Diferentemente do que alegam visões idealizadas da ciência, as controvérsias não são fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, mas o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas são campo de atividade da racionalidade científica. Partindo do exame da tricotomia de tipos de polêmicas de Marcelo Dascal – constituída por discussão, disputa e controvérsia – objetiva-se caracterizar as polêmicas e traçar relações entre elas, especialmente no que tange às suas respectivas racionalidades. A proposta não se restringe a apontar consensos e dissensos entre a racionalidade dura da discussão, a irracionalidade da disputa e a racionalidade branda da controvérsia; tenciona-se o “diálogo entre racionalidades”. A interação entre as racionalidades – preservando as características de cada racionalidade, pois não se projeta reduzir uma racionalidade à outra –, possibilita o alargamento do escopo de atuação das racionalidades. A tricotomia de tipos de Marcelo Dascal escapa a tendência de dicotomização do par discussão/disputa, o qual foi tradicionalmente tido por exaustivo. Sob tal perspectiva, a controvérsia se apresenta como uma via alternativa. A racionalidade branda conduz a persuasão racional – objetivo da controvérsia. A controvérsia permite, ainda, a emergência de idéias inovadoras, o que faz dessa polêmica motor da ciência. Marcello Pera opera uma volta a Aristóteles para resgatar a função cognitiva que retórica e dialética desempenham na argumentação persuasiva da ciência. Para Pera, o foco na argumentação persuasiva da ciência revela aspectos da prática científica que foram esquecidos pelas propostas tradicionais (metodologistas) e que não receberam tratamento adequado de propostas contemporâneas (anti-metodologistas). Segundo M. Pera, o desafino das opiniões sobre a descrição e a explicação dos fatos alegadamente recorrentes do desalinho entre os fatos do mundo e as descrições do mundo gera as polêmicas na ciência. A racionalidade persuasiva empregada nas interações polêmicas visa ao convencimento não apenas dos contendores, mas também da comunidade concernente ao debate. A prática de uma argumentação persuasiva da ciência é o ponto-chave para a confluência das idéias de Marcelo Dascal e Marcello Pera. Em decorrência desses novos entendimentos acerca da ciência, emerge uma nova visão da racionalidade científica: mais flexível, sensível aos papéis da audiência e do contexto e valorada no seu empenho cognitivo. Essa racionalidade, abordada desde um ponto de vista humano, permite a emersão de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes. / Unlike idealized views of science claim, controversies are not marginal phenomena in the history of science but the proper domain of scientific knowledge’s critical development. Polemical exchange are the field of activity of scientific rationality. Based on the exam of the Marcelo Dascal’s trichotomy of polemical exchange types – consisting of discussion, dispute and controversy – the objective is to characterize the controversy and to trace the relations between them, especially in regard to their respective rationalities. The proposal is not restricted to pointing out consensus and disagreements among the hard rationality of the discussion, the irrationality of the dispute and the soft rationality of controversy. The "dialogue between rationalities” is aimed. The interaction between rationalities – preserving the characteristics of each rationality, since it is not projected to reduce one rationality into the other – makes it possible to extend the scope of work of rationalities. The trichotomy of types of M. Dascal escapes from the tendency to dichotomization of the pair discussion/dispute, which is traditionally regarded as exhaustive. Controversy is presented as an alternative way between hard rationality and irrationality. The soft rationality leads rational persuasion – the proper aim of controversy. Controversy also allows the emergence of innovative ideas, which makes this polemic the engine of science. Marcello Pera turns back to Aristotle to rescue the cognitive function that rhetoric and dialectic play in the persuasive argumentation of science. For Pera, the focus on the persuasive argumentation of science reveals aspects of scientific practice that have been overlooked by traditional proposals (methodologists) and that have not received proper treatment from contemporary proposals (anti-methodologists). According to M. Pera, polemics in science are generated by the missmatch between descriptions fail to capture the facts. The persuasive rationality employed in polemical interactions aims convincing not only the contenders, but also the community concerning the debate. The practice of a persuasive argumentation in science is the key point for the confluence of the ideas from Marcelo Dascal and Marcello Pera. Due to these new understandings about science, a new and more flexible vision of scientific rationality emerge: one, which is sensitive to the role of audience and context in cognitive appraisals. As approached from a human point of view, this new rationality allows the emergence of convincing or reasonable conclusions.

abstract: US Senate is the venue of political debates where the federal bills are formed and voted. Senators show their support/opposition along the bills with their votes. This information makes it possible to extract the polarity of the senators. Similarly, blogosphere plays an increasingly important role as a forum for public debate. Authors display sentiment toward issues, organizations or people using a natural language. In this research, given a mixed set of senators/blogs debating on a set of political issues from opposing camps, I use signed bipartite graphs for modeling debates, and I propose an algorithm for partitioning both the opinion holders (senators or blogs) and the issues (bills or topics) comprising the debate into binary opposing camps. Simultaneously, my algorithm scales the entities on a univariate scale. Using this scale, a researcher can identify moderate and extreme senators/blogs within each camp, and polarizing versus unifying issues. Through performance evaluations I show that my proposed algorithm provides an effective solution to the problem, and performs much better than existing baseline algorithms adapted to solve this new problem. In my experiments, I used both real data from political blogosphere and US Congress records, as well as synthetic data which were obtained by varying polarization and degree distribution of the vertices of the graph to show the robustness of my algorithm. I also applied my algorithm on all the terms of the US Senate to the date for longitudinal analysis and developed a web based interactive user interface www.PartisanScale.com to visualize the analysis. US politics is most often polarized with respect to the left/right alignment of the entities. However, certain issues do not reflect the polarization due to political parties, but observe a split correlating to the demographics of the senators, or simply receive consensus. I propose a hierarchical clustering algorithm that identifies groups of bills that share the same polarization characteristics. I developed a web based interactive user interface www.ControversyAnalysis.com to visualize the clusters while providing a synopsis through distribution charts, word clouds, and heat maps. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Computer Science 2015

Diferentemente do que alegam visões idealizadas da ciência, as controvérsias não são fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, mas o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas são campo de atividade da racionalidade científica. Partindo do exame da tricotomia de tipos de polêmicas de Marcelo Dascal – constituída por discussão, disputa e controvérsia – objetiva-se caracterizar as polêmicas e traçar relações entre elas, especialmente no que tange às suas respectivas racionalidades. A proposta não se restringe a apontar consensos e dissensos entre a racionalidade dura da discussão, a irracionalidade da disputa e a racionalidade branda da controvérsia; tenciona-se o “diálogo entre racionalidades”. A interação entre as racionalidades – preservando as características de cada racionalidade, pois não se projeta reduzir uma racionalidade à outra –, possibilita o alargamento do escopo de atuação das racionalidades. A tricotomia de tipos de Marcelo Dascal escapa a tendência de dicotomização do par discussão/disputa, o qual foi tradicionalmente tido por exaustivo. Sob tal perspectiva, a controvérsia se apresenta como uma via alternativa. A racionalidade branda conduz a persuasão racional – objetivo da controvérsia. A controvérsia permite, ainda, a emergência de idéias inovadoras, o que faz dessa polêmica motor da ciência. Marcello Pera opera uma volta a Aristóteles para resgatar a função cognitiva que retórica e dialética desempenham na argumentação persuasiva da ciência. Para Pera, o foco na argumentação persuasiva da ciência revela aspectos da prática científica que foram esquecidos pelas propostas tradicionais (metodologistas) e que não receberam tratamento adequado de propostas contemporâneas (anti-metodologistas). Segundo M. Pera, o desafino das opiniões sobre a descrição e a explicação dos fatos alegadamente recorrentes do desalinho entre os fatos do mundo e as descrições do mundo gera as polêmicas na ciência. A racionalidade persuasiva empregada nas interações polêmicas visa ao convencimento não apenas dos contendores, mas também da comunidade concernente ao debate. A prática de uma argumentação persuasiva da ciência é o ponto-chave para a confluência das idéias de Marcelo Dascal e Marcello Pera. Em decorrência desses novos entendimentos acerca da ciência, emerge uma nova visão da racionalidade científica: mais flexível, sensível aos papéis da audiência e do contexto e valorada no seu empenho cognitivo. Essa racionalidade, abordada desde um ponto de vista humano, permite a emersão de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes. / Unlike idealized views of science claim, controversies are not marginal phenomena in the history of science but the proper domain of scientific knowledge’s critical development. Polemical exchange are the field of activity of scientific rationality. Based on the exam of the Marcelo Dascal’s trichotomy of polemical exchange types – consisting of discussion, dispute and controversy – the objective is to characterize the controversy and to trace the relations between them, especially in regard to their respective rationalities. The proposal is not restricted to pointing out consensus and disagreements among the hard rationality of the discussion, the irrationality of the dispute and the soft rationality of controversy. The "dialogue between rationalities” is aimed. The interaction between rationalities – preserving the characteristics of each rationality, since it is not projected to reduce one rationality into the other – makes it possible to extend the scope of work of rationalities. The trichotomy of types of M. Dascal escapes from the tendency to dichotomization of the pair discussion/dispute, which is traditionally regarded as exhaustive. Controversy is presented as an alternative way between hard rationality and irrationality. The soft rationality leads rational persuasion – the proper aim of controversy. Controversy also allows the emergence of innovative ideas, which makes this polemic the engine of science. Marcello Pera turns back to Aristotle to rescue the cognitive function that rhetoric and dialectic play in the persuasive argumentation of science. For Pera, the focus on the persuasive argumentation of science reveals aspects of scientific practice that have been overlooked by traditional proposals (methodologists) and that have not received proper treatment from contemporary proposals (anti-methodologists). According to M. Pera, polemics in science are generated by the missmatch between descriptions fail to capture the facts. The persuasive rationality employed in polemical interactions aims convincing not only the contenders, but also the community concerning the debate. The practice of a persuasive argumentation in science is the key point for the confluence of the ideas from Marcelo Dascal and Marcello Pera. Due to these new understandings about science, a new and more flexible vision of scientific rationality emerge: one, which is sensitive to the role of audience and context in cognitive appraisals. As approached from a human point of view, this new rationality allows the emergence of convincing or reasonable conclusions.

Em nosso trabalho, procuramos demonstrar as fundamentações éticas de Albert Camus e de Jean-Paul Sartre perceptíveis em seus primeiros escritos. Partimos de uma análise da situação histórica dos autores no momento da composição de seus ensaios fundamentais, O ser e o Nada e O mito de Sísifo, para, em seguida, atribuir às iniciativas dramatúrgicas, As Moscas e O mal-entendido, uma fidelidade e complementareidade em relação aos ensaios. Notamos que nessa transposição de idéias para a dramaturgia não ocorrreu prejuízo no que toca às concepções ou recomendações éticas opostas surgidas na década de 1940. No entanto, a diferença fundamental entre os autores permaneceu camuflada até o momento da querela da década de 1950. Apresentar suas inconciliáveis noções éticas inscritas nos dramas concebidos e montados durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, e analisar o percurso literário e filosófico até o momento da polêmica e rompimento definitivo, nos dará a oportunidade de aventar e demonstrar que a camuflagem de ambas filosofias era provisória e que estavam, desde As Moscas e O mal-entendido, condenadas a combater-se. / We intend demonstrate the ethics fondations of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, as we can perceive it dans the beginning of both authors . We start with an analisys of the historic situation at the time of de composition of L\'Être et le Néant , Le Mithe de Sysiphe and, after, we intend to show that the dramaturgie works, Les Mouches and Le Malentendu, maintain fidelity to the test works. We note that in dramatic discussion of the ideas there is a significate continuity in the ethic opposition and in the recomendations appeared in 1940. We think that fondamentals differences between the authours remain hidden until the polemic that ocurred in 1950. We pretend to present the inconciliable notion that appeared in the ethic dramas conceived during the Secon War; we also pretend to analyse their littéraire and philosofic journey at the moment of the controverse and rupture, and at this moment we\'ll may show that camouflage was temporary and theirs philosophies had, since Les Mouches et Le Malentendu, a contradictory destination.

Diferentemente do que alegam visões idealizadas da ciência, as controvérsias não são fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, mas o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas são campo de atividade da racionalidade científica. Partindo do exame da tricotomia de tipos de polêmicas de Marcelo Dascal – constituída por discussão, disputa e controvérsia – objetiva-se caracterizar as polêmicas e traçar relações entre elas, especialmente no que tange às suas respectivas racionalidades. A proposta não se restringe a apontar consensos e dissensos entre a racionalidade dura da discussão, a irracionalidade da disputa e a racionalidade branda da controvérsia; tenciona-se o “diálogo entre racionalidades”. A interação entre as racionalidades – preservando as características de cada racionalidade, pois não se projeta reduzir uma racionalidade à outra –, possibilita o alargamento do escopo de atuação das racionalidades. A tricotomia de tipos de Marcelo Dascal escapa a tendência de dicotomização do par discussão/disputa, o qual foi tradicionalmente tido por exaustivo. Sob tal perspectiva, a controvérsia se apresenta como uma via alternativa. A racionalidade branda conduz a persuasão racional – objetivo da controvérsia. A controvérsia permite, ainda, a emergência de idéias inovadoras, o que faz dessa polêmica motor da ciência. Marcello Pera opera uma volta a Aristóteles para resgatar a função cognitiva que retórica e dialética desempenham na argumentação persuasiva da ciência. Para Pera, o foco na argumentação persuasiva da ciência revela aspectos da prática científica que foram esquecidos pelas propostas tradicionais (metodologistas) e que não receberam tratamento adequado de propostas contemporâneas (anti-metodologistas). Segundo M. Pera, o desafino das opiniões sobre a descrição e a explicação dos fatos alegadamente recorrentes do desalinho entre os fatos do mundo e as descrições do mundo gera as polêmicas na ciência. A racionalidade persuasiva empregada nas interações polêmicas visa ao convencimento não apenas dos contendores, mas também da comunidade concernente ao debate. A prática de uma argumentação persuasiva da ciência é o ponto-chave para a confluência das idéias de Marcelo Dascal e Marcello Pera. Em decorrência desses novos entendimentos acerca da ciência, emerge uma nova visão da racionalidade científica: mais flexível, sensível aos papéis da audiência e do contexto e valorada no seu empenho cognitivo. Essa racionalidade, abordada desde um ponto de vista humano, permite a emersão de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes. / Unlike idealized views of science claim, controversies are not marginal phenomena in the history of science but the proper domain of scientific knowledge’s critical development. Polemical exchange are the field of activity of scientific rationality. Based on the exam of the Marcelo Dascal’s trichotomy of polemical exchange types – consisting of discussion, dispute and controversy – the objective is to characterize the controversy and to trace the relations between them, especially in regard to their respective rationalities. The proposal is not restricted to pointing out consensus and disagreements among the hard rationality of the discussion, the irrationality of the dispute and the soft rationality of controversy. The "dialogue between rationalities” is aimed. The interaction between rationalities – preserving the characteristics of each rationality, since it is not projected to reduce one rationality into the other – makes it possible to extend the scope of work of rationalities. The trichotomy of types of M. Dascal escapes from the tendency to dichotomization of the pair discussion/dispute, which is traditionally regarded as exhaustive. Controversy is presented as an alternative way between hard rationality and irrationality. The soft rationality leads rational persuasion – the proper aim of controversy. Controversy also allows the emergence of innovative ideas, which makes this polemic the engine of science. Marcello Pera turns back to Aristotle to rescue the cognitive function that rhetoric and dialectic play in the persuasive argumentation of science. For Pera, the focus on the persuasive argumentation of science reveals aspects of scientific practice that have been overlooked by traditional proposals (methodologists) and that have not received proper treatment from contemporary proposals (anti-methodologists). According to M. Pera, polemics in science are generated by the missmatch between descriptions fail to capture the facts. The persuasive rationality employed in polemical interactions aims convincing not only the contenders, but also the community concerning the debate. The practice of a persuasive argumentation in science is the key point for the confluence of the ideas from Marcelo Dascal and Marcello Pera. Due to these new understandings about science, a new and more flexible vision of scientific rationality emerge: one, which is sensitive to the role of audience and context in cognitive appraisals. As approached from a human point of view, this new rationality allows the emergence of convincing or reasonable conclusions.

It is hoped that this paper can establish by such documentary evidence as is available, the following: 1. The program for financing social security advocated by W. Lee O'Daniel during his first term as Governor of Texas; 2. The program for old age assistance advocated by O'Daniel during the Forty-Sixth Legislature of Texas; 3. The activities of the minority group credited by the Governor with defeating "all efforts to finance social security" during the Forty-Sixth Legislature; 4. The explanation of Senate Joint Resolution 12; 5. The record, based on personal experience and the reported evidence, of the various groups and individuals working for the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 12.

El presente artículo aborda la controversia que se origina a partir del uso de la publicidad subliminal, pues aparentemente ejercería cierta influencia en el comportamiento del consumidor. Siendo así, la publicidad subliminal podría contravenir principios éticos y morales. Por ello, esta investigación presentará y analizará estudios relevantes sobre el posible dilema ético que surgiría del uso de la publicidad subliminal y la influencia que podría generar en la decisión de compra de los consumidores. Como punto de partida, se precisarán los conceptos de ética y publicidad subliminal que ayudarán a reconocer y entender cuándo se presenta un dilema ético por el uso de este tipo de publicidad, cuyo cuestionamiento será el tema central de este trabajo. Además, se explicará el concepto de la deontología profesional de los medios publicitarios con el objetivo de exponer una posible relación entre el ejercicio profesional y origen del dilema ético. Asimismo, se analizará la influencia de los factores sociales, culturales, políticos y legales en la publicidad subliminal. / This article deals with the controversy caused by the use of subliminal advertising, which seems to have some influence on consumer behavior. If so, subliminal advertising could transgress ethical and moral principles. This research intends to introduce and analize pertinent research on the ethical dilemma that would arise from using subliminal advertising and its influence on consumers’ decisions. First, the meaning of ethics and subliminal advertising will be conveyed accurately, this will be helpful for recognizing and understanding the presence of an ethical dilemma due to this kind of advertising, that is to say the core of this research. In addition, deontology-based advertising ethical value will be explained in order to show a possible link between professional practice and the nature of the ethical dilemma. Also, the influence of social, cultural, political and legal aspects on subliminal advertising will be addressed. / Trabajo de Suficiencia Profesional

I detta arbete har det undersökts hur man kan arbeta med produktdesign föratt gynna den grönfläckiga paddan och den biologiska mångfalden.Projektet tog utgångspunkt i ett artbevarande projekt i Malmö där metodersom desktop research och intervjuer användes för att samla in informationkring hur man arbetar med artbevarande arbete idag samt vilka utmaningarsom fanns med att lyckas. Under projektet så experimenterades det med deninsamlade informationen med controversy mapping och prototyper sommetoder för att hitta potentiella utvecklingsområden. Det fanns flera hot motpaddan och en av de var den regionalt invasiva växten havtorn som spriditsig i paddans område. Projektet resulterade i ett verksamhetskoncept varshuvudsyfte var att bekämpa havtornet och som gjorde det möjligt genom attanvända växten som en materialresurs. Syftet med att använda materialetvar att skapa intäkter som kunde finansiera bekämpnings arbetet. / The purpose of this thesis project was to investigate possible ways of favouringbiodivercity and more specificly the endangered european green toad that lives inNorra hamnen in Malmö. To better understand how the conservation work is donetoday and what problems they are facing, methods such as desktop research,interviews and observations were used. Controversy mapping was used as anexperimental method to organize the gathered data and as a tool to generateidéas and explore possibilities. The toad had many threats wich became clearthrough the exploring methods, one of them was the regional invasive speciesbuckthorn. The project resulted in a busines concept with the main purpose to fightthe buckthorn which was made possible by using the plant as a material recoursethat could fund the work.

No description available.

The question of whether the door of ijtihad is open, closed, or ever did close, has been around for centuries. The answer to this question is crucial for our times. The research will present a chronological overview of the historical development of the concept of ijtihad, how it developed, became limited in certain circles, and if it ever ceased to be practiced. It can be concluded from the research that the doors of ijtihad were never closed, but were limited to a particular type of educational training. Those who completed this training proceeded on to become jurists. Those who could not, were requested to follow their leaders or engage in "taqlid." This study will show that this question arose from a power struggle between modernists and traditionalists regarding who had the power to interpret and make rulings for the Muslim community. It will further show how traditionalists are trying to maintain their power in order to preserve traditional Islam and how the modernists are trying to solve contemporary problems by opening the doors to interpretation for those who are not classically trained. / Religion