(1) This paper uses the following binary relations: > (is preferred to); ⩽ (is not preferred to); < (is less preferred than); ~ (is indifferent to). (2) Savage used primitive ⩾, postulated to be connected and transitive onA (the set of acts), to define the others: [x ~ y ⇔ (x ⩽ y and y ⩽ x)]; [y < x ⇔ notx ⩽ y]; [x > y ⇔ y < x]. Independently of the axioms, this definition implies that ⩽ and (...) > are complementary relations onA: [x < y ⇔ notx > y]. (3) Pratt, Raiffa and Schlaifer used primitive ⩽, postulated to be transitive onL (the set of lotteries), to define the others with a different expression for <: [x < y ⇔ (x ⩽ y and noty ⩽ x)]. Thus, ⩽ and > are not necessarily complementary onL; since ⩽ is not postulated to be connected onL, but connected ⩽ is necessary and sufficient for such complementarity. Since the restriction of ⩽ to the subsetA ofL is connected, ⩽ and > are complementary onA. (4) Fishburn used primitive < onA to define the others with different expression for ~ and ⩽: [x ~ y ⇔ (notx < y and noty < x)]; [x ⩽ y ⇔ (x < y orx ~ y)]. His version of Savage's theory then assumed that < is asymmetric and negatively transitive onA. Thus, ⩽ and > are complementary, since asymmetric < is necessary and sufficient for such complementarity. (5) This analysis provides a new proof that the same list of elementary properties of binary relations onA applies to all three theories: ⩽ is connected, transitive, weakly connected, reflexive, and negatively transitive; while both < and > are asymmetric, negatively transitive, antisymmetric, irreflexive, and transitive; but only ~ is symmetric. (shrink)

This collection of papers by Douglas Campbell discusses some of the more important issues in social science methodology and epistemology which have surfaced during the past forty years. In the words of the editor, this volume is not only an occasion to assess Campbell's contribution to the social sciences but an occasion also "to understand... the contemporary social sciences from a technical, theoretical, philosophical and sociological perspective". Not everyone will agree with Campbell on all issues raised in this book but (...) his unique contributions to the discourse on these issues need be taken into account by serious scholars. (shrink)

Synthetic biology, as a research field, brings together molecular life scientists, computational biologists, and social scientists to engineer biological systems toward societally desired goals. Given the field’s broad multidisciplinarity and relatively young age, innovative educational methods are required to provide students with the needed background knowledge to push the field forward in the future. The international Genetically Engineered Machine competition is such an example where education and high-level research merge, providing the synthetic biology field with trained students, new ideas, and (...) novel results. In the 2021 edition alone, 343 teams from across the world completed the competition to tackle societal problems with synthetic biology. As Wageningen University & Research celebrates 10 years of participation in iGEM, we share our thoughts and experiences on supervising iGEM teams, which is especially relevant to organizers of current and new teams, and also others interested in the iGEM competition. (shrink)

Humans are experts in cooperating with each other when trying to accomplish tasks they cannot achieve alone. Recent studies of joint action have shown that when performing tasks together people strongly rely on the neurocognitive mechanisms that they also use when performing actions individually, that is, they predict the consequences of their co‐actor’s behavior through internal action simulation. Context‐sensitive action monitoring and action selection processes, however, are relatively underrated but crucial ingredients of joint action. In the present paper, we try (...) to correct the somewhat simplified view on joint action by reviewing recent studies of joint action simulation, monitoring, and selection while emphasizing the intricate interrelationships between these processes. We complement our review by defining the contours of a neurologically plausible computational framework of joint action. (shrink)

At On Generation and Corruption I.7.323b1–324a5, Aristotle claims that his new method of analysis for fundamental bodies and properties resolves a traditional apparent incompatibility between opposed principles applied by different philosophical authorities to the problem of affecting and being affected (poiein and paschein): that the like interacts with the unlike, and that the like interacts with the like. Twice in this passage, Aristotle uses a form of the term hupenantion (etymologically, ‘sub-oppositional’) in an extended discussion that includes his declaration of (...) the critical insight for solving the problem and illuminates the partial truth of each of the apparently antithetical universal principles. Because Aristotle uses the uncommon term twice in close context, and because he also explains in the context how he understands the apparent incompatibility—characterized both as a verbal opposition or enantiologia and also as a partial articulation of what should be theorized as a whole—it seems (and has seemed) plausible that this augmented form of the frequently used term enantion (‘opposite’ or ‘contrary’) carries methodological weight for indicating a kind of apparent incompatibility that can be resolved through supplementation to both of the opposed statements rather than elimination of or even favor for one or the other. Although the sense of hupenantion in On Generation and Corruption 1.7 is not continuous with the concept of the ‘subcontrary’ developed by ancient commentators on Aristotle’s Interpretations and early modern logicians, a full survey of the use of this term in Aristotle’s writings shows that Aristotle did recognize and lexically mark a special kind of opposition, one productive of intellectual progress rather than indicative of total error on one side of the debate. (shrink)