Public involvement and participation in Forest Service decision-making is a contentious issue attended by charges and countercharges, unsubstantiated accusations and counterclaims, and value-based arguments by all entities involved. Yet, the numbers of studies to substantiate the debate is relatively minimal and tend to be sporadic, reoccurring during times of national forest management crises, which is inappropriate and shortsighted. Moreover, the studies tend to be quantitative or anecdotal in nature and have largely failed to identify or resolve the problems associated with public involvement and participation in Forest Service decision-making, as well as litigation, and yet researchers continue to advocate for comprehensive, systematic, empirical examinations without considering the possible benefits that comprehensive, systematic, qualitative research could contribute to identifying and possibly resolving such problems. Thus, a comprehensive, systematic, in-depth, qualitative analysis of public comments, administrative appeals, and legal arguments from 12 Forest Service project-level activities, and their seven associated lawsuits, on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, was conducted. The results suggest that there is an interested and vocal minority of individuals and environmental special-interest groups that dominate project-level public involvement and participation processes on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, and that these public involvement and participation processes work in reverse, providing incentives for post-decisional challenges and discouraging pre-decisional information-sharing, collaboration, and compromise. Therefore, the public, the academic community, the Forest Service, and Congress, must challenge the status quo and make needed changes to ensure that public involvement and participation processes are truly democratic and to reduce incentives for post-decisional challenges. / Master of Science

No / Legal arguments and judgements ostensibly rely for their credibility and persuasiveness on the presentation of factual claims and determination of facts through due process. While it should follow that proceedings that are undermined by disregard for facticity and due process should not appear credible or persuasive, in practice this is not always the case. In cases where narratives are not firmly underpinned by factuality and due process a series of narrative techniques and processes can be brought into play to enhance the persuasiveness and credibility of those narratives. These processes include the reliance on a narrative trajectory, the presentation of consensus, drawing on supportive discourses, the privileging of certain narrators and the smoothing over of contradictory evidence. This paper examines these processes in the case of P,C&S vs United Kingdom in which in the absence of fact and due process a local authority and the domestic courts in the UK constructed and confirmed a narrative of a dangerous mother.

Submitted by Caroline Falcao (caroline.rfalcao@ufpe.br) on 2017-06-19T18:11:58Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) 2012-dissertacao-NancyRocancio.pdf: 1306206 bytes, checksum: 5f66a1929b230b91f09288c6e4782aa4 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-19T18:11:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 811 bytes, checksum: e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34 (MD5) 2012-dissertacao-NancyRocancio.pdf: 1306206 bytes, checksum: 5f66a1929b230b91f09288c6e4782aa4 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-02-27 / Pesquisa qualitativa de tipo longitudinal de série de casos,que analisouaspossíveis transformações no uso dos critérios de avaliação de argumentos de estudantes universitários quando estes examinaa qualidade dos argumentos produzidos por seus pares em contexto de debate crítico(FUENTES, 2009). O pressuposto principal desta pesquisa surge a partir do papel mediador conferido à argumentação no desenvolvimento do raciocínio (KUHN, 1991; LEITÃO, 2000), a partir do qual se assume que a participação e prática ematividades de debate crítico –processo de negociação discursiva de caráter argumentativo –mobiliza o surgimento de operações específicas de raciocínio que privilegiam a reflexão sobre o próprio pensamento (FUENTES, 2009). Pressuposto fundamentado nacompreensão da cognição como um sistema complexo de funcionamentos psicológicos,construídos a partir da relação de interdependência entre o sujeito e o ambiente histórico-cultural, que possibilita a interpretação e o entendimento da realidade circundante (cf. VIGOTSKI, 2000/1934; BRUNER, 1991); do papel da linguagem como fundamental na constituição da cognição humana e como parte relevante na construção e transformação do pensamento (Leitão, 2000;2007;2008); e da natureza metacognitiva da argumentação como o mecanismo que instaura a reflexão sobre o próprio pensamento(LEITÃO, 2007b). O cenário de construção do corpus de dados desta pesquisa foi gerado no contexto de implementaçãoda proposta de intervenção pedagógica que teve por base a adaptação para o contexto Brasileiro do Modelo do Debate Crítico(FUENTES, 2009)como recurso para a discussão dos temas curriculares de umcurso de graduação em psicologia. A análise apresentada se deu em dois níveis: o nível microanalítico, em que foi analisado o uso de critérios de avaliação da qualidade dos argumentos produzidos pelos pares ao longo do semestre acadêmico, tomando como referência inicial os critérios força e solidez de GOVIER (2010); e onível macroanalítico,onde analisou-se see comose transforma o uso de critérios de avaliação diante da avaliação da qualidade dos argumentos produzidos por seus pares. Como resultado,comprova-se o uso de critérios dialéticos no exame interno dosargumentos e a emergência de critérios pragmáticos referentesà avaliação do compromisso pragmático dos participantes com a situação de debate crítico (VAN EEMEREN, GROOTENDORST, & SNOECK HENKEMANS, 2008; FUENTES, 2009;2011), mesmo que seu uso não seja incorporado da mesma forma em todos os casos analisados. O ganho progressivo no uso de critérios de avaliação de parte dos alunos parece ser marcado pelo aumento na diversidade e densidade de critérios que passam a utilizar, sobretudo, os de natureza pragmática. / Qualitative research of a longitudinal case series, where the main objective was researching about the development of reflective thinking of university students, through the analysis of possible changes in the use of criteria for evaluating arguments when it’s assessed the quality of arguments produced by their academic pairs (evaluators), while the students participatein an educational experience that provides intensive reflexion and argumentation about curricular themes (Model Critical Debate -MDC -proposed by FUENTES, 2009). The main assumption of the research comes from the arguments given to the mediating role inthe development of reasoning (KUHN, 1991; LEITÃO, 2000), where It’s assumed that the participation and practice in critical discussion -the negotiation process of discursive argumentative character -mobilizes the emergence of specific operations of reasoning, which emphasizes on reflective thinking (FUENTES, 2009). Assumption that is based on the understanding of the following statements: a) cognition as a complex system of psychological operation built from the interdependent relation between the subject and the historical and cultural context, which enables the interpretation and understanding of the surrounding reality (cf. VIGOTSKI, 2000/1934;BRUNER, 1991); b) the role of language as a fundamental part in the constitution of human cognition and in the construction and transformation of thinking (LEITÃO, 2000; 2007;2008);c) the metacognitive nature of the line of argument as a mechanism that establishes a reflection on the reflective thinking (LEITÃO, 2007b). The building scenary of data corpus wasgenerated in the context of implementation of the pedagogical intervention propose, from the Brazilian Model of Critical Debate (FUENTES, 2009), as a resource for discussing curriculum topics in a discipline of Psychology in a public university. The analysis took place at two levels: microanalitical and macroanalitical levels.Microanalític level. It was analyzed the use of criteria for assessing the quality of arguments produced by the academic pairs(evaluators), throughout the academic semester, taking as original reference the criteria of strength and solidity GOVIER (2010). At the macro-analytical level, it was examined, how the assesment criteria were transformed when the evaluation of the quality of the arguments was done by the academic pairs.(evaluators) As a result, It demonstrates the use of criteria in dialectical examination in the intern examinations of the arguments, and the emergence of pragmatic criteria based on the evaluation of participants’pragmatic compromises with the situation of critical discussion. (VAN EEMEREN, GROOTENDORST, & SNOECK HENKEMANS, 2008, FUENTES, 2009;2011) even if its use is not included in the same way by all analyzed cases, the progressive gain in the use of criteria for evaluating the students, seems to be marked by an increase in diversity and density of criteria which use especially those of a pragmatic nature.

While "scientism" is typically regarded as a position about the exclusive epistemic authority of science held by a certain class of "cultured despisers" of "religion", we show that only on the assumption of this sort of view do purportedly "scientific" claims made by proponents of "intelligent design" appear to lend epistemic or apologetic support to claims affirmed about God and God's action in "creation" by Christians in confessing their "faith". On the other hand, the hermeneutical strategy that better describes the practice and method of Christian theologians, from the inception of theological reflection in the Christian tradition, acknowledges the epistemic authority of the best available tests for truth in areas of human inquiry such as science and history. But this strategy does not assume that such tests, whose authority must be regarded as provisional, provides authority for the warrant of affirming claims constituting the confessed "faith". By attributing theological import to claims advanced by appeal to the best available tests for truth in the practice of science, supporters of ID not only confuse the epistemic authority of these tests with the normative authority of a faith community's confessional identity, but impute to scientific tests for truth a sort of authority that even goes beyond the "methodological naturalism" against which they counterpose their claims.

La parole politique est l'instrument principal d’exercice du pouvoir au Cameroun, dirigé par Paul Biya depuis trente-cinq ans. Confrontée aux postures du sujet politique, cette parole trahit à l’arrière-plan discursif, les pensées profondes de l’homme politique. Apporter un éclairage sur cette situation particulière est la tâche principale que nous nous sommes assigné dans cette thèse de Doctorat qui s'intéresse à la relation entre le pouvoir et la mise en scène argumentative dans le discours de Paul Biya à l'ère du multipartisme au Cameroun. Le cadre épistémologique dans lequel se positionnent nos travaux est l’analyse du discours avec une orientation vers l’argumentation rhétorique. Empruntant les démarches intégrative et analytique de l’analyse de discours, nous puisons les concepts opératoires de notre recherche principalement dans les sciences du langage. Nous procédons aussi à l’exploration textométrique de notre corpus à l’aide du logiciel d’analyse statistique Hyperbase. L’analyse nous invite également à constituer de nouvelles notions pour rendre compte des particularités du discours de Paul Biya. La thèse montre que dans sa communication, Paul Biya procède à une mise en scène fondée sur des arguments logico-affectifs, ancrée dans la réalité sociale et les pratiques des différents pouvoirs traditionnels camerounais. Derrière le masque discursif, l'analyse met au jour des stratégies de persuasion, l'évolution de la vie sociopolitique camerounaise. Cette recherche révèle comment Paul Biya incarne un pouvoir fort, sacralisé voire mythifié; s'arrogeant une aura nationale exclusive apte à apaiser le peuple et à inhiber toute action rivale. C’est ainsi qu’il a réussi à mettre en place un régime politique qui joue constamment sur des contrariétés en vue de pérenniser son pouvoir. / Political speech is the main tool used in order to wield power in Cameroon, a country which is being run by Paul Biya for the past 35 years. The various stands taken by this political figure is revealed through these speeches which inform on the argumentative background and inner thoughts of this politician. The doctorate thesis which studies the relationship between power and the argumentative strategies in Paul Biya speeches in the multiparty era in Cameroon therefore sets out to throw more light on this peculiar situation. This research work is discussed from the vantage point of discourse analysis, more specifically on rhetoric argumentation. Using integrative and analytical approaches to discourse analysis, the work draws its key concepts mainly from language sciences. The textometric analysis of the corpus is carried out using the Hyperbase Statistics Analysis software. Also, the analysis of the corpus has brought us to coin new terms in order to address the specificities of Paul Biya speehes. The findings reveal that in his speeches, Paul Biya makes use of a set-up which is grounded on logico-affective arguments anchored in the social reality as well as in the practices of the various traditional powers in Cameroon. The analysis also brings to the fore the various persuasive strategies and the evolution of the sociopolitical life in Cameroon. This research work also reveals how Paul Biya incarnates a strong, sacred and mythified power which gives him the privilege of having an exclusive aura at the national level which can appease the Cameroonian people and nip in the bud all the initiatives of his rivals. He has therefore succeeded in establishing a political regime which takes advantage of disharmony in order to perpetuate his power.

Rares sont les recherches qui ont analysé le contenu des justifications réalisées à l'issue d'un choix fait à un dilemme moral, choix aux conséquences toujours graves pour autrui. Plusieurs recherches ont montré que le jugement moral était largement intuitif et, de ce fait, était difficilement explicités par les individus. Pourtant, étudier le contenu de ces rationalisations après coup devrait permettre d'apporter des éléments nouveaux sur les relations entre les aspects cognitifs et émotionnels à l’œuvre lors d'une prise de décision moralement difficile. Aussi, le design expérimental de cette étude a consisté à demander à des adultes de fournir un jugement à la suite d'un dilemme personnel (Pont) ou impersonnel (Aiguillage) en expliquant les raisons de l'orientation de leur choix soit par oral, soit par écrit. Plusieurs observables, concernant la nature des arguments (déontologiques et utilitaristes) ainsi que le lexique (émotionnel et cognitif) utilisés, ont été mis au point. L'attente principale de cette thèse est de montrer que ce que disent des adultes à propos de leur choix est fortement dépendant de la nature du dilemme auquel ils étaient soumis, de leur jugement et des contraintes facilitatrices ou non de leur modalité d'expression. Autrement dit, le contenu de leur rationalisation après coup dépendrait largement des conditions dans lesquelles ils les ont produites. / Few studies have analyzed the content of justifications made at the end of a choice facing a moral dilemma, although this choice causes serious consequence for others. Several studies have shown that moral judgments were largely intuitive and, therefore, were hardly explained by individuals. However, studying the content of these rationalizations afterthought is expected to provide new information on the relationships between cognitive and emotional aspects at work in a morally difficult decision. The experimental design of this study was to ask adults to provide a judgment on a personal (Bridge) or impersonal (Switch) dilemma explaining the reasons of the direction of their choice either by oral or in writing. Several observables were developed on the nature of the deontological and utilitarian arguments and the emotional and cognitive lexicon used. The main expectation of this thesis is to show that what adults say about their choice is highly dependent on the nature of the dilemma they were submitted to, on their judgment and on the constraints making their mode of expression more or less easier. In other words, the content of their post hoc rationalization would greatly depend on the conditions under which they were produced. More precisely, the content of justifications produced by 331 participants was analyzed with an analytical grid of the deontological and utilitarian arguments and with Tropes software, enabling two scenarios of automatic counting of the emotional lexicon (EMOTAIX) and cognitive lexicon (COGNITAIX). The results show that individuals do not only produce one kind of argument (utilitarian or deontological).

Est-il encore légitime de distinguer, d’une part, la « simple raison », apte à convaincre n’importe quel penseur honnête et lucide, et d’autre part, le domaine de la foi religieuse, où les différences de conviction seraient a priori irréductibles, parce que soumises à des conditions de validité sui generis? Dans quelle mesure ce « partage des voix » entre la raison et la foi, que commandait au siècle des Lumières l’« exigence de l’émancipation » ou de l’affranchissement des tutelles autoritaires (le Selberdenken, le « penser par soi-même »), est-il encore d’actualité pour nous? Les temps ne sont-ils pas mûrs pour une autre attitude de la raison philosophique par rapport à la foi religieuse, qui se proposerait de mettre en question la théorie qui opposait la raison et la révélation comme deux « sources » irréductibles de vérité? Le présent travail poursuivra trois objectifs principaux, dont la visée commune consistera à clarifier les tenants et aboutissants de la critique de la « simple raison » (reason alone) chez Charles Taylor, au regard de la totalité de son œuvre. Dans un premier temps, nous soulignerons que notre auteur récuse le paradigme épistémologique de la philosophie moderne au nom d’un paradigme herméneutique, plus sensible à la finitude langagière et historique de la raison humaine. Notre auteur reconnaît en effet au « débat herméneutique » (hermeneutical debate) une importance cruciale dans le contexte de la sécularité (ou de notre « âge séculier »), qui se caractérise par la coexistence d’une pluralité croissante de perspectives éthiques et spirituelles. Dans un deuxième temps, nous soutiendrons que ce paradigme herméneutique admet une distinction fondamentale entre deux modes de réflexion, l’argumentation transcendantale et la quête d’authenticité, et montrerons que l’argumentation transcendantale peut à son tour être comprise comme une modalité particulière de la « simple raison » dans le contexte du paradigme herméneutique. Ces deux premiers moments de nos analyses, de nature essentiellement exégétique, constitueront la majeure partie de notre thèse. Dans un troisième temps, nous examinerons la distinction entre l’argumentation transcendantale et la quête d’authenticité de façon à mettre en question les limites assignées par notre auteur à la première. Plus précisément, notre intention est de démontrer que la critique herméneutique de la simple raison proposée par Taylor présuppose elle-même la viabilité d’une « éthique transcendantale » et, par conséquent, la viabilité d’une conception transcendantale de la simple raison dans la sphère de la rationalité pratique. Cette éthique transcendantale affleure en plusieurs lieux dans son œuvre sous la forme d’un « humanisme » de type néo-aristotélicien, solidement ancré dans ses analyses des conditions d’arrière-plan inéluctables (ou transcendantales) de l’agir humain, sans toutefois être explicitement conçue et assumée en tant que telle. / Is it still legitimate to distinguish, on the one hand, ‘‘reason alone’’ or nonreligiously informed reason, whose conclusions are in principle able to satisfy any honest and lucid thinker, and on the second hand, the domain of religious faith, where differences of conviction would be a priori irreducible? Is this divide between reason and faith, which was prompted at the time of the Auflkärung by a great call to ‘‘emancipation’’ (to ‘‘think for yourself’’, Selberdenken), still relevant for us today? Are the times not ripe for another philosophical attitude in relation to religious faith, which would call into question the theory that opposed reason and revelation as two irreducible ‘‘sources’’ of truth? This dissertation will pursue three main objectives, whose common aim is to clarify the motives and implications of the critique of ‘‘reason alone’’ in Charles Taylor’s work. First, we will show that Taylor rejects the ‘‘epistemological’’ paradigm of modern philosophy in the name of a hermeneutic paradigm, more sensitive to the linguistic and historical finitude of human reason. Our author maintains, indeed, that ‘‘hermeneutical debates’’ are now obligatory in our secular age, characterized by the coexistence of a growing plurality of ethical and spiritual perspectives. Secondly, we will argue that this hermeneutic paradigm admits of a fundamental distinction between two modes of reflection, that of ‘‘transcendental arguments’’ and the ‘‘quest for authenticity’’, and will show that transcendental arguments can in turn be understood as a specific modality of ‘‘reason alone’’ in the context of the hermeneutic paradigm. These two first stages of our analysis, mainly of an exegetical nature, will constitute the major part of our dissertation. Thirdly, we will examine the distinction between transcendental arguments and the quest for authenticity, to challenge the limits assigned by Taylor to the first domain. Specifically, we intend to demonstrate that the hermeneutical critique of reason propounded by Taylor presupposes the viability of a ‘‘transcendental ethics’’ and, therefore, the viability of a transcendental conception of reason in the domain of practical rationality. This transcendental ethics emerges at several occasions in his work as a kind of neo-Aristotelian ‘‘humanism’’, firmly anchored in his analysis of the inescapable background conditions of human agency, without being explicitly recognized as such.

No description available.

La langue française ne possède que deux genres: le masculin et le féminin. Grammaticalement, le genre masculin l’emporte sur le féminin, par exemple en accordantles adjectifs en genre et en nombre. L’écriture inclusive vise à neutraliser la langue pour la rendre non discriminante envers les femmes mais aussi envers les personnes non binaires. Le langage inclusif suscite des débats importants en France depuis la formation d’une commission de terminologie en 1984, chargée de la féminisation des noms de métiers et de titres. En 2017, le premier manuel scolaire rédigé en écriture inclusive est publié enflammant cette question rendue publique. Par cette étude, nous avons l’intention de comprendre dans quelle mesure le débat dans la presse sur l’écriture inclusive est construit sur les mêmes arguments que ceux développés par les chercheurs dans ce domaine. Dans cette optique, nous avons créé et étudié un corpus basé sur six articles scientifiques traitant de l’écriture inclusive, ainsi qu’un corpus d’étude composé de vingt-et-un articles de presse datant de 2017 à 2022. Nous avons ensuite analysé, catégorisé et comparé les arguments favorables et défavorables concernant l’écriture inclusive développés dans le corpus de presse avec ceux avancés dans les articles scientifiques. Nos données montrent que quasiment les mêmes sujets autour du langage inclusif sont traités par les journalistes de presse et par les chercheurs. Cependant, les angles d’approche diffèrent naturellement : les scientifiques creusent plus en profondeur le sujet afin d’étayer leurs arguments tandis que l’objectif des journalistes reste d’expliquer et de commenter une question d’actualité. Finalement, nous avons pu constater qu’il existe bien une symétrie entre les arguments avancés par les chercheurs et ceux présentés dans les articles de presse même si les perspectives sont relativement éloignées. / The French language has only two genders: the masculine and the feminine. Grammatically  speaking, the masculine gender prevails over the feminine gender, for example in the agreement of adjectives in gender and in number. Inclusive writing aims to neutralize the language as to make it non-discriminating towards women and, to a certain extent, towards non-binary people. The debate over the gender-neutralized language has been going on in France since the establishment of a terminology commission in 1984, in charge of the feminization of job names and titles. In 2017 the first textbook using inclusive writing was published, stirring up a hot public debate. Our intention with this study is to understand to what extent the debate in the press about inclusive writing is based on the same arguments as the ones developed by researchers in this field. To this end, we created and studied a reference-based corpus including six scientific articles dealing with inclusive language as well as a study corpus composed of twenty-one newspaper articles from 2017 to 2022. We then analysed, categorised, and compared the for and against inclusive writing developed in the press corpus with those put forward in the scientific articles. Our data show that practically the same topics around inclusive writing are discussed by press journalists and by researchers. However, the approaches are naturally different as the researchers go deeper into the subjects in order to support their arguments, whereas the purpose of the journalists is to explain and comment on current issues. Finally, we could see that there is a symmetry between the arguments put forward by the researchers and those presented in the newspaper articles even though their perspectives are relatively distant from one another.

This dissertation is an investigation into the classification of all hyperbolic manifolds which admit a reducible Dehn filling and a toroidal Dehn filling with distance 3. The first example was given by Boyer and Zhang. They used the Whitehead link. Eudave-Muñoz and Wu gave an infinite family of such hyperbolic manifolds using tangle arguments. I show in this dissertation that these are the only hyperbolic manifolds admitting a reducible Dehn filling and a toroidal Dehn filling with distance 3. The main tool to prove this is to use the intersection graphs on surfaces introduced and developed by Gordon and Luecke. / text