatism and that one should be a sufficientarian rather than an egalitarian with regard to economic justice. (shrink)

I argue that justification isn't just in the head. The argument is simple. We should be guided by our beliefs. We shouldn't be guided by anything to do what we shouldn't do. So, we shouldn't believe in ways that would guide us to do the things that we shouldn't. Among the various things we should do is discharge our duties (e.g., to fulfil our promissory obligations) and respect the rights of others (e.g., rights not to be harmed or killed by (...) agents acting on bad information). The grounds of our duties and obligations aren't just in the head. Thus, the conditions that bear on the justification of our beliefs cannot be contained wholly in our heads. The internalist might be right about aspects of normativity, but their theories tell us important normative truths without telling us the whole truth. In addition to norms that tell us how to process information, there are norms that tell us how we ought to live together. In information-asymmetry cases, these norms clearly come apart. Important normative questions about what we should do when agents (who, we might suppose, do what they subjectively ought to do) have interests that come into conflict can only be answered by externalist theories that recognise information-transcendent norms and normatively significant relations that don't supervene upon the information of any agent in particular. The internalist picture turns out to be disturbing precisely because it falls silent when we're faced with questions about how to resolve these conflicts. Resolving these conflicts should be a pressing concern for every normative theory. (shrink)

Agency is a power, but what is it a power to do? The tradition presents us with three main answers: (1) that agency is a power to affect one’s own will, consequent upon which act further events ensue, beginning with the movement of a part of one's body; (2) that agency is a power to affect one’s own body, consequent upon which act further events ensue, beginning with the movement of an object that one touches; and (3) that agency is (...) a power to affect that material upon which one brings one's action to bear---e.g. the apple one is peeling (with a knife in one's hand). These three answers correspond to three increasingly expansive conceptions of the province of human agency. I refer to them, respectively, as volitionalism, corporealism and materialism. Only the first two are seriously considered in contemporary action theory. Favoring the third, and hoping to sharpen the conflict between the third and the first, I criticize the second. Corporealism has been a popular position—arguably, the default position in the philosophy of action—since Donald Davidson’s classic paper “Agency” (1971). Although it seems to occupy a sensible middle ground between volitionalism and materialism, corporealism is, I argue, indefensible: it shares the vulnerabilities of both its two rivals, without possessing the strengths of either. Nevertheless, reflection on corporealism lights the road to materialism, which, in the end, is the only possible alternative to volitionalism. (shrink)

Elizabeth Anscombe held that acting intentionally entails knowing (in a distinctively practical way) what one is doing. The consensus for many years was that this knowledge thesis faces decisive counterexamples, the most famous being Donald Davidson’s carbon copier case, and so should be rejected or at least significantly weakened. Recently, however, a new defense of the knowledge thesis has emerged: provided one understands the knowledge in question as a form of progressive judgement, cases like Davidson’s pose no threat. In (...) this paper, I argue that this neo-Anscombean maneuver fails because it is founded on an untenable conception of the difference between intentional and merely lucky success. More specifically, the neo-Anscombean view conflates merely lucky success with subjectively surprising success. Unlike the former, subjectively surprising success may well be intentional, for it may well be the result of an exercise of knowledge-how. After sketching an alternative view that better captures the intuitive contrast between lucky and intentional success, I argue that the conflation of surprising and merely lucky success owes to a tacit commitment to the thesis that knowing how entails knowing that one knows how. This thesis is not only false, but distortive of the explanatory role of knowledge-how. This result, in turn, tells us something important about what practical knowledge cannot be. (shrink)

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the recent debate about responsibility and distributive justice. It traces the recent philosophical focus on distributive justice to John Rawls and examines two arguments in his work which might be taken to contain the seeds of the focus on responsibility in later theories of distributive justice. It examines Ronald Dworkin's ‘equality of resources’, the ‘luck egalitarianism’ of Richard Arneson and G. A. Cohen, as well as the criticisms of their work put forward (...) by Elizabeth Anderson, Marc Fleurbaey, Susan Hurley, and Jonathan Wolff. Key concepts such as responsibility (individual and collective), luck (thin and thick; brute and option), control, desert, and equality of opportunity are delineated, and the implementation of responsibility-sensitive accounts of justice is considered. The chapters of this book are positioned in relation to the wider literature on responsibility and distributive justice, and a brief outline of the chapters is provided. (shrink)

An individual is agent-responsible for an outcome just in case it flows from her autonomous agency in the right kind of way. The topic of agent-responsibility is important because most people believe that agents should be held morally accountable (e.g., liable to punishment or having an obligation to compensate victims) for outcomes for which they are agent-responsible and because many other people (e.g., brute luck egalitarians) hold that agents should not be held accountable for outcomes for which they are (...) not responsible. In this paper, I examine how false beliefs affect agent-responsibility. Unlike most of the papers in this collection, my paper is on the notion of agent-responsibility that many believe is relevant to justice and morality generally. I do not here address the question of how, if at all, justice and morality are sensitive to agent-responsibility. (shrink)

The problem of act individuation is a debate about the identity conditions of human acts. The fundamental question about act individuation is: how do we distinguish between actions? Three views of act individuation have dominated the literature. First, Donald Davidson and G.E.M. Anscombe have argued that a number of different descriptions refer to a single act. Second, Alvin Goldman and Jaegwon Kim have argued that each description designates a distinct act. Finally, Irving Thalberg and Judith Jarvis Thomson have averred (...) that some acts are sequences of causally related events, which include both a primitive bodily action and some of its effects. All of these accounts have assumed that a simple invariantist account of act individuation captures how ordinary people distinguish between acts. For my dissertation, I devised an experiment to test the action theorists' assumptions. My data show that people's intuitions seem to depend on the valence of the consequences of the action under consideration. So, an invariantist account is not possible. In light of the empirical results, I argue that if we seek a folk account of act individuation, then that account should be able to explain the variability that seems to be present in people's intuitions about different cases. (shrink)

“Political epistemology” has recently emerged as an area of analytic epistemology. While it may not be an entirely new area, and its precise boundaries are up for negotiation, recent political events in the UK (e.g. Brexit) and the US (e.g. the election of Donald Trump) played a key role in its rise to prominence within contemporary analytic epistemology. Further, political epistemology is an inter-disciplinary field, drawing on relevant work in political science, political psychology, and science communication that is often (...) equally focused on the UK and US. Political epistemology is therefore parochial, though it is the kind of parochialism that is not always conscious of itself as parochial. In this talk I adopt a critical stance towards parochialism in political epistemology. But my aim is not just to point out the mistakes that can result from a parochial concern with political events in one’s own country. I suggest that we can view political epistemology as interested in certain fundamental problems and tensions, which political epistemologists may then seek to identify and address within the political context in which they are working. (shrink)

Ce texte offre un aperçu des articles composant ce numéro spécial et présente brièvement les principaux arguments avancés dansA Conceptual Investigation of Justice, dont une des thèses centrales veut qu’un important désaccord à la fois sémantique et philosophique sur la définition du terme «justice» soit au cœur de plusieurs questions en philosophie politique contemporaine. Cette présentation nous amène par ailleurs à décrire les caractéristiques d’un débat sémantique dont la portée dépasse la stricte sphère linguistique.

This chapter will evaluate humor used with the specific intent to reveal glaring epistemic errors that lead to injustice; flaws in reasoning so transparent that straightforward logic, argument, and evidence seem ineffectual against them, and in some cases, just silly to think such tools would be needed. Laughter seems to be one of the only sane responses. In particular, I will assess how humor can combat conspiracy theories, propaganda, lies, and bullshit. The last one I view in Harry Frankfurt's sense (...) of a complete lack of concern for truth or reality, which I think sums up former President Donald Trump's epic lack of curiosity which has a trickle-down effect on his ardent followers. The sort of conspiracy theories I will focus on are an intermingling of propaganda, well defined and analyzed by Jason Stanley in his work How Propaganda Works, and the "new conspiracism", outlined by Muirhead and Rosenblum in A Lot of People are Saying: The New Conspiracism and The Assault on Democracy. There are perils with this potency of pugilistic comedy. It is easy to punch up, humorously fume at the foibles and fantastical blunders of a world leader who seriously considers ingesting bleach to combat the plague, who also, without irony, regales us of his capacious mnemonic prowess in recalling the following words on a cognitive test: "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV." The self-proclaimed "stable genius" aced it. But when Trumpism and QAnon e.g., spreads among many who are impoverished and disempowered, the very people to whom Trump and others in his powerful orbit have incessantly lied, it becomes less clear how to wield truth-and justice-seeking wit. Are consciousness-raising comedians seeking to uncover and undermine obvious and dangerous falsehoods punching in the morally correct direction, and how can we tell? (shrink)

The vertiginous rise of right-wing populism, especially in its “nationalist, xenophobic and conservative form”, and some “racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and sexist” drifts associated with this phenomenon – whether real or perceived as such – make the mainstream media play a double role. On the one hand, the mainstream media reflect the struggle for political hegemony between different vested interests; on the other hand, they engage in the fight against right-wing populism blasting both right-wing populist candidates and their voters or supporters. (...) Many mainstream journalists ask citizens to realize a “sanitary cordon”, a “wall” or a “republican front” to block far-right populism and preserve liberal democracy. Moreover, they urge people to be wary of all attempts to “dediabolize” or “normalize” some tokens of right-wing populism. The main idea of this article is that right-wing populism is more harmless than is generally believed and, if excessive, negative media coverage doesn’t baffle but feed it. Populism is essentially a latent side effect of liberal democracy. Populism rises and becomes obtrusive only if a significant part of society perceives a regime of illiberal majoritarianism instead of one of liberal democracy. Right-wing populists are chiefly frustrated “ci-devants” who feel dispossessed of their past, identity, properties, qualities, privileges or titles. Inasmuch as the causes of collective frustration are many and varied (e.g. the real or just perceived corruption of the elites, the “system”, the deep state, the relocation of jobs, immigration, national sovereignty, national identity, communitarianism, radical Islamism, the status of some traditional institutions, some chapters of official history, etc.), there will always be right-wing populists, whether they are self-declared or covert. By adopting David G. Hackett’s thesis that the media are “agents of hegemony”, we applied the critical analysis of discourse to a set of 346 media articles in order to reveal the discursive sources of power, domination, inequality and partiality. The articles appeared in The New York Times and Le Monde during the period 2016-2017, at the time when the presidential elections took place in the United States and France. The articles were selected according to the occurrence of the keywords “Donald Trump” – “populism” and “Marine Le Pen” – “populisme” within the titles. The analysis of these articles reveals a divisive discursive structure that correspond to a real political cleavage in society. It is true that populism presents a “Manichean outlook”, in which there are only friends and foes” and no compromise is possible. It is also true that mainstream media reinforce this Manichean perspective on society and make populists feel marginalized and politically disempowered. The mainstream media may appease right-wing populism if they treat its followers as legitimate and equal political actors. For this, they have to give up the narrative structures that underscore insurmountable divergences and irreconcilable interests. In a liberal democracy, mass media should chiefly play the role of mediator. They may not aim to defeat or re-educate certain categories of citizens just because they advocate “wrong” political solutions. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉL'interprétation de la philosophie pratique de Donald Davidson proposée par Robert Myers représente correctement maints aspects fondamentaux de sa pensée. Myers soutient à juste titre que Davidson évite les incohérences entre la position internaliste, l'objectivité éthique et le modèle croyance-désir en modifiant des éléments centraux de ce modèle, et que l'alternative proposée par Davidson rend légitime l'extension des arguments de l'interprétation et de la triangulation dans la sphère pratique. Cependant, Myers s’égare à une bifurcation cruciale de la route interprétative. (...) Davidson suit G.E.M. Anscombe sur une voie différente, une voie qui considère les désirs individuels comme constitués en partie par des jugements évaluatifs. (shrink)

Translation in Greek of "A Geneticist's Roadmap to Sanity" (2019) by G.B. Côté. Μεταφράστηκε και στα Γαλλικά από τους Gilbert B. Côté και Roger Lapalme και προστέθηκε η βιβλιογραφία στις 28 του Απρίλη 2020: Pour comprendre le monde et revenir à la raison. La théorie du tout d'un généticien. Η ώθηση για τη συγγραφή ήταν η ανήθικη προεδρία του Donald J. Trump. Σε αυτό το κείμενο, θέλω να εξερευνήσω τα θεμέλια της ύπαρξής μας. Θα θίξω σύντομα την ενσυνείδηση, την (...) ελεύθερη βούληση, τη θρησκεία, την ηθική, τα βάσανα της ζωής , το πρόβλημα της δυαδικότητας του νου και του σώματος, την αχρονικότητα, τα πολλαπλά σύμπαντα και το ανθρώπινο πεπρωμένο. Για να διευκολύνω αυτήν την παρουσίαση, θα πρέπει πρώτα να δείξω ότι ο μαθηματικός πλατωνισμός είναι μια λογική αναγκαιότητα για την ύπαρξη οποιουδήποτε σύμπαντος, και θα εισαγάγω τους αφηρημένους, κβαντικούς και υλικούς τρόπους ύπαρξης (στη φιλοσοφία) που αντιστοιχούν στην πληροφόρηση, την ενέργεια και τη μάζα (στη φυσική). Το κείμενο αυτό αποτελεί μια σύνοψη της προσωπικής μου θεωρίας των πάντων. (shrink)

This dissertation is about the relationship between Epistemology and other domains. In it I want to show that in an important sense, Epistemology is an autonomous domain. That is, epistemic vocabulary (e.g., “knowledge”, “justification”, “rationality”, “epistemic reason”, etc.) cannot be analyzed without remainder into non-epistemic vocabulary. Epistemic phenomena must be explained in terms of epistemic reasons and the form of assessment proprietary to them. Although epistemic vocabulary cannot be reduced to the vocabulary of other domains, Epistemology is nonetheless connected with (...) other domains in an important way. In this dissertation I focus on the connection between Epistemology and the Philosophy of Mind. I distinguish different forms cognitive self-monitoring can take and corresponding forms of cognitive autonomy. The kind of self-monitoring that receives the most attention involves simulating interpersonal argumentation. I argue that the capacity to self-monitor in this way grounds familiar epistemic standards (e.g., knowledge and justification) and explains how reasons get their grip on us. On the picture that emerges, Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind need to be done in tandem. Epistemology gives us the normative framework that is modeled by the self-monitoring system. The self-monitoring system, conversely, explains the kind of activity we engage in that makes that normative framework applicable to us. Epistemic reasons themselves are just episodes of this kind of activity. In Chapter 1 I argue that epistemic luck cannot be analyzed in non-epistemic terms. Here I generalize Jennifer Lackey’s criticism of Duncan Pritchard’s safety-based account of epistemic luck to all reductive theories. I argue that they will either be extensionally inadequate, or they will illicitly presuppose the vocabulary they are trying to reduce. The upshot is that epistemic luck can only be understood in terms of the epistemic assessment of reasons. By extension, we can’t give a reductive analysis of knowledge. This is not to say we cannot analyze knowledge, just that we can’t analyze away the epistemic vocabulary without remainder. In chapter 2 I explain the relation between epistemic luck, epistemic justification, and knowledge. I argue that previous work in the defeasible reasoning tradition, despite being on the right track, fell short of realizing its full potential. This is because the account of how these three things relate given by its proponents was insufficiently unified, which encouraged many epistemologists to abandon the defeasible reasoning tradition entirely. I argue that a unified and principled account of their relation is possible, and it allows for an elegant analysis of knowledge. In slogan form: good reasons are apparent to the knowing subject. In chapter 3 I extend the defeasible reasoning tradition to explain how knowledge is gradable. I show that this enables us to bring the debates about fake barns and knowledge from falsehoods to ecumenical resolutions, while also shedding light on a new kind of case. Furthermore, I explain how background assumptions are themselves defeasible and some of the epistemic significance of this fact. In chapter 4 I make the connection between Epistemology and Philosophy of Mind. I argue that the self-monitoring system of cognitively mature humans uses a model of the normative framework described in the previous chapters to regulate its own cognition. Here I build on that claim to develop an account of the role played by knowledge and justification in doxastic social coordination. I build on the claim that background assumptions are themselves defeasible to develop an account of the foundations of knowledge according to which they are social but not brutely sociological. In chapter 5 I discuss the relation between the epistemic states of cognitively mature humans, children, and non-human animals. I do this in a way meant to integrate an insight from virtue epistemology into the reasons-first picture developed here: positive epistemic standing is a state attributable to the subject. In chapter 6 I discuss the metaphysics of epistemic reasons. I claim that they are episodes of the activity of reasoning. In the preceding chapters, we get a sense of what that activity involves. Here I argue that the materials developed there put us in a position to understand what epistemic reasons are. This account incorporates the insights of rival positions while sidestepping familiar objections to them. The resulting picture is in line with the non-reductive approach to the epistemic developed so far. In fact, it goes further than other “reasons-first” approaches to Epistemology by claiming that reasons are not only basic within Epistemology, but they are also basic full-stop. One key consideration for my argument here is that reasons are, by their very nature, competitors. Although this point is generally acknowledged in the literature on reasons, its consequences for the metaphysics of reasons hasn’t been. Participants in the debate about the metaphysics of reasons typically try to identify reasons with something (e.g., facts or mental states) that are either not competitors, or only competitors insofar as they constitute, or bear on the epistemic assessment of, episodes of reasoning. (shrink)

According to a well-known view in the philosophy of mind, intentional attitudes by their very nature satisfy requirements of rationality (e.g. Davidson 1980; Dennett 1987; Millar 2004). This view (which I shall call Constitutivism) features prominently as the ‘principle of minimal rationality’ in de Sousa’s monograph The Rationality of Emotion (1987). By explicating this principle in terms of the notion of the formal object of an attitude, de Sousa articulates an interesting and original version of Constitutivism, which differs in important (...) respects from other extant versions. In this paper, I explore this version of Constitutivism against the background of recent developments in the theory of rationality and make explicit its ramifications for the long-standing dispute over whether the mind is essentially normative. My focus will be on how to conceive of the form of the rationality requirements that attitudes as such must satisfy according to this principle. I argue that, although de Sousa seems officially to endorse a structuralist conception of rationality, according to which these requirements are requirements of coherence, his considerations on formal objects suggest that they are more aptly conceived in terms of a reasons-responsive conception of rationality. I further argue that which of these two readings we choose makes a significant difference to the prospect of vindicating the essential normativity of mind by invoking the principle of minimal rationality. (shrink)

INTRODUÇÃO O ovo da galinha consiste em uma célula reprodutiva bastante comparável às encontrada nos mamíferos. Todavia, no caso da galinha, essa célula reprodutiva localiza- se na superfície da gema, sendo preenchida por albumens, membranas de casca, casca e cutícula. O ovário é responsável pela formação da gema; as porções restantes do ovo originam-se no canal do oviduto. • OVÁRIO No momento do desenvolvimento precoce do embrião, existem dois ovários e dois ovidutos, entretanto o conjunto ovário-oviduto direito atrofia-se, deixando apenas (...) o ovário e o oviduto esquerdo funcional para a realização dos processos embrionários e de formação do ovo (feto). Antes da produção de óvulos, o ovário consiste em uma massa inerte de pequenos folículos que contém os óvulos. Alguns óvulos possuem estatura suficiente para serem vistos visualmente; outros requerem ampliação para serem detectados. A galinha possui inúmeros folículos presentes no ovário, que são capazes de suprir toda a produção de gemas da vida da ave. FORMAÇÃO DA GEMA A gema (figura 1) não é a verdadeira célula reprodutiva, mas como uma fonte de material alimentar a partir do qual a célula blastoderma e seu embrião resultante irão se sustentar durante o desenvolvimento. Quando uma franga atinge a maturidade sexual, o ovário e o oviduto sofrem algumas alterações. Cerca de 11 dias antes da fêmea colocar seu primeiro ovo, uma sequência de alterações hormonais ocorrem em seu organismo. O hormônio FSH (folículo estimulante) produzido pela glândula pituitária (hipófise) anterior faz com que os folículos ovarianos aumentem de tamanho, mas para que isso aconteça a fêmea deve ser exposta à luz, já que é o segundo fator relevante depois da nutrição adequada para a formação do ovo, uma vez que através do olho os estímulos da luz que entram no olho atingem as células nervosas até a hipófise que libera o FSH. Em suma, o ovário ativado começa a gerar hormônios como o estrogênio, progesterona e testosterona (esteroides sexuais). Os níveis plasmáticos mais elevados de estrogênio iniciam o desenvolvimento do osso medular, bem como estimula a produção de proteína albumina e a formação de lipídios (gordura) pelo fígado, além de aumentar o tamanho do oviduto, o que permite a produção de proteínas de albumina, membranas da casca, carbonato de cálcio para a formação da casca, e cutícula. A primeira gema (óvulo) que começa a amadurecer capta as grandes quantidades do material produzido pelo fígado e transportado pelo sistema circulatório diretamente para o ovário em desenvolvimento. Um ou dois dias depois da primeira, a segunda gema começa a se desenvolver, e assim por diante, até que no momento em que é posto o primeiro ovo, cerca de cinco a dez gemas já estão no processo de crescimento. É necessário em torno de 10 dias para que uma gema cresça e siga o caminho para se transformar num ovo posto. Depósitos de material de gema são lentos no início e possuem coloração clara. Eventualmente, o óvulo atinge um diâmetro de 6 mm, valor que cresce a uma taxa muito expressiva diária de até 4 mm. Um número maior de gemas encontram- se em desenvolvimento ao mesmo tempo em matrizes (galinhas reprodutoras) do que em poedeiras, no entanto a matriz não possui a capacidade de produzir uma taxa grande de ovos completos. A coloração presente na gema é xantofila, um pigmento carotenoides derivado da dieta do animal. O pigmento é transferido primeiro para a corrente sanguínea em função do processo de digestão e absorção, em seguida, rapidamente para a gema, bem como para outras partes do corpo como as penas. Consequentemente, em função da dieta, um teor mais elevado de xantofilas é depositado na gema durante as horas em que a galinha está comendo. Isso dá origem a depósitos de camadas escuras e claras no material da gema, dependendo do pigmento dietético disponível. Cerca de 7 a 11 anéis concêntricos são encontrados em cada gema. A formação de gemas é uniforme e a espessura total de depósitos de coloração clara e escura durante 24 horas é de cerca de 1,5 a 2,0 mm. A gema de ovo é composta basicamente de gorduras (lipídios) e proteínas, que combinam-se para a formação das lipoproteínas, das quais 60% do peso da gema é de lipoproteínas de baixa densidade (LDL), e são conhecidas por serem sintetizado pelo fígado através da ação do estrogênio. Na galinha poedeira, o LDL é removido do plasma sanguíneo como partículas intactas para a deposição do mesmo diretamente nos óvulos em desenvolvimento. Fatores que influenciam o crescimento da gema As gemas variam de tamanho entre as aves individuais de um aviário da mesma idade e são, geralmente, associados com as diferenças no peso corporal. O tamanho da gema não está associado a taxa de postura da ave, mas provavelmente com o tempo necessário para que os óvulos atinjam a maturidade e se desprendam. As gemas de uma galinha aumentam de tamanho ao longo do ciclo de produção. Além disso, o primeiro ovo posto em uma ninhada geralmente conterá uma gema maior do que os restantes. Os ovos colocados durante o final do dia são cerca de 0,5 gramas mais leves para cada hora adicional do dia; isso também está associado com gemas menores. A inclusão de gordura e proteína na dieta também demonstram um aumento significativo no tamanho da gema em desenvolvimento. Localização do disco germinativo O material da gema é colocado adjacente ao disco germinal (figura 1) que permanece na superfície da massa da gema globular. Uma vez que o ovo é posto, a gema gira para que o disco germinal permaneça na extremidade do ovo. OVULAÇÃO Quando a franga entra na maturidade, os óvulos são liberados do ovário para que possam entrar no canal do oviduto por um processo conhecido como ovulação. Cada óvulo encontra-se pendurado no ovário por uma haste estreita que contém as artérias que fornecem o sangue para a gema em desenvolvimento. As artérias sofrem diversas ramificações nas membranas superficiais da gema e o folículo têm um aspecto altamente vascular (figura 2), exceto pelo estigma, uma faixa estreita no entorno da gema que é quase desprovido de vasos sanguíneos. Figura 2: ovário com os folículos pequenos e prontos para se desprenderem. Fonte: IPA. Quando um óvulo está maduro, o hormônio progesterona, produzido pelo ovário, estimula o hipotálamo para causar a liberação do hormônio luteinizante (LH) da hipófise anterior que, por sua vez, faz com que o folículo maduro se rompa no local do estigma liberando o óvulo do ovário. A gema é então cercada apenas pela membrana vitelina (membrana da gema). Atraso da primeira ovulação A maturidade sexual, visualizada através da primeira ovulação da ave, pode ser acelerada ou retardada. Restringir a alimentação ou diminuir a duração do dia durante o período de crescimento da franga são os dois procedimentos principais para a agilizar o processo na galinha. O que inicia a ovulação? Não se sabe ao certo os parâmetros que definem a hora da primeira ovulação da ave, porém tanto o sistema nervoso quanto as secreções hormonais são de essencial importância na manifestação da mesma. A segunda ovulação é regulada mediante a oviposição (postura) do primeiro ovo cerca de 15 a 40 minutos após o primeiro ovo passar pelo canal da cloaca. As ovulações posteriores ocorrem com a mesma frequência em função dos ovos subsequentes serem postos. Ovos postos em ninhadas As galinhas põem ovos em dias sucessivos conhecidos como ninhadas, do qual nenhum é posto por um ou mais dias. O corrimento do ciclo da ninhada pode várias de 2 dias a mais de 200 antes de um dia é perdido, mas a maioria das poedeiras comerciais pode produzir mais de 50 ovos sucessivos, sem uma pausa durante as fases iniciais de produção no primeiro ciclo da ninhada. O comprimento da ninhada é bastante consistente nos indivíduos; as poedeiras com taxas de produção menores possuem um ciclo mais curto, enquanto que as grandes produtoras possuem ciclos mais longos. Uma vez que o comprimir do ciclo ninhada é estabelecido, a galinha não irá ovular por um ou mais dias e, em seguida, irá produzir outra ninhada. As poedeiras menos produtivas possuem um período de descanso mais longo entre as ninhadas do que as boas produtoras. Tempo necessário para produzir um ovo O tempo necessário para que um ovo atravesse o oviduto varia de acordo com os indivíduos. A maioria das galinhas põe ovos sucessivos com intervalos de tempo entre 23 a 26 horas. Se o tempo for maior que 24 horas, cada ovo será posto no final do dia. Os ovos postos à tarde passaram mais horas no oviduto do que os postos pela manhã. Eventualmente, os ovos são colocados tão tarde que o ritmo é quebrado e uma ovulação é pulada. Teoricamente, alguns autores dizem que o tempo ideal para uma boa formação de um ovo é de 25 horas. O óvulo se desprende do ovário entrando no canal do oviduto, permanece por 15 minutos no infundíbulo que é a primeira região do oviduto, em seguida o óvulo vai para o magno a segunda região do oviduto e permanece nessa região entre 2 a 3 horas. Em seguida, vai para o istmo, ficando nessa região entre 1 a 1,5 horas. Por último, vai para o útero permanecendo nessa região entre 18 a 20 horas. Por fim, vai para a vagina onde recebe um óleo, indo para a cloaca onde é posto. Tempo de ovulação As galinhas que produzem ninhadas mais longas colocam seu primeiro ovo no início do dia, uma ou duas horas após o nascer do Sol ou as luzes artificiais são ligadas. A ovulação da próxima gema acontece rapidamente após o primeiro ovo ser posto, com apenas um pequeno intervalo de tempo. As poedeiras com comprimentos mais curtos da ninhada colocam seu primeiro ovo mais tarde do dia, a ovulação da gema seguinte é mais lenta, e a defasagem de tempo para a postura é maior. A maioria das ovulações ocorre durante as primeiras horas da manhã, já que não é natural que a ovulação ocorra em meados do final da tarde. Produção de ovos no início da postura Durante a primeira semana de postura, a ovulação é bastante irregular, uma vez que o mecanismo hormonal da galinha não está em equilíbrio. Na maioria das vezes, apenas dois a quatro ovos são produzidos na primeira ninhada. Entretanto, na segunda ou terceira semana, a ovulação irá progredindo gradativamente em sua taxa de pico até cair lentamente a cada semana durante o restante do ciclo de postura. Luz e ovulação A luz, seja natural ou artificial, possui um efeito direto sobre a glândula pituitária, estimulando-a a segregar uma quantidade maior do hormônio FSH que, por sua vez, ativa a região ovariana. A duração e a intensidade da luz são fatores importantes no processo de planejamento de uma granja, bem como durante a fase de postura. O procedimento para iluminar corretamente um galpão de galinhas poedeiras não é uma tarefa fácil e será discutido trabalhos posteriores. Nidificação como indicação de ovulação Na maioria das vezes, a galinha procura um ninho cerca de 24 horas após a ovulação, levando aos pesquisadores a teorizar que a nidificação pode ser usada como um fator de indicação da ovulação. Evidentemente, a presença de um ovo totalmente formado na cloaca não tem nada a ver com o desejo da galinha de procurar um ninho. Por exemplo, algumas galinhas irão ovular, todavia por causa de um imprevisto, o óvulo não chega ao oviduto, essas mesmas galinhas ainda irão procurar um ninho no dia seguinte. Ovulação dupla Normalmente, apenas uma gema é ovulada por dia, entretanto, ocasionalmente duas gemas podem ser liberadas e, em raras ocasiões até três gemas podem ser liberadas. Se duas gemas serão ovuladas ao mesmo tempo, normalmente apenas uma entra no canal do oviduto, mas se ambas são apanhadas simultaneamente pelo oviduto, resultará em um ovo de gema dupla (figura 3). Cerca de dois terços dos ovos de gema dupla são resultantes de ovulações dentro de 3 horas de um para o outro. Se houver uma grande diferença de tempo de ovulação, dois ovos poderão ser produzidos no mesmo dia, porém na maioria das vezes o segundo ovo possui casca mole ou apenas é revestido por uma membrana (figura 4). Geralmente, os ovos de gema dupla são mais comuns durante a primeira parte do período de produção do ovo causados por um ovário hiperativo e, frequentemente, são associados com frangos de corte do que com galinhas poedeiras. A incidência é um traço herdado, uma vez que algumas aves mais velhas produzem um percentual maior de ovos com gema dupla do que outras, sendo assim, a característica pode ser hereditária. As aves criadas na estação da Primavera e no Verão também produzem um número maior de ovos de gema dupla do que as galinhas criadas no Outono e no Inverno. Figura 3: ovo de gema dupla. Fonte: IPA. Figura 4: ovo com casca mole. Fonte: IFPE. CASCA DE OVOS DEFEITUOSAS Quando o intervalo normal de 23 a 26 horas entre as ovulações é quebrado, mais ovos são produzidos com casca defeituosas (figuras 4 e 5), incluindo aqueles com textura de lixa, bandas brancas, salpicos de cálcio e depósitos de calcário. A ocorrência é maior em ovos de matrizes do que em poedeiras. Cerca de 5 a 7% dos ovos produzidos por uma matriz poderá apresentar alguma forma de deformações na casca. Esses defeitos estão associados principalmente com a idade do lote e com as raças mais propensas ao problema do que outras. Figura 5: deformações na casca do ovo. Fonte: internet. TAMANHO DA GEMA AFETA O TAMANHO DO OVO O tamanho do ovo normal está associado mais com o tamanho da gema do que com qualquer outros fator relevante, embora as variações nas secreções de albumina no oviduto possam ter alguma influência. A relação gema-albumina muda ao longo do ciclo de postura. Os ovos que são produzidos no início do período de postura possuem gemas que representam em torno de 25% do peso total do ovo, enquanto que as gemas compõem cerca de 30% do peso do ovo quando as galinhas estão perto do final do período de postura. Em outras palavras, à medida em que o tamanho do ovo aumenta, o peso da gema aumenta mais rapidamente do que o peso do albúmen. Em lotes de frangas, quando o tamanho do ovo é pequeno, o aumento de proteína na dieta pode aumentar o peso total até 3,5 g/cada. MANCHAS DE SANGUE E DE CARNE Muitas vezes, quando o saco vitelino se rompe ao longo do estigma, pequenos vasos sanguíneos perto da área da ruptura são quebrados, formando um coágulo de sangue ligado à gema. A frequência de hemorragias pode estar relacionada com uma série de fatores, como a genética, alimentação, idade da galinha etc. As manchas de sangue são de duas a três vezes mais comuns em galinhas que produzem ovos de casca marrom do que em galinhas poedeiras de casca branca. Qualquer tecido deslocado do saco folicular ou do oviduto poderá ser incluído ao ovo em desenvolvimento à medida que passa pelo oviduto. Esses pedaços de tecido escurecem com a idade e são conhecidos como manchas de carne. Muitas manchas de sangue escurecem também, e muitas vezes são classificadas de forma incorreta como manchas de carne. Este problema é especialmente prevalente em ovos de casca marrom, onde 15% ou mais dos ovos podem ser afetados, em comparação com menos de 1% em ovos de casca branca. Figura 6: ovo com mancha de carne e com mancha de sangue. Fonte: internet. • PARTES DO OVIDUTO O oviduto é um tubo lindo através do qual a gema passa e onde os componentes restantes do ovo como a clara e a casca são incorporados. Normalmente, o oviduto é relativamente pequeno em diâmetro, mas com a aproximação da primeira ovulação seutamanho e espessura se expandem de forma significativa para que possa favorecer a passagem e o desenvolvimento do ovo. Os segmentos do oviduto e sua finalidade serão resumidos no texto abaixo e ilustrados na figura 7 e 8. INFUNDÍBULO A porção superior do oviduto que possui uma formato de funil é denominada infundíbulo. Quando encontra-se funcional, seu comprimento é de aproximadamente 9 cm. Normalmente é inerte, exceto quando ocorre a ovulação, seu objetivo é captar a gema ou óvulo que se desprende do ovário para que a mesma entre no oviduto, por isso a forma de funil. Após a ovulação, a gema entra na bolsa ovariana ou na cavidade do corpo, a partir da qual é capturada pelo infundíbulo. A gema permanece nessa secção por apenas um curto período de cerca de 15 minutos, depois é forçada ao longo do oviduto através das várias contrações ou movimentos peristálticos. Mau funcionamento do infundíbulo Para que o infundíbulo seja completamente funcional, ele deve capturar todas as gemas que se desprendem do ovário e caiu na cavidade do corpo. No entanto, verificou- se que uma média de 4% das gemas não são atraídas para o segmento, porém permanecem na cavidade do corpo onde são reabsorvidas dentro de um dia. A porcentagem de gemas retidas varia entre as várias linhagens de galinhas, algumas podem reter até 10% de suas gemas na cavidade corporal. As matrizes são as mais afetadas do que as poedeiras. Camadas internas Às vezes, o infundíbulo perde a sua capacidade de captação de uma alta proporção de gemas, e acabam acumulando-se na cavidade do corpo mais rápido do que possam ser reabsorvidas. Tal problema é definido por “camadas internas”, embora o termo não defina de forma clara a condição. O abdômen em tais camadas torna-se distendido, e a galinha fica em uma posição ereta. MAGNO O magno é a porção secretória de albúmen do oviduto, possui cerca de 33 cm de comprimento nas poedeiras em média. Demora aproximadamente cerca de 2 a 3 horas para passagem do ovo em desenvolvimento passar pelo magno. Albúmen O albúmen em um ovo é composto por quatro camadas, sendo elas: Chalaza ou calaza 2,7% Líquido branco exterior 16,8% Densidade branca 57,3% Branco fino exterior 23,2% Fonte: BELL. Enquanto todos os quatro são produzidos no magno, o branco fino exterior não é concluído até que a água seja adicionada no útero. Chalaza ou calaza Ao quebrar um ovo, percebe-se duas partes torcidas conhecidas como calaza, estendendo-se de polos opostos da gema através do albúmen. L albúmen calcífero é produzido quando a gema entra pela primeira vez no magno, mas a torção para formação dos dois calazas acontece mais tardiamente, como o ovo gira na extremidade inferior do oviduto. Torcidas em direções opostas, a calaza tende a manter a gema no centro do ovo depois que ele é posto. Líquido interior branco À medida que o ovo em desenvolvimento passa pelo magno, apenas um tipo de albúmen é produzido, porém a adição de água juntamente com a rotação do ovo dão origem a várias outras camadas, uma delas e a expressiva é o líquido interno de coloração branca. Densidade branca O branco denso constitui a maior parte do ovo. Contém muco que tente a mantê- lo juntos. A quantidade de branco espesso gerada no magno é grande, mas a degradação da mucina e a adição de água, já que o ovo move-se através do oviduto, tendem a reduzir a quantidade desse líquido denso e grosso, aumentando a quantidade do branco fino. No momento em que o ovo é posto, ele possui cerca de um terço do seu conteúdo original de clara, porém o restante ainda compreende mais da metade do albúmen no ovo. Deterioração da qualidade dos ovos Após a postura dos ovos, há uma mudança constante no conteúdo interno do ovo. A clara é a primeira que começa a perder gradualmente a sua composição viscosa e o seu volume diminui, enquanto que o branco fino fica mais aguado e sua quantidade aumenta. Essas condições são afetadas pela temperatura de retenção, umidade relativa, tempo e certas doenças. A quantidade crescente de branco fino é um dos melhores indicadores das condições de idade (frescura) dos ovos. ISTMO Depois da passagem pelo magno, o ovo em desenvolvimento é forçado para o istmo, uma secção relativamente curta de aproximadamente 10 cm de comprimento, onde permanece entre 1 a 1,5 horas (média geral de 75 minutos). Aqui, as membranas da casca interna e externa são formadas de modo a representar a dona final do ovo. O conteúdo presente nesse momento não é suficiente para preencher completamente as membranas da casca, e o ovo assemelha-se a um saco parcialmente preenchido. As membranas da casca são um material parecido com um papel composto de fibras proteicas. A membrana interna estabelece-se primeiro, seguida pela membrana externa, que é três vezes mais grossa que a membrana interna. As duas membranas são mantidas juntas até que o ovo seja posto; em seguida, na extremidade do ovo, as duas membranas se separam para formar a célula de ar, essencial para a respiração do feto no caso de ovos de matrizes. Em uma pequena porcentagem dos ovos, a célula de ar se formará na extremidade pequena ou nas laterais. Importância da célula ou câmara de ar Quando o ovo é posto pela primeira vez não há célula de ar. Ela é estabelecida através da redução de temperatura e aumenta de diâmetro para cerca de 1,8 cm conforme a perda de água do ovo por evaporação. À medida em que o ovo envelhece, a umidade ou presença d água dentro do mesmo evapora através dos poros presentes na casca e a câmara de ar aumenta em diâmetro e profundidade. O tamanho da célula de ar pode ser afetado por várias condições de armazenamento. A alta temperatura circundante e/ou a baixa umidade aumentam o tamanho da câmara de ar. O tamanho da célula, conforme determinado pela ovoscopia, é usado em programas de classificação de julgamento da idade do ovo. As células de ar maiores são prerrogativas de pior qualidade interior. Membranas da casca atuam como barreiras As membranas da casca atuam como uma barreira à penetração de organismos microscópios tais como as bactérias que podem afetar diretamente a qualidade do mesmo para consumo ou o embrião em desenvolvimento. Os ovos postos por frangas possuem membranas de casca mais espessas do que os ovos postos por galinhas mais velhas, o que se determina que conforme a idade da ave, as membranas protetoras vão ficando mais finas o que pode levar a penetração de microrganismos que afetam a qualidade do ovo. ÚTERO (GLÂNDULA DA CASCA) O útero é o penúltimo caminho do ovo em desenvolvimento, possui cerca de 10 a 12 cm de comprimento nas galinhas poedeiras. O ovo em desenvolvimento normalmente permanece no útero de 18 a 20 horas, muito mais do que em qualquer outra seção do oviduto. Exterior fino branco depositado após as membranas da casca Quando o ovo entra pela primeira vez no útero, a água e os sais minerais são depositados através das membranas da casca pelo processo de osmose de dentro para fora das membranas da casca de forma gradativa e aderindo para liquefazer alguns dos albumens finos que formam a quarta camada, o branco fino exterior. A casca A calcificação da casca do ovo começa antes do mesmo entrar no útero. Pequenas quantidades de Ca aparecem na membrana externa da casca pouco antes do ovo deixar o istmo. Esses são os locais de iniciação para a deposição de cálcio no útero. A quantidade de Ca provavelmente herdada desempenha um papel primordial na deposição de Ca mais tarde no ovo. Eles desaparecem pouco tempo depois que o ovo entra na glândula da casca ou útero. A primeira camada da casca é depositada sobre os locais de iniciação (istmo) que forma a casca interna, uma camada composta de cristais de calcita que é um material com característica esponjosa. Essa camada é seguida pela adição da camada externa, que é composta por uma camada de cristais de calcita que são os calcários, camada que possui cerca de duas vezes mais espessura que a superfície interna da casca. Quanto mais longas forem as colunas de calcita, mais forte será a casca. A casca do ovo quando completa, é composta quase inteiramente de carbonato de cálcio (CaCO3), com pequenas quantidades de sódio, potássio e magnésio. Figura 9: carbonato e fórmula do cálcio presente no útero e istmo. Fonte: internet. Fontes de cálcio para a casca de ovo Existem apenas duas fontes de cálcio para a produção da casca, a alimentação e os ossos que atuam como locais de armazenamento de cálcio no corpo. Normalmente, a maioria do Ca para a formação dos ovos vem diretamente da ração que a ave come, com alguns derivados do osso medular que serve como reservatório de Ca. O reservatório é particularmente importante à noite, quando a ave não está comendo e a casca do ovo está em processo de desenvolvimento. Formação do carbonato de cálcio O carbonato de cálcio (figura 9) é formado quando os íons de Ca presentes no sangue e os íons carbonatos do sangue e da glândula da casca ou útero se combinam no útero. Qualquer fator que reduza o fornecimento de qualquer um desses íons interfere com a formação de CaCO3 e o desenvolvimento da casca do ovo, muitas vezes resultando em baixa qualidade da casca, que será discutida em outros trabalhos. Acredita-se que as altas temperaturas ambientais também podem contribuir para este problema, uma vez que as cascas de ovos são mais finas durante o tempo quente. Qualidade da casca Muitos fatores podem causar uma deterioração na qualidade da casca do ovo, e a influência desse má qualidade pode não ser em função do fornecimento inadequado de íons de cálcio ou carbonato. A qualidade da casca é, geralmente, definida como a capacidade da casca de suportar o choque, sua aparência geral e suavidade. A resistência da casca pode ser medida mediante várias técnicas, incluindo a resistência à quebra, gravidade específica, deformações e espessura da mesma. Vários fatores podem reduzir a qualidade da casca, por exemplo: 1. A qualidade é reduzida à medida que a ave envelhece e continua a postura, uma vez que a galinha não pode produzir de forma eficiente a quantidade adequada de carbonato de cálcio para cobrir os ovos maiores produzidos durante a última parte do ciclo de postura, mesmo com o Ca presente na ração de consumo. 2. Aumento das temperaturas ambientais. 3. Ovos postos de manhã possuem uma qualidade da casca inferior à dos ovos postos pela tarde. 4. Estresse experimentado pelas aves que receberam chuva ou que foram, de alguma forma, submetidas à água. 5. Praticamente todos os ovos deformados e os ovos submetidos a controles corporais são postos entre às 6 e 8 horas da manhã, complemento do item 3. 6. Certas doenças como a bronquite infecciosa e a doença de Newcastle. 7. Determinados antibióticos ou outros fármacos. Necessidades de cálcio durante a produção A demanda da poedeira por Cá é extremamente alta. As aves poedeiras requerem mais Ca para a produção de ovos para consumo do que as matrizes reprodutoras que produzem pintainhos. Uma galinha de 2 kg produzindo 250 ovos de 56,7 gramas em média por ano requer cerca de 560 gramas de Ca. Uma vez que essa quantidade é 25 vezes maior que a quantidade de Ca presente no esqueleto da ave, é evidente que a necessidade alimentar de Ca seja grande. A maioria das rações de postura contém de 3 a 4% de Ca para atender as necessidades e permitir as ineficiências de absorção do Ca para o corpo e sim para o ovo. Figura 10: estrutura do ovo e da casca. Fonte: Adaptação da internet. Poros da casca do ovo As duas camadas da casca do ovo interna e externa possuem pequenas aberturas chamadas poros. Em um ovo pode haver até 8000 poros. Através dessas pequenas aberturas, o ar consegue passar para o ovo e fornece oxigênio para o embrião em desenvolvimento. Além disso, o dióxido de carbono e a umidade são removidos do ovo passando por esses mesmos poros. No ovo recém-posto, os poros presentes são quase completamente fechados, porém à medida que o ovo envelhece ou é lavado, o número de poros abertos aumenta. Cor da casca A casca do ovo é predominantemente branca ou marrons. No entanto, uma raça sul-americana, a Araucana, produz ovos de casca verde ou azul. Os pigmentos produzidos no útero no momento em que a casca é produzida são os responsáveis pela coloração. O tom de coloração é bastante consistente de acordo com cada ave, com a intensidade da cor sendo uma derivação da composição genética do indivíduo. Algumas linhagens de aves põem ovos com cascas castanhas mais escuras, enquanto que outras podem variar até ao branco. O pigmento marrom nas cascas de ovos é a porfirina, uniformemente distribuída por toda a casca. A cutícula A cutícula é colocada na parte externa da casca no útero e representa a última das camadas de formação dos ovos. É composta principalmente de material orgânico. Contém uma alta porcentagem de água e atua como lubrificante natural durante o processo de postura. Todavia, uma vez que o ovo é posto, o material da cutícula seca rapidamente, selando os poros da casca o que ajuda a evitar uma troca rápida de ar e umidade entre o interior do ovo e o ambiente externo, além de vedar a passagem de bactérias e outros microrganismos que podem afetar a qualidade ou o embrião. Vários processos de limpeza da casca (lavagem e desinfecção) reduzem a eficácia da cutícula. Para evitar esse problema, os processadores de ovos comumente aplicam um revestimento de óleo mineral na superfície da casca durante o processamento. Tal óleo ajuda a diminuir a perda de umidade e mantém a qualidade interna do ovo. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ALBINO, L. F. T. et al. Galinhas poedeiras: Criação e alimentação. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil, 2014. Anotações de aulas. Disciplina: Avicultura. Prof. Me. Cléber Rondinelli Gomes de Freitas. IFPE Campus Belo Jardim, 2017. BELL, Donald D. Formation of the egg. In: Commercial chicken meat and egg production. Springer, Boston, MA, 2002. p. 59-69. COTTA, Tadeu. Galinha: produção de ovos. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil Editora, 2002. COTTA, T. Reprodução da galinha e produção de ovos. Lavras: UFLA-Faepe, p. 81- 92, 1997. DE MORAES, Ismar Araujo. Fisiologia da reprodução das aves domésticas. Fisiovet, 2006. FLORIANO, Luciane Sperandio. Anatomia e fisiologia das aves domésticas. Ururaí: rede E-tec, 2018. GRAU, C. R. Egg formation. In: Seabird energetics. Springer, Boston, MA, 1984. p. 33- 57. LANA, Geraldo Roberto Quintão. Avicultura. Recife: Livraria e Editora Rural Ltda, 2000 PERRINS, C. M. Eggs, egg formation and the timing of breeding. Ibis, v. 138, n. 1, p. 2- 15, 1996. STURKIE, Paul D. Fisiología aviar. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1967. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell, in the second of his 1914 Lowell lectures, Our Knowledge of the External World, asserted famously that ‘every philosophical problem, when it is subjected to the necessary analysis and purification, is found either to be not really philosophical at all, or else to be, in the sense in which we are using the word, logical’ (Russell 1993, p. 42). He went on to characterize that portion of logic that concerned the study of forms of propositions, or, as he (...) called them, ‘logical forms’. This portion of logic he called ‘philosophical logic’. Russell asserted that ... some kind of knowledge of logical forms, though with most people it is not explicit, is involved in all understanding of discourse. It is the business of philosophical logic to extract this knowledge from its concrete integuments, and to render it explicit and pure. (p. 53) Perhaps no one still endorses quite this grand a view of the role of logic and the investigation of logical form in philosophy. But talk of logical form retains a central role in analytic philosophy. Given its widespread use in philosophy and linguistics, it is rather surprising that the concept of logical form has not received more attention by philosophers than it has. The concern of this paper is to say something about what talk of logical form comes to, in a tradition that stretches back to (and arguably beyond) Russell’s use of that expression. This will not be exactly Russell’s conception. For we do not endorse Russell’s view that propositions are the bearers of logical form, or that appeal to propositions adds anything to our understanding of what talk of logical form comes to. But we will be concerned to provide an account responsive to the interests expressed by Russell in the above quotations, though one clarified of extraneous elements, and expressed precisely. For this purpose, it is important to note that the concern expressed by Russell in the above passages, as the surrounding text makes clear, is a concern not just with logic conceived narrowly as the study of logical terms, but with propositional form more generally, which includes, e.g., such features as those that correspond to the number of argument places in a propositional function, and the categories of objects which propositional.... (shrink)

This chapter develops an account of epistemic nihilism—roughly, the rejection of truth’s intrinsic or instrumental value in favor of statements that reject or obscure truth to secure an advantage for the speaker—by examining three instances of such nihilism: lying, bullshit, and trolling. It further argues that epistemic nihilism, exacerbated by changes in the media landscape, can pose a significant threat to liberal democratic institutions and ideals by undermining the democratic ideal of good faith engagement on a level playing field, while (...) also encouraging undemocratic actions (e.g., terrorism) among interlocutors who take the nihilist’s claims seriously. Finally, this chapter argues that in extreme cases, we are justified in denying epistemic nihilists a platform from which to speak by drawing a parallel with vexatious litigant laws that deny individuals the right to petition courts for redress on the grounds that abuse of that right results in significant harm to both individuals and the legal system itself. (shrink)

The concept of metaphor as primarily a vehicle for conveying ideas, even if unusual ones, seems to me as wrong as the parent idea that a metaphor has a special meaning. I agree with the view that metaphors cannot be paraphrased, but I think this is not because metaphors say something too novel for literal expression but because there is nothing there to paraphrase. Paraphrase, whether possible or not, inappropriate to what is said: we try, in paraphrase, to say it (...) another way. But if I am right, a metaphor doesn't say anything beyond its literal meaning. This is not, of course, to deny that a metaphor has a point, nor that that point can be brought out by using further words.... My disagreement is with the explanation of how metaphor works its wonders. To anticipate: I depend on the distinction between what words mean and what they are used to do. I think metaphor belongs exclusively to the domain of use. It is something brought off by the imaginative employment of words and sentences and depends entirely on the ordinary meanings of those words and hence on the ordinary meanings of the sentences they comprise. Donald Davidson is University Professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago. He is the author of many important essays, including "Actions, Reasons and Causes," "Causal Relations," and "Truth and Meaning," coauthor of Decision-Making: An Experimental Approach, and coeditor of Words and Objections, Semantics of Natural Language, and The Logic of Grammar. (shrink)

This essay interprets Butler’s distinction between identity in the loose and popular sense and in the strict and philosophical sense. Suppose there are different standards for counting the same things. Then what are two distinct things counting strictly may be one and the same thing counting loosely. Within a given standard identity is one-one. But across standards it is many-one. An alternative interpretation using the parts-whole relation fails, because that relation should be understood as many-one identity. Another alternative making identity (...) relative to sort fails, because whole and parts can be of the same sort. (shrink)