2444402 research outputs found
Sort by
Tanya Titchkosky, Elaine Cagulada, and Madeleine DeWelles with Efrat Gold. DisAppearing: Encounters in Disability Studies. Toronto: Canadian Scholars, 2022
No full text
Epistocracy
No full textTo avoid the alleged ignorance of citizens that is considered detrimental to democracies, advocates of epistocracy propose that only the voices or votes of a limited group of citizens should be taken into account, of those that are in the knowing. In recent proposals, the suggested selection criterion often is passing a knowledge test related to political or social issues that would qualify citizens to fully participate, to be granted full voting rights. In these tests, social scientific knowledge takes a prominent place. This raises the question of whether restricting full rights to those that allegedly have better social scientific knowledge would lead to a better government of society. We review arguments pro and contra, and defend that even in epistemic terms democracy does better than epistocracy. Three questions will be addressed: What knowledge is relevant? Do epistocrats possess better knowledge? Have epistocrats considered the epistemic benefits of a more democratic approach? Regarding the “impact” social sciences could or should have, evaluating the epistocrats’ proposals helps us to better stipulate the social sciences’ role in democracies as well as their social-epistemic adjustment to that role – which requires the sciences to be democratised, to fit democracy as much as possible.To avoid the alleged ignorance of citizens that is considered detrimental to democracies, advocates of epistocracy propose that only the voices or votes of a limited group of citizens should be taken into account, of those that are in the knowing. In recent proposals, the suggested selection criterion often is passing a knowledge test related to political or social issues that would qualify citizens to fully participate, to be granted full voting rights. In these tests, social scientific knowledge takes a prominent place. This raises the question of whether restricting full rights to those that allegedly have better social scientific knowledge would lead to a better government of society. We review arguments pro and contra, and defend that even in epistemic terms democracy does better than epistocracy. Three questions will be addressed: What knowledge is relevant? Do epistocrats possess better knowledge? Have epistocrats considered the epistemic benefits of a more democratic approach? Regarding the “impact” social sciences could or should have, evaluating the epistocrats’ proposals helps us to better stipulate the social sciences’ role in democracies as well as their social-epistemic adjustment to that role – which requires the sciences to be democratised, to fit democracy as much as possible.B
The Early Iron Age south-east building in Thorikos
No full textBetween 2019 and 2025, an Early iron Age building was excavated on the southeastern slopes of the Velatouri Hill at Thorikos. At least three phases could be distinguished, the last one ending in a destruction by fire that left part of the domestic ceramic inventory in situ. In the second phase, the building consisted of a central one-room building (Room C) connected to a courtyard area (Rooms A and D); Room D became a sort of shed in the third phase. The chronology on the basis of the painted pottery styles runs from Late Protogeometric to early Middle Geometric I on the basis of partial study of the finds. Plan, function and construction techniques are discussed in relation to current knowledge of the period in Attica and with an outlook to further analyses that are underway.Between 2019 and 2025, an Early iron Age building was excavated on the southeastern slopes of the Velatouri Hill at Thorikos. At least three phases could be distinguished, the last one ending in a destruction by fire that left part of the domestic ceramic inventory in situ. In the second phase, the building consisted of a central one-room building (Room C) connected to a courtyard area (Rooms A and D); Room D became a sort of shed in the third phase. The chronology on the basis of the painted pottery styles runs from Late Protogeometric to early Middle Geometric I on the basis of partial study of the finds. Plan, function and construction techniques are discussed in relation to current knowledge of the period in Attica and with an outlook to further analyses that are underway.C
Romanian plăcea ‘like’ : an alternating Dat-Nom/Nom-Dat verb
No full textIn several Indo-European languages, including Romanian, predicates such as plăcea ‘like' from Latin placēre ‘like, please’, are found selecting for a dative experiencer and a nominative stimulus, which appear to allow for two opposite, but equally neutral, word orders, i.e. dativebefore-nominative and nominative-before-dative. This stands in stark contrast with topicalized datives, which are always focal in Romanian. We hypothesize that the two word orders with plăcea represent two diametrically-opposed argument structures, Dat-Nom and Nom-Dat,thus predicting that the dative behaves syntactically as a subject in Dat-Nom structures and the nominative as a subject in Nom-Dat structures. An inspection of seven subject tests, recently applied in the literature on Romanian, reveals that two of these do not distinguish between subjects and objects, while the remaining five confirm that either argument of plăcea, the dative or the nominative, passes the subject tests, with the other argument, the nominative or the dative, behaving as an object.In several Indo-European languages, including Romanian, predicates such as plăcea ‘like' from Latin placēre ‘like, please’, are found selecting for a dative experiencer and a nominative stimulus, which appear to allow for two opposite, but equally neutral, word orders, i.e. dativebefore-nominative and nominative-before-dative. This stands in stark contrast with topicalized datives, which are always focal in Romanian. We hypothesize that the two word orders with plăcea represent two diametrically-opposed argument structures, Dat-Nom and Nom-Dat,thus predicting that the dative behaves syntactically as a subject in Dat-Nom structures and the nominative as a subject in Nom-Dat structures. An inspection of seven subject tests, recently applied in the literature on Romanian, reveals that two of these do not distinguish between subjects and objects, while the remaining five confirm that either argument of plăcea, the dative or the nominative, passes the subject tests, with the other argument, the nominative or the dative, behaving as an object.A
