title: Relativism, taste discourse, and retraction data: a reassessment

authors: Wyatt, Jeremy

abstract: Predicates of personal taste (PPT), which include words like 'tasty,' 'fun,' and 'cool,' have been at the centre of a set of lively, interdisciplinary debates for the past 20 years. These debates cover an impressive, and sometimes daunting, range of issues, including: disagreement, meaning, context-sensitivity, subjectivity and objectivity, truth, aesthetic and gustatory taste, evaluation, speech acts, and so on. Over the past 20 years, philosophers and linguists have engaged with these issues in developing many interestingly different accounts of what PPT mean and how we should evaluate assertions involving PPT. However, there is a foundational, methodological question that participants in the PPT debates have yet to adequately address: what sorts of evidence should be used in evaluating an account of PPT? In recent years, certain philosophers and linguists have pointed out that since accounts of PPT turn on empirical hypotheses about natural language, a proper evaluation of such an account must involve clearly articulated empirical diagnostics. In this talk, I will explore one of these diagnostics, which involves retraction. After setting out the major analyses of PPT, I'll consider the most influential explanation of why retraction data matter in the PPT debates, which comes from John MacFarlane. I'll identify two significant problems with MacFarlane's explanation and offer what I take to be a better explanation. I'll then draw on this explanation in reframing the significance of extant empirical data on PPT and retraction.

text: Relativism, taste discourse, and retraction data: a reassessment Predicates of personal taste (PPT), which include words like 'tasty,' 'fun,' and 'cool,' have been at the centre of a set of lively, interdisciplinary debates for the past 20 years. These debates cover an impressive, and sometimes daunting, range of issues, including: disagreement, meaning, context-sensitivity, subjectivity and objectivity, truth, aesthetic and gustatory taste, evaluation, speech acts, and so on. Over the past 20 years, philosophers and linguists have engaged with these issues in developing many interestingly different accounts of what PPT mean and how we should evaluate assertions involving PPT. However, there is a foundational, methodological question that participants in the PPT debates have yet to adequately address: what sorts of evidence should be used in evaluating an account of PPT? In recent years, certain philosophers and linguists have pointed out that since accounts of PPT turn on empirical hypotheses about natural language, a proper evaluation of such an account must involve clearly articulated empirical diagnostics. In this talk, I will explore one of these diagnostics, which involves retraction. After setting out the major analyses of PPT, I'll consider the most influential explanation of why retraction data matter in the PPT debates, which comes from John MacFarlane. I'll identify two significant problems with MacFarlane's explanation and offer what I take to be a better explanation. I'll then draw on this explanation in reframing the significance of extant empirical data on PPT and retraction.

year: 2022-08-18

title: Suboptimal Choice Behaviour in Hens

authors: Ngatai, Karmen Louise

subjects: Suboptimal Choice

abstract: Choice performances of six Brown Shaver hens were studied across three series of conditions, using a partial replication of Stagner and Zentall’s (2010) procedure.  Hens chose between two alternatives during choice-trials.  Choice of the low-probability alternative provided one of two stimuli that reliably predicted 100% reinforcement on 20% of the trials, and 0% reinforcement on the remaining 80% of trials.  Choice of the non-discriminative alternative provided one of two unreliable stimuli that non-differentially signalled 50% reinforcement, regardless of the stimulus presented.  In Conditions 1-4 and Condition 6, the stimuli and reinforcement contingencies associated with the side keys were repeatedly reversed across conditions.  In Condition 5, stimulus and reinforcement contingencies were each equated at 50%.  Results replicated Stagner and Zentall’s (2010) findings demonstrating that choice for the low-probability alternative for most hens remained almost exclusive across reversals, except Condition 5 where previous choice performances for all subjects, was disrupted.  In Conditions 7-11, the reliability of the low-probability stimuli was gradually decreased across conditions.  Results showed that the decreasing reliability of the low-probability stimuli did not deter many hens from choosing suboptimally.  Conditions 12 and 13 reversed Conditions 8 and 11, respectively.  Results showed that choice performances for most hens in Condition 13 varied considerably from Condition 11.  The main finding from this study is that hens do not exclusively choose signals that reliably signal a reinforcing outcome.  This is because choice for the low-probability alternative for many hens was not affected when the reliability of those signals decreased.  This suggests that the signals themselves may be more reinforcing than their subsequent outcome which may have implications for human gambling behaviour.

text: Suboptimal Choice Behaviour in Hens Choice performances of six Brown Shaver hens were studied across three series of conditions, using a partial replication of Stagner and Zentall’s (2010) procedure.  Hens chose between two alternatives during choice-trials.  Choice of the low-probability alternative provided one of two stimuli that reliably predicted 100% reinforcement on 20% of the trials, and 0% reinforcement on the remaining 80% of trials.  Choice of the non-discriminative alternative provided one of two unreliable stimuli that non-differentially signalled 50% reinforcement, regardless of the stimulus presented.  In Conditions 1-4 and Condition 6, the stimuli and reinforcement contingencies associated with the side keys were repeatedly reversed across conditions.  In Condition 5, stimulus and reinforcement contingencies were each equated at 50%.  Results replicated Stagner and Zentall’s (2010) findings demonstrating that choice for the low-probability alternative for most hens remained almost exclusive across reversals, except Condition 5 where previous choice performances for all subjects, was disrupted.  In Conditions 7-11, the reliability of the low-probability stimuli was gradually decreased across conditions.  Results showed that the decreasing reliability of the low-probability stimuli did not deter many hens from choosing suboptimally.  Conditions 12 and 13 reversed Conditions 8 and 11, respectively.  Results showed that choice performances for most hens in Condition 13 varied considerably from Condition 11.  The main finding from this study is that hens do not exclusively choose signals that reliably signal a reinforcing outcome.  This is because choice for the low-probability alternative for many hens was not affected when the reliability of those signals decreased.  This suggests that the signals themselves may be more reinforcing than their subsequent outcome which may have implications for human gambling behaviour.

year: 2013

title: Developing an integrated ocean observing system for New Zealand

authors: O'Callaghan, J

subjects: Science & Technology

abstract: New Zealand (NZ) is an island nation with stewardship of an ocean twenty times larger than its land area. While the challenges facing NZ's ocean are similar to other maritime countries, no coherent national plan exists that meets the needs of scientists, stakeholders or kaitiakitanga (guardianship) of NZ's ocean in a changing climate. The NZ marine science community used the OceanObs'19 white paper to establish a framework and implementation plan for a collaborative NZ ocean observing system (NZ-OOS). Co-production of ocean knowledge with Māori will be embedded in this national strategy for growing a sustainable, blue economy for NZ. The strengths of an observing system for a relatively small nation come from direct connections between the science impetus through to users and stakeholders of an NZ-OOS. The community will leverage off existing ocean observations to optimize effort and resources in a system that has historically made limited investment in ocean observing. The goal of the community paper will be achieved by bringing together oceanographers, data scientists and marine stakeholders to develop an NZ-OOS that provides best knowledge and tools to the sectors of society that use or are influenced by the ocean.

text: Developing an integrated ocean observing system for New Zealand New Zealand (NZ) is an island nation with stewardship of an ocean twenty times larger than its land area. While the challenges facing NZ's ocean are similar to other maritime countries, no coherent national plan exists that meets the needs of scientists, stakeholders or kaitiakitanga (guardianship) of NZ's ocean in a changing climate. The NZ marine science community used the OceanObs'19 white paper to establish a framework and implementation plan for a collaborative NZ ocean observing system (NZ-OOS). Co-production of ocean knowledge with Māori will be embedded in this national strategy for growing a sustainable, blue economy for NZ. The strengths of an observing system for a relatively small nation come from direct connections between the science impetus through to users and stakeholders of an NZ-OOS. The community will leverage off existing ocean observations to optimize effort and resources in a system that has historically made limited investment in ocean observing. The goal of the community paper will be achieved by bringing together oceanographers, data scientists and marine stakeholders to develop an NZ-OOS that provides best knowledge and tools to the sectors of society that use or are influenced by the ocean.

year: 2019-03-26