No description available.

After Gettier came Plantinga.In this essay I explore the concepts of justification and warrant. Are they just two words with the same meaning? Starting with Edmund Gettier’s famous 1963 paper Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? as a backdrop, I investigate Alvin Plantinga’s Proper Functionalism, his analysis of warrant, that property enough of which turns mere true belief into knowledge. Then we put Plantinga’s proper functionalism to the test with challenges from a selection of essays from philosophers critical to Plantinga’s views on warrant. We end up in a summary, where I defend the thesis that Plantinga’s proper functionalism has deepened our understanding of warrant to the point that we can say that it is the best starting point when investigating what warrant is, and how it thus helps us in our understanding what constitutes knowledge. The question of whether Plantinga’s account of warrant can be said to be a solution of Gettier cases will depend on our willingness to allow some vagueness in Plantinga’s definition of the cognitive ”mini environment”. Otherwise, a reductive analysis of knowledge and its parts seem doomed. In the end I give a slightly adjusted revision or addendum of proper functionalism, adding what I call the elements of recognition and surprise in being prepared for truth’s either validating or refuting my belief. I also shortly, in a postscript, discuss possible ways forward for those who want to explore more about Plantinga’s design plan condition, whether it should be interpreted in a theistic or naturalistic framework.

In this thesis, I investigate different Contextualist strategies for responding to the sceptical Argument from Ignorance (AI). Such responses are notable for not challenging the Principle of Epistemic Closure (widely held to be primarily responsible for the argument's conclusion). I am concerned to explore Contextualism's ability to respond to AI in a way which does not result in an uncomfortable concession to scepticism. In Part 1, I discuss Semantic Contextualism; in Part 2, I investigate how AI fares with regards to transmission of warrant when AI utilises either invariantist or Contextualist presuppositions; and in Part 3, I discuss whether Epistemic Contextualism succeeds where Semantic Contextualism fails, arguing that it does. I conclude with an endorsement of Epistemic Contextualism. Part 1: I demonstrate that Semantic Contextualism, of which I will consider three different varieties (externalist, internalist, presuppositionalist), is overly concessive to scepticism because it results in the following four difficulties: (1) knowledge attributions of the form 'I know/S knows that ~B' (where B stands for the sceptical brain-in-a-vat hypothesis) are invariably false; (2) the sceptical context is extremely easy to install; (3) scepticism is said to result from entirely ordinary epistemic practices and; (4) the sceptical context is taken to be an entirely legitimate context of ascription. I conclude Part 1 with the claim that Semantic Contextualism is overly concessive to scepticism. Part 2: Previously, Moore's Proof of an External World has been diagnosed with failing to transmit the warrant on offer for its premises to its conclusion. I argue that it is possible likewise to charge AI with transmission failure but that this cannot be done when some of the conceptual resources of Contextualism are brought to bear on AI. I show that AI can be charged with transmission failure when it is interpreted in support of invariantist (context-unrestricted) scepticism and that only when it is viewed as an argument for a context-restricted form of scepticism does it succeed in transmitting warrant. In this way, the sceptical consequences of AI are considerably reduced. Part 3: The conceptual resources newly deployed in Part 2, which show that a context-restricted, as opposed to invariantist, interpretation of AI can succeed in transmitting warrant, are borrowed from Michael Williams' Epistemic form of Contextualism. But is this form of Contextualism as concessive to scepticism as I showed Semantic Contextualism to be? I argue that it does not represent an overly concessive position vis-a-vis scepticism and therefore represents a superior Contextualist position and response to scepticism. To establish this conclusion, I interrogate the strategy and main elements of Williams' theoretical diagnosis of scepticism and his resultant version of Contextualism so as to determine the extent to which scepticism can be allayed by it. Particular attention is paid to specifying issues that Williams does not discuss, most prominently how the sceptical context has to be understood in order for it to resist his theoretical diagnosis of scepticism and what makes toleration of such resistance by context-bound scepticism reasonable. I conclude my thesis with an endorsement of Williams' Epistemic Contextualism.

<p>Från mitten av nittiotalet fram till början av tjugohundratalet har riksbanksräntan haft en sjunkande trend vilket har medfört att många av de svenska småspararna har sökt sig till andra investeringsmöjligheter än enbart bankkonton. Warranter har här varit ett billigt men riskfyllt alternativ på börsen. En warrant är väldigt lik en option, med den skillnaden att en market maker (anställd av emittenten) används för att kontinuerligt ställa köp och säljkurser för en warrant. Detta innebär att prissättningen sker subjektivt, vilket leder oss till vår problemformulering som lyder:</p><p>Är det möjligt att urskilja olika prissättningsstrategier hos emittenterna när det gäller den implicita volatiliteten?</p><p>Med tanke på detta problem har vi valt att utgå från en kvantitativ studie och valt att se det från småspararnas perspektiv. Vårt huvudsyfte är att se om vi kan urskilja om emittenterna på den svenska marknaden har olika prissättningsstrategier när det gäller den implicita volatiliteten på warranter. Vår teori utgår från en beskrivande del för att förklara hur en warrant fungerar samt en sammanfattning av den forskning som finns på området.</p><p>Vi utgår från en positivistisk kunskapssyn där vi strävar efter att finna en förklaring till ett eventuellt samband mellan emittenternas prissättningsstrategi och den implicita volatiliteten. Vår ansatts för att närma oss vårt problem är hypotetiskt-deduktivt och vi har använt oss av alternativhypotesen:</p><p>H1: Alla emittenter har olika implicit volatilitet.</p><p>Vi har samlat in våra data dagligen i drygt två månader via Derivatinfo. Dessa har vi sedan valt att bearbeta i SPSS. De resultat som genererats har vi valt att presentera i form av diagram och tabeller. Dessa tyder på att emittenterna har olika prissättningsstrategier, dock kan vi inte säkerställa detta.</p>

Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (EAAN) begins with the following simple idea: the evolutionary process of natural selection selects organisms due to adaptive behaviors, but not necessarily due to true beliefs. If this notion is even possibly true, then it is also possible that some (or many) of our own beliefs are not veridical and that our reasoning processes may not successfully point to truths (but are merely evolutionarily advantageous). Once the deliverances and processes of our cognitive faculties have been thus called into question, it seems improper to provide an argument that one can trust one’s cognitive faculties and processes (because such an argument requires the presupposition of what one is trying to prove). The reflective metaphysical naturalist, upon seeing this, realizes that she has a defeater for her belief in the reliability of her cognitive faculties, and this eventuates into a defeater for all of her beliefs (including the belief in naturalism). So, a belief in naturalism, when conjoined with a belief in current evolutionary theory, puts the reflective naturalist in an epistemically undesirable (i.e., irrational) position. It is better, Plantinga says, to discard one’s belief in metaphysical naturalism. Plantinga’s argument is not a globally skeptical one. His ultimate goal is to persuade people to give up naturalism as a metaphysical explanation, and to adopt theism instead. EAAN is an argument against naturalism that is intended to open a door for some later argument for theism; EAAN in itself is not an argument for theism. In this paper, I attempt to: (1) explain EAAN via its historical development and refinement; (2) examine what I feel to be some of the most important critiques of EAAN (along with some of Plantinga’s responses); (3) put the argument in an Extended Summary in Logical Form; (4) comment upon the Extended Summary and, in the process of discussing the premises, settle upon what I feel to be the two main contested premises of EAAN; and, (5) conclude that Plantinga’s argument has thus far survived attack, and explain why I expect it to continue to do so in the future.

Problem: Investors are dependent on the issuers’ valuation of covered warrants because the issuers also act as market makers. Hence it is crucial that the issuers value each of the five variables used in the Black &amp; Scholes pricing formula in the same way at both the buying and selling occasion. For a covered warrant investor the most important is-sue is the volatility and how it changes over time. This thesis will therefore search for differences in changes of implied volatility between the different issuers. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to analyze differences and similarities between the issuers’ changes of their covered warrants implied volatility. Method: The authors have calculated the implied volatility for a sample of warrants with H&amp;M and Ericsson as underlying assets. Black &amp; Scholes formula has been used and this part of the thesis is made with a quantitative approach. After the implied volatility had been calculated correlation tests to the mean as well as to the stock were made. When analyzing the results the authors, in addition to the calculation, used a qualitative method by interviewing market makers. This was made in order to find better explanations to the results. Conclusions: The differences in changes of implied volatility found between different warrants were small. In general, one warrant changed in the same way as the other ones from one day to another. These results reject the rumors that single issuers adjust their implied volatility in order to make more money. When single events in form of reports were analyzed, the authors found that the issuers changed their volatility in the same way to adjust for the changed uncertainty about the stocks future price. Further, these events clarifies that the basic dynamics of implied volatility is followed by the market. The analysis of how the implied volatility changes with respect to the stock price movements indicates a negative correlation. This implies that an increase in the stock price will lower the implied volatility and vice verse.

Från mitten av nittiotalet fram till början av tjugohundratalet har riksbanksräntan haft en sjunkande trend vilket har medfört att många av de svenska småspararna har sökt sig till andra investeringsmöjligheter än enbart bankkonton. Warranter har här varit ett billigt men riskfyllt alternativ på börsen. En warrant är väldigt lik en option, med den skillnaden att en market maker (anställd av emittenten) används för att kontinuerligt ställa köp och säljkurser för en warrant. Detta innebär att prissättningen sker subjektivt, vilket leder oss till vår problemformulering som lyder: Är det möjligt att urskilja olika prissättningsstrategier hos emittenterna när det gäller den implicita volatiliteten? Med tanke på detta problem har vi valt att utgå från en kvantitativ studie och valt att se det från småspararnas perspektiv. Vårt huvudsyfte är att se om vi kan urskilja om emittenterna på den svenska marknaden har olika prissättningsstrategier när det gäller den implicita volatiliteten på warranter. Vår teori utgår från en beskrivande del för att förklara hur en warrant fungerar samt en sammanfattning av den forskning som finns på området. Vi utgår från en positivistisk kunskapssyn där vi strävar efter att finna en förklaring till ett eventuellt samband mellan emittenternas prissättningsstrategi och den implicita volatiliteten. Vår ansatts för att närma oss vårt problem är hypotetiskt-deduktivt och vi har använt oss av alternativhypotesen: H1: Alla emittenter har olika implicit volatilitet. Vi har samlat in våra data dagligen i drygt två månader via Derivatinfo. Dessa har vi sedan valt att bearbeta i SPSS. De resultat som genererats har vi valt att presentera i form av diagram och tabeller. Dessa tyder på att emittenterna har olika prissättningsstrategier, dock kan vi inte säkerställa detta.

<p>Problem: Investors are dependent on the issuers’ valuation of covered warrants because the issuers also act as market makers. Hence it is crucial that the issuers value each of the five variables used in the Black & Scholes pricing formula in the same way at both the buying and selling occasion. For a covered warrant investor the most important is-sue is the volatility and how it changes over time. This thesis will therefore search for differences in changes of implied volatility between the different issuers.</p><p>Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to analyze differences and similarities between the issuers’ changes of their covered warrants implied volatility.</p><p>Method: The authors have calculated the implied volatility for a sample of warrants with H&M and Ericsson as underlying assets. Black & Scholes formula has been used and this part of the thesis is made with a quantitative approach. After the implied volatility had been calculated correlation tests to the mean as well as to the stock were made. When analyzing the results the authors, in addition to the calculation, used a qualitative method by interviewing market makers. This was made in order to find better explanations to the results.</p><p>Conclusions: The differences in changes of implied volatility found between different warrants were small. In general, one warrant changed in the same way as the other ones from one day to another. These results reject the rumors that single issuers adjust their implied volatility in order to make more money. When single events in form of reports were analyzed, the authors found that the issuers changed their volatility in the same way to adjust for the changed uncertainty about the stocks future price. Further, these events clarifies that the basic dynamics of implied volatility is followed by the market. The analysis of how the implied volatility changes with respect to the stock price movements indicates a negative correlation. This implies that an increase in the stock price will lower the implied volatility and vice verse.</p>

Highway/railroad grade crossings present a danger to vehicular traffic. According to the USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2009, there were 1,887 crashes at highway/rail crossings resulting in 248 fatalities (FRA, 2009). The installation of presignals at grade crossings decreases crashes and fatalities at highway/rail crossings. There are no Federal standards that provide guidance for the installation of presignals. Therefore, current practices do not conform to any set of consistent nationwide standards except for guidelines specified in the MUTCD. These guidelines state that a presignal should be considered where the at-grade highway/rail crossing is located within 50 feet of a signalized intersection. The MUTCD also gives the option of installing a presignal at a distance greater than 50 feet, if an engineering study determines a need; however, no specific guidelines are provided for such studies.This work uses a case study to determine which measures are needed to warrant a presignal and examines if the distance criterion of 50 feet between signalized intersections and highway/rail crossings is adequate. It also explores the need for consistent national standards to provide guidance to practitioners in determining the needs for the installation of such signals.The study finds that distance criterion should not be used as the sole indicator for the installation of a presignal and therefore, engineering studies must be performed in all cases to determine presignal needs. Furthermore, the work concluded that the MUTCD must be modified to provide standards and guidelines that can be used nationwide for systematic quantitative assessment in determining when presignals are warranted near railroad crossings. This study proposes that presignals be installed based on warrants that consist of crash data, queue distance and no gates at the crossing. The proposed modifications include describing presignal types, defining their purpose, developing presignal warrants, and creating guidelines that can be used by practitioners.The changes and revisions recommended by this research work include queue length analysis, signal phasing and timing modifications, and existing intersection infrastructure needs. The resulting warrants and guidelines for presignal installation can be used nationally to provide uniform guidance and recommendations in performing presignal studies.

Hävstångsprodukter på den finansiella marknaden har blivit en populär investeringsform bland investerare. Två av dessa produkter som kan användas för att få hävstång på investeringar är warranter och optioner. Dessa produkter liknar varandra men skiljer sig åt i pris och hur de handlas. En investerare i form av en småsparare är inte alltid påläst på hur dessa produkter prissätts och om det är någon skillnad i avkastningen mellan de två produkterna. För att orientera investerare i valet mellan warranter och optioner har en kvantitativ undersökning samt två intervjuer genomförts kring de två produkterna. Huvudsyftet är att kunna visa på om den ena produkten ger bättre avkastning än den andra och även studera vad som ligger till grund för prisskillnaden mellan produkterna. Den kvantitativa undersökningen baseras på åtta olika aktier som underliggande tillgång till warranter och optioner under fyra månader där data är hämtad från ett tradingprogram vid namn Infront. Med stöd av den kvantitativa undersökningen och de två intervjuer som har genomförts kan denna rapport visa att optioner nästintill ger dubbelt så hög avkastning som warranter, men också att spreaden är betydligt mindre i warranthandeln jämfört med optionshandeln. Rapporten visar även att den parameter som främst till grund för prisskillnaden mellan de två produkterna är volatiliteten.