Submitted by Setor de Tratamento da Informa??o - BC/PUCRS (tede2@pucrs.br) on 2016-05-25T12:14:11Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_ANDRE_LUIZ_DE_ALMEIDA_LISBOA_NEIVA_COMPLETO.pdf: 771239 bytes, checksum: d9b407336d96769b83144597219e9bad (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-05-25T12:14:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_ANDRE_LUIZ_DE_ALMEIDA_LISBOA_NEIVA_COMPLETO.pdf: 771239 bytes, checksum: d9b407336d96769b83144597219e9bad (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-03 / Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico - CNPq / This work aims to explore the main aspects of Richard Swinburne?s theory of probability and objective Bayesianism. In the first chapter, we present and evaluate some basic assumptions of Swinburne?s theory, especially the relations between the concepts of belief and probability and his defense of doxastic contrastivism. In the intermediate chapter, we provide the axioms and definitions of the formal machinery of probability and then we examine more carefully different kinds of probability and its use in the context of dispute between internalism and externalism. In the last chapter, we analyze Swinburne?s Bayesianism and his criteria of logical probability. The a priori criterion of simplicity is the most important in his version of Bayesianism. In the final part, we discuss some problems and objections to his theory and to Bayesianism in general. The problem of old evidence remains the main challenge to the Bayesian confirmation theory. Furthermore, we conclude that the criterion of simplicity is unsuccessful in achieving Swinburne?s purposes. / Este trabalho pretende explorar os aspectos centrais da teoria de probabilidade e do Bayesianismo objetivo de Richard Swinburne. No cap?tulo inaugural, apresentamos e avaliamos alguns pressupostos b?sicos da teoria de Swinburne, sobretudo as rela??es entre os conceitos de cren?a e probabilidade e a sua defesa do contrastivismo dox?stico. No cap?tulo seguinte, oferecemos os axiomas e as defini??es do maquin?rio formal do c?lculo de probabilidades e, em seguida, examinamos mais minuciosamente os diferentes tipos de probabilidade e o seu emprego no contexto de disputa entre internalismo e externalismo. No ?ltimo cap?tulo, analisamos o Bayesianismo de Swinburne e os seus crit?rios de probabilidade l?gica. O crit?rio a priori de simplicidade ? o mais importante na sua vers?o de Bayesianismo. Na parte final, discutimos alguns problemas e obje??es ? sua teoria e ao Bayesianismo como um todo. O problema da evid?ncia antiga continua a ser o principal desafio ? teoria de confirma??o Bayesiana. Al?m disso, conclu?mos que o crit?rio de simplicidade n?o ? bem-sucedido em rela??o ao desideratum pretendido por Swinburne.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T13:55:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 437787.pdf: 1445433 bytes, checksum: 202249ebcaba133bfd8817696f198554 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-03-23 / This essay is about the contemporary epistemological debate over the problem of rational disagreement. The problem consists in questioning the possibility of rational disagreement between individuals, considered epistemic peers, who, after sharing the relevant evidence, come to incompatible conclusions. Disagreements of this kind abound in contexts such as political, moral, scientific, philosophical, religious, ordinary, etc. The current debate about rational disagreement has divided philosophers into two distinct positions, namely, conformists and nonconformists. According to conformists, in the face of a disagreement with an epistemic peer the rational attitude that we should adopt is to considerably revise our initial position, and in some cases even adopt the attitude of withholding. Nonconformists, conversely, argue that in many cases it is possible to reasonably maintain the initial position even in the presence of an epistemic peer that is holding the opposite claim. In this sense, the main motivation of nonconformists is to avoid the local skepticism advocated by conformists. The present work aims to advance a study on the nature and epistemic significance of the problem of rational disagreement, analyzing the argumentation involved in positions for and against rational disagreement and exposing the presuppositions and thesis on which the argumentation rests. From this, we consider the contemporary issue specifically in the context of science. During periods of controversy, scientists exhibit considerable disagreements. To the extent that such cases present the conditions to invoke the contemporary debate about disagreement, we analyze the plausibility of the conformist verdict, specifically, in the scientific context. / Este ensaio trata do debate epistemol?gico contempor?neo sobre o problema do desacordo racional. O problema consiste na pergunta sobre a possibilidade do desacordo racional entre indiv?duos, considerados pares epist?micos, que, ap?s compartilharem a evid?ncia relevante, chegaram a conclus?es incompat?veis. Desacordos desse tipo s?o abundantes em contextos como o pol?tico, moral, cient?fico, filos?fico, religioso, ordin?rio, etc. O debate atual sobre o problema do desacordo racional dividiu os fil?sofos em duas posi??es distintas, a saber, conformistas e n?o-conformistas. De acordo com conformistas, em face de um desacordo com um par epist?mico, a atitude racional que devemos adotar ? rever, consideravelmente, a nossa posi??o inicial e, em alguns casos, at? mesmo adotar a atitude de suspens?o de ju?zo. N?o-conformistas, por sua vez, argumentam que em muitos casos ? poss?vel manter, racionalmente, a posi??o inicial, mesmo na presen?a de um par epist?mico que sustenta uma posi??o contr?ria. Neste sentido, a principal motiva??o de n?o-conformistas ? evitar o ceticismo local defendido por conformistas. O presente trabalho promove um estudo sobre a natureza e o significado epist?mico do problema do desacordo racional, analisando a argumenta??o envolvida nas posi??es pr? e contra o desacordo racional e expondo os pressupostos e teses sobre os quais tal argumenta??o repousa. A partir disso, considera-se a problem?tica contempor?nea especificamente no contexto da ci?ncia. Durante per?odos de controv?rsia, cientistas exibem desacordos consider?veis. Na medida em que tais casos apresentam as condi??es para se colocar o debate contempor?neo sobre o desacordo, analisa-se a plausibilidade do veredito conformista, especificamente, no contexto cient?fico.

Submitted by PPG Zoologia (zoologia-pg@pucrs.br) on 2018-03-23T11:52:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Filogenia e Taxonomia de Rhoadsiinae_Rafael_Lugo_Homologa??o.pdf: 7274621 bytes, checksum: f11a71c774a89d99057951217d2d2321 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Tatiana Lopes (tatiana.lopes@pucrs.br) on 2018-04-05T14:07:29Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Filogenia e Taxonomia de Rhoadsiinae_Rafael_Lugo_Homologa??o.pdf: 7274621 bytes, checksum: f11a71c774a89d99057951217d2d2321 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-05T14:14:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Filogenia e Taxonomia de Rhoadsiinae_Rafael_Lugo_Homologa??o.pdf: 7274621 bytes, checksum: f11a71c774a89d99057951217d2d2321 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-14 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Rhoadsiinae is one of the 15 subfamilies that compose the family Characidae, proposed in 1911 by Fowler. Its distribution is exclusively trans-Andean and is found in Ecuador, Panama, Colombia, Peru, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. A combined matrix of morphological and molecular data was analyzed in a scheme of total evidence. Fiftyfour morphological characters were collected, 36 of which were obtained from the literature and 18 were new, for 15 terminal taxa. Amplifications were performed for the genes 16S, COI, Cytb, Myh6 and RAG2, which were also analyzed separately, using probabilistic Bayesian analysis, performed on the CIPRES website. The parsimony analysis was performed in the TNT software, through an exact search (Implicit enumeration) and a heuristic procedure of a thousand Random Addition Sequence (RAS) interactions followed by Tree Bissection Reconnection (TBR) tree rearrangements. The analyzes recovered a single maximally parsimonious tree with 2604 steps, consistency index 0.60 and retention index 0.45. The results corroborate the monophyly of Rhoadsiinae. The subfamily is composed of seven species divided in four genera, six of which are described in previous works and a new genus and species is described in this paper, provisionally named New T?xon "Panam?". In addition, it is demonstrated that the clade of Rhoadsia is the sister to all other genera of the subfamily; Carlana eigenmanni and New T?xon "Panam?" are sister group to each other. The phylogenetic relationships between the species are represented as follows: ((Rhoadsia altipinna + Rhoadsia minor) + ((Carlana eigenmanni + New T?xon "Panama") + (Parastremma sadina (Parastremma pulchrum + Parastremma album)))). / Rhoadsiinae ? uma das quinze subfam?lias que comp?e a fam?lia Characidae, proposta em 1911 por Fowler, sua distribui??o ? exclusivamente transandina, encontrada no Equador, Panam?, Col?mbia, Peru, Costa Rica e Nicar?gua. Foi utilizada uma matriz combinada de dados morfol?gicos e moleculares, em um esquema de evid?ncia total, para a an?lise filogen?tica. Foram levantados 54 caracteres morfol?gicos, do quais 36 foram retirados da literatura pr?-existente e 18 s?o novos, para 15 t?xons terminais. Foram realizadas amplifica??es para os genes 16S, COI, Cytb, Myh6 e RAG2, que foram tamb?m analisados separadamente, utilizando an?lise probabil?stica Bayesiana, realizada no portal CIPRES. A an?lise de parcim?nia foi realizada no software TNT, atrav?s de busca exata (Implicit enumeration) e um procedimento heur?stico de mil intera??es de Random Addition Sequence (RAS) seguidas de rearranjos de ramos Tree Bissection Reconnection (TBR). As an?lises resgataram uma ?nica ?rvore maximamente parcimoniosa com 2604 passos, ?ndice de consist?ncia 0.60 e ?ndice de reten??o 0.45. Os resultados corroboram o monofiletismo de Rhoadsiinae. A subfam?lia ? composta por sete esp?cies dividas em quatro g?neros, sendo seis delas descritas em trabalhos anteriores e um novo g?nero e esp?cie descrito neste trabalho, denominado provisoriamente como Novo T?xon ?Panam??. Adicionalmente, o clado de Rhoadsia ? o grupo irm?o de todos os demais g?neros da subfam?lia; Carlana eigenmanni e Novo T?xon ?Panam?? s?o grupos irm?os. As rela??es filogen?ticas entre as esp?cies s?o representadas a seguir: ((Rhoadsia altipinna + Rhoadsia minor) + ((Carlana eigenmanni + Novo T?xon ?Panam??) + (Parastremma sadina (Parastremma pulchrum + Parastremma album)))).

Submitted by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-11-09T17:46:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_CAMILA_CAMARGO_DE_SOUZA_COMPLETO.pdf: 3948791 bytes, checksum: c827f34181e47b84d2dc6c25fa596df9 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-11-09T17:46:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_CAMILA_CAMARGO_DE_SOUZA_COMPLETO.pdf: 3948791 bytes, checksum: c827f34181e47b84d2dc6c25fa596df9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-09T17:46:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_CAMILA_CAMARGO_DE_SOUZA_COMPLETO.pdf: 3948791 bytes, checksum: c827f34181e47b84d2dc6c25fa596df9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-30 / Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico - CNPq / Gymnophiona M?ller, 1832?with 206 currently recognized species?is the least studied order within Amphibia. The phylogenetic relationships among its members have been historically unstable, with frequent taxonomic changes at the family level due to the recurrent presence of paraphyletic taxa. However, an increase of studies based on morphological and molecular data has built a scaffold of information about the evolutionary relationships among caecilians; even though, a phylogenetic classification of the order has remained a challenge. In 2011 a new taxonomy of Gymnophiona was proposed, where genera were arranged in nine families supposedly monophyletic. This taxonomy was not based on a phylogenetic analysis but on a consensus of the understanding of the evolutionary relationships of the group as inferred by previous studies. However, important conflicts exits among the results and type of analyses performed on these studies. Furthermore, only one study has included the known fossil taxon of Gymnophiona, which despite being fragmented is a valid source of evidence. Due to several and continuous efforts to generate data on caecilians, there is a wealth of hereditary characters available for phylogenetic studies. Thus, it has become crucial to perform a combined analysis of all these data (complete mitochondrial genomes, nuclear DNA sequences, phenotypic characters of extant and fossil taxa) to obtain a phylogenetic hypothesis that maximizes explanatory power. The objective of this study is to infer the evolutionary relationships of Gymnophiona based on a total evidence analysis using parsimony and dynamic homology to evaluate the current taxonomy of the group. Additionally, we also evaluate the effect of different types of alignment (tree versus similarity approaches), the influence of phenotypic characters on a dataset dominated by molecular characters, and the effect of coding indels as missing data. We compiled previously published phenotypic characters, DNA sequences available from GenBank of 47 nuclear and mitochondrial genes of all available taxa, and produced 42 new sequences. When comparing the results obtained from the tree-alignment analysis in POY with those of the similarity alignment in TNT, both recover Rhinatrematidae as sister of Ichthyophiidae + Teresomata. Within Rhinatrematidae, Epicrionops is paraphyletic in all analyses and the relationships within Ichthyophis are unsolved (a polytomy in the strict consensus). POY does not recovered Scolecomorphidae as the sister taxon of all other Teresomata but Typhlonectidae + Caeciliidae. Caecilia is paraphyletic with respect to Oscaecilia and Typhlonectes in relationship to Potamotyphlus. Scolecomorphidae is sister of Herpelidae + Chikilidae. The results of TNT recover a paraphyletic Herpelidae, with Herpele squalostoma sister of Chikilidae. Also, Siphonopidae is non-monophyletic. Indotyphlidae is non-monophyletic in both analyses and Idiocranium is consistently recovered as sister taxon of Dermophiidae. Dermophis is recovered as paraphyletic in the POY analysis, while both Dermophis and Gymnopis are paraphyletic in the TNT analysis. The strict consensus of the molecular dataset is highly congruous with that of the total evidence dataset; however, the former is better resolved (less polytomies), mainly within Indotyphlidae. The analysis of the phenotypic data alone resulted in a complete polytomy, illustrating the need of more research in this avenue. Coding indels as missing data did not cause important topological changes. The main conclusions derived from this study are: (i) the type of alignment of DNA sequences have an evident impact on the phylogenetic hypotheses of Gymnophiona; (ii) the apparent resolution on the evolutionary relationships of the extant supraspecific taxa of Gymnophiona and their monophyly presented in other studies are dependent on the exclusion of relevant evidence?taxa and characters?or the partial presentation of the optimal hypotheses; (iii) only a total evidence analysis allowed us to discover some of the potential cases of paraphyly or misidentification of vouchers; (iv) the phenotypic data currently used in the study of the evolutionary relationships of Gymnophiona contain important levels of non-congruent information and are not sufficient to place the fossil Eocaecilia micropodia within caecilians. This study reveals the need of detailed revision of the taxonomy and phylogeny of Gymnophiona. / Gymnophiona M?ller, 1832 ? a ordem menos estudada dentro de Amphibia, com 206 esp?cies conhecidas. As rela??es filogen?ticas do grupo permaneceram inst?veis por muito tempo, sofrendo com mudan?as no n?mero de fam?lias, devido ? constante presen?a de t?xons parafil?ticos. Uma crescente de estudos com produ??o de evid?ncias moleculares e morfol?gicas tem formado um arcabou?o de informa??es sobre as rela??es evolutivas do grupo. Mesmo assim, uma classifica??o filogen?tica de toda a ordem n?o representava uma tarefa f?cil. Em 2011, foi proposta uma classifica??o ao n?vel de fam?lia, onde os g?neros foram distribu?dos em nove fam?lias supostamente monofil?ticas. Essa proposta n?o foi baseada em uma an?lise filogen?tica, mas sim em um consenso do entendimento das rela??es filogen?ticas inferidas em estudos pr?vios, sendo muitos deles discordantes, tanto em tipos de an?lises, quanto em resultados. Apenas um estudo incluiu um t?xon f?ssil, que apesar de ser pouco representativo em quantidade, representa uma fonte v?lida de evid?ncia. Devido ao grande esfor?o para gerar dados e obter informa??es acerca dos Gymnophiona, existem in?meros caracteres heredit?rios dispon?veis. Dessa forma, percebe-se uma import?ncia em unir todos esses dados (genomas mitocondriais completos, sequ?ncias de genes nucleares, caracteres fenot?picos dos t?xons viventes e f?ssil) para compor uma nova proposta filogen?tica com o maior poder explicativo. Assim, o objetivo principal deste estudo foi inferir as rela??es evolutivas da ordem Gymnophiona em um contexto de evid?ncia total, sob an?lises de parcim?nia e homologia din?mica e avaliar a taxonomia atual de Gymnophiona com base na(s) ?rvore(s) mais parcimoniosa(s). Adicionalmente, avaliar o efeito de diferentes tipos de alinhamento, a influ?ncia de caracteres fenot?picos em um dataset dominado por dados gen?ticos e o efeito de codificar os indels como dados faltantes. Para isso foram compilados caracteres morfol?gicos de estudos pr?vios, sequ?ncias dispon?veis no GenBank, referentes a 47 genes (nucleares e mitocondriais) de todas as esp?cies dispon?veis, al?m da produ??o de 42 novas sequ?ncias. Comparando os resultados gerados a partir do alinhamento por ?rvore (POY) e do alinhamento por similaridade (TNT) encontramos Rhinatrematidae como grupo-irm?o de Ichthyophiidae + Teresomata. Dentro de Rhinatrematidae, Epicrionops foi recuperado parafil?tico em todas as an?lises e as rela??es dentro de Ichthyophiidae s?o uma politomia. A an?lise do POY n?o recupera Scolecomorphidae como t?xon-irm?o dos demais Teresomata, e sim Typhlonectidae + Caeciliidae. Caecilia ? parafil?tica a Oscaecilia, assim como Typhlonectes com rela??o a Potamotyphlus. Na an?lise via TNT, Herpelidae foi recuperada parafil?tica, com Herpele squalostoma agrupado com Chikilidae. Na an?lise do TNT, Siphonopidae n?o foi recuperada monofil?tica. A fam?lia Indotyphlidae foi n?o-monofil?tica em ambas as an?lises e Idiocranium foi recuperado como o t?xon-irm?o de Dermophiidae. Dermophis surge parafil?tico na an?lise do POY, enquanto que pelo TNT tanto Dermophis quanto Gymnopis surgen parafil?ticos. A topologia da ?rvore constru?da apenas com sequ?ncias de DNA, mostrou-se altamente semelhante ao consenso gerado pelo TNT, embora com alguns poucos clados melhor resolvidos, principalmente em Indotyphlidae. J? a an?lise unicamente morfol?gica restringiu-se a uma politomia total, o que pode ser justificado pela falta de caracteres morfol?gicos ?teis, e que tamb?m pode ser um reflexo da falta de conhecimento acerca deste tipo de evid?ncia. Quanto ? codifica??o de indels como quinto estado ou como dados faltantes, n?o foi observada vantagem sobre nenhum dos testes em rela??o ? topologia do consenso estrito. As principais conclus?es derivadas dos resultados obtidos s?o: (i) o tipo de alinhamento das sequ?ncias de DNA tem um impacto evidente nas hip?teses filogen?ticas; (ii) a aparente resolu??o da hist?ria evolutiva dos atuais t?xons supraespec?ficos de Gymnophiona e sua monofilia, apresentada em outros estudos, dependem da exclus?o de evid?ncia relevante das an?lises ou da apresenta??o parcial das hip?teses ?timas; (iii) s? a an?lise de evid?ncia total permitiu descobrir casos potenciais de parafilia ou identifica??o errada de terminais; (iv) os dados fenot?picos atualmente usados no estudo das rela??es evolutivas de Gymnophiona t?m altos n?veis de informa??o n?o congruente e n?o s?o suficentes para a inclus?o do t?xon f?ssil Eocaecilia micropodia dentro de Gymnophiona. O presente estudo revela a necessidade de uma revis?o detalhada da taxonomia e filogen?tica de Gymnophiona.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T13:36:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 391275.pdf: 307641 bytes, checksum: 6b9a4527df947bc03db2d338b894de67 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-03-21 / N?o possui resumo

Submitted by PPG Filosofia (filosofia-pg@pucrs.br) on 2018-09-17T18:07:38Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_IGOR DANILEVICZ.pdf: 1094423 bytes, checksum: 99d196d8f4216de68382957117ea2321 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sheila Dias (sheila.dias@pucrs.br) on 2018-09-18T11:21:55Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_IGOR DANILEVICZ.pdf: 1094423 bytes, checksum: 99d196d8f4216de68382957117ea2321 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-09-18T11:28:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DIS_IGOR DANILEVICZ.pdf: 1094423 bytes, checksum: 99d196d8f4216de68382957117ea2321 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-08-24 / This dissertation addresses the evidentialism in the light of contemporary analytical epistemology or the theory of knowledge, notably that sustained by Richard Feldman and Earl Conee. In the first part of the paper I approach the theories of internalist and externalist justification as theories that deal with the origin of justification. Then I try to relate them to theories about the structure of justification. From this perspective, internalism was related to foundationalism, coherentism and infinitism. And, externalism has been related to causal theory, tracking theory, reliabilism, and the theory of proper function. In the second part, the Evidentialist Theory of Judgment or Evidentialism in Conee & Feldman is discussed, where besides the definition of evidence I present the classification between synchronic justification and diachronic justification, as well as propositional justification and doxtic justification. The second part also examines the relationship between 'epistemic justification and truth' and the relation between 'evidence and belief', also addressing the principle of underdetermination and some objections to the evidentialism of Conee & Feldman. / O presente trabalho pretende ser uma introdu??o ao evidencialismo em epistemologia anal?tica contempor?nea ou teoria do conhecimento, destacadamente ?quele sustentado por Richard Feldman e Earl Conee. Na primeira parte do trabalho eu abordo as teorias da justifica??o internista e externista como teorias que tratam da origem da justifica??o. Em seguida procuro relacionar as mesmas com teorias sobre a estrutura da justifica??o. Por essa perspectiva o internismo foi relacionado com o fundacionismo, o coerentismo e o infinitismo. E, o externismo foi relacionado com a teoria causal, a teoria do rastreamento, o confiabilismo e a teoria da fun??o apropriada. Na segunda parte ? abordada a Teoria Evidencialista da Jutisfica??o ou Evidencialismo em Conee e Feldman, onde al?m da defini??o de evid?ncia apresento a classifica??o entre justifica??o sincr?nica e justifica??o diacr?nica, bem entre justifica??o proposicional e justifica??o dox?stica. Ainda, nessa segunda parte ? examinada a rela??o entre ?justifica??o epist?mica e verdade? e a rela??o entre ?evid?ncia e cren?a?, abordando tamb?m o princ?pio da subdetermina??o e algumas obje??es ao evidencialismo de Conee e Feldman.

Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-08-01T13:50:40Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ArthurMonteiroLinsFialho_DISSERT.pdf: 1282939 bytes, checksum: 0f1b66c2e0cfaa2e32dc138b107c42d5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-08-07T14:01:57Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ArthurMonteiroLinsFialho_DISSERT.pdf: 1282939 bytes, checksum: 0f1b66c2e0cfaa2e32dc138b107c42d5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-07T14:01:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ArthurMonteiroLinsFialho_DISSERT.pdf: 1282939 bytes, checksum: 0f1b66c2e0cfaa2e32dc138b107c42d5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-06-13 / A presente disserta??o analisa a t?cnica processual da tutela de evid?ncia e o seu papel na busca pela efetiva??o dos princ?pios constitucionais do processo, levantando a problem?tica dos efeitos do tempo na atividade jurisdicional e o crescente fen?meno da sumariza??o da cogni??o processual, na qual o processo de amplo conhecimento come?a a ser visto como uma via residual para solu??o de conflitos. Empregando a t?cnica da documenta??o indireta, por meio de pesquisa bibliogr?fica, inicialmente ? apresentada a evolu??o das tutelas provis?rias em nosso ordenamento jur?dico, agora n?o mais existindo a obriga??o de comprova??o conjunta dos pressupostos da urg?ncia e da evid?ncia para a regular concess?o de uma tutela antecipada. ? feita exposi??o sobre a atividade cognitiva desenvolvida nas tutelas provis?rias, nos planos horizontal e vertical, observando a intima rela??o da ?evid?ncia? com os elementos de prova apresentados no processo, como tamb?m se enfatiza a diferen?a no grau de cogni??o existente nas tutelas de urg?ncia e evid?ncia. Examina as hip?teses de tutela de evid?ncia previstas no art. 311 do C?digo de Processo Civil, apontando cr?ticas acerca da reda??o de alguns dos seus incisos, como tamb?m apresentando sugest?es para um melhor aproveitamento da norma em estudo. Observa a tutela de evid?ncia na fase recursal e em processos que envolvam a Fazenda P?blica, analisando, ainda, a possibilidade de se realizar neg?cio jur?dico processual dispondo sobre a evid?ncia de determinado direito. Discorre sobre a evolu??o dos paradigmas do direito constitucional e a teoria sist?mica dentro do constitucionalismo, colocando a Constitui??o como elemento que influencia e ? influenciado pelas rela??es sociais. ? feita abordagem sobre a sumariza??o da cogni??o processual a partir dos princ?pios constitucionais do devido processo legal, razo?vel dura??o do processo e do efetivo acesso ? justi?a, com destaque para o problema do ?dano marginal?, que ? aquele decorrente da demora da tramita??o processual em si, independentemente da tutela jurisdicional, e que afeta todos os sujeitos do processo. Aponta a dificuldade de se conciliar o desejo por celeridade do procedimento com as garantias fundamentais do processo, tendo em vista que muitas vezes valores constitucionais ir?o colidir, sendo inevit?vel um trabalho de pondera??o por parte do julgador. Por fim, ? analisada de forma mais espec?fica a constitucionalidade da tutela de evid?ncia conforme posta nos incisos e par?grafo ?nico do artigo 311 da Lei 13.105/2015, destacando a grande discuss?o doutrin?ria a respeito da concess?o da tutela de evid?ncia sem a oitiva da parte contr?ria, em que se questiona a possibilidade de se postergar o direito ao contradit?rio mesmo nos casos em que n?o h? urg?ncia. / The present study analyzes the procedural technique of evidence protection and its role in the search for the effectiveness of the constitutional principles of the process, bringing up the issue of the time's effect in the jurisdictional activity, and the increasing phenomenon of the procedural cognition summarization, where the wide-knowledge process starts to be viewed as a residual pathway for conflict resolution. Applying the indirect documentation technique, through bibliographical research, the evolution of provisional injunctions is initially presented in our legal system, without any necessity of joint proof for the urgency and evidence assumptions for the regular concession of a prior injunction provision. An exposition of the cognitive activity developed in the provisional guardians is made in the horizontal and vertical plans, observing the close relations between the "evidence" and the evidence elements presented in the process, as well as emphasizing the difference in the level of cognition found in the emergency and evidence protections. It examines the hypotheses of injunction of evidence as previewed in art. 311 of the Code of Civil Process, pointing out criticism about the composing of some of its paragraphs, as well as presenting suggestions for a better use of the norm under study. It observes the use of evidence protection in the phase of appeal, in cases involving the Public Treasury and the possibility of carrying out legal process business on the evidence of a certain right. It discusses about the evolution of paradigms of constitutional law and systemic theory within constitutionalism, placing the Constitution as an element that influences and is influenced by social relations. An approach is made about the summarization of procedural cognition as of the constitutional principles of the legal process, reasonable length of process, and the effective access to justice, with special emphasis on the "marginal damage" issue, which comes about due to the delay in the procedural process itself, regardless of the judicial protection, which affects all subjects in the process. It points to the difficulty of reconciling the desire for celerity in the procedure with the fundamental guarantees of the process, considering that constitutional values will collide quite frequently, causing the judge to inevitably consider prudence. Lastly, a more specific analysis of the constitutionality of the protection of evidence as set forth in the clauses and single paragraph of article 311 of Law 13,105/2015 is more precisely analyzed, highlighting the great doctrinal discussion regarding the concession of injunction of evidence without the counterclaim of the opposing part, where the possibility of postponing the right to the contradictory is questioned, even in cases in which no urgency is needed.