Suchergebnisse

AbstractMates's Puzzle has flown below many philosophers' radar, despite its relations to both Frege's Puzzle and the Paradox of Analysis. We explain the relations amongst these puzzles on the way to arguing that Mates's Puzzle suggests a generalization of Frege's Puzzle, and of the sense-reference distinction itself, in the form of hierarchy of senses. We explain how Mates's Puzzle and the hierarchy, to different degrees, illuminate each other, and how their connection is missed in the literature. However, we argue that the potential of Mates's Puzzle to illuminate the hierarchy is yet to be fully actualised. We suggest that in order to do better, we need to formulate Mates's Puzzle as a puzzle in the philosophy of thought and not as puzzle in the philosophy of language. What is needed, to which the present paper is a precursor, is an account of the cognitive significance of higher-order senses.

One of the best-known methods of multi-criteria decision-making is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This method provides a convenient and versatile framework for modeling multi-criteria decision problems, evaluating alternatives, and deriving final priorities. Rather than imposing a "correct" decision, AHP allows the user to create a ranking of alternatives, then choose the one which is the best (or among the best). At the core of AHP is a pairwise comparisons (PC) method. This is an old technique known in various forms since at least the Middle Ages. AHP uses and develops the PC method. The aim of Understanding the Analytic Hierarchy Process is to provide the reader with a critical guide to AHP. In this book, the AHP method is considered primarily as a mathematical technique supporting the decision-making process. Key Features Collects the ideas underpinning the AHP method and discusses them together with many improvements and extensions present in the literature. As a result, the reader will receive a much more complete picture of the method. Aimed at theorists and advanced practitioners from a wide range of scientific fields, including the social, management, and technical sciences. Highlights the intuitive assumptions underlying the mathematical methods that make up AHP and the pairwise comparisons method. Provides software code for readers who wish to practice AHP analysis using the Wolfram Language.

Democracy promises accountability via elections; bureaucracy promises coordination via hierarchy. Many scholars believe these properties conflict. We prove, however, that accountability is precisely what unifies democracy and meritocratic (Weberian) bureaucracy. Central to the concept of meritocracy are performance reviews. We prove that a review system where all individuals and groups are accountable must also be democratic. Thus, meritocratic hierarchy, accountability, and democracy are intertwined. But accountability in modern political systems confronts a significant issue. Such systems include many knowledge-intensive specialties, and since specializations are limited to some but not all members of an institution, the full accountability of democracies entails review of specialists by amateurs. We prove that modern political systems necessarily exhibit this tension. It is a hallmark of modern institutions rather than a problem to be solved.

Systems of law usually establish a hierarchy of norms based on the particular source from which the norms derive. In national legal systems, it is commonplace for the fundamental values of society to be given constitutional status and afforded precedence in the event of a conflict with norms enacted by legislation or adopted by administrative regulation; administrative rules themselves must conform to legislative mandates, while written law usually takes precedence over unwritten law and legal norms prevail over nonlegal (political or moral) rules. Norms of equal status must be balanced and reconciled to the extent possible. The mode of legal reasoning applied in practice is thus naturally hierarchical, establishing relationships and order between normative statements and levels of authority.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 -- Risk Prioritization of Deepwater Drilling Operations Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process -- Abstract -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Drilling Operations -- 2.1. Well Design Issues -- 2.2. Drilling Rigs -- 2.2.1. Jack-ups -- 2.2.2. Semisubmersibles -- 2.2.3. Drillships -- 2.3. Types of Wells -- 2.4. Preplanning -- 2.4.1. Preparation to Move the Rig -- 2.4.2. Spudding a Well -- 2.4.3. Drilling the Hole -- 2.5. Possible Down-Hole Problems -- 2.5.1. Shallow Gas -- 2.5.2. Gumbo -- 2.5.3. Lost Circulation -- 2.5.4. Underground Blow Out -- 2.5.5. Water Flow -- 2.5.6. Differential Sticking of Drill Strings -- 2.5.7. Sand -- 2.5.8. Salt Formations -- 2.5.9. Drilling Break -- 2.5.10. Stuck Pipe -- 2.5.11. Drilling Deviated Wells -- 3. Hazard Identification (HAZID) -- 4. Risk Filtering -- 5. Risk Ranking -- 6. Case Study -- 6.1. Application of Classical AHP -- 6.2. Application of Fuzzy AHP -- 7. Risk Management -- 7.1. General -- 7.2. Hazard Control -- 7.3. Safety Barriers -- 7.4. Well Control Philosophy -- 7.5. Well Control Barriers and Their Requirement -- Conclusion -- Appendix A: Classical AHP -- Appendix B: Fuzzy AHP -- References -- Chapter 2 -- A Multicriteria Assessment Tool for the Evaluation of Sustainable Railway Restructuring Models -- Abstract -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Literature Review -- 2.1. Consideration of Different Approaches to Railway Restructuring -- 2.2. Analyzing the Restructuring for Particular Countries -- 2.3. Application of MCDM Methods in Railway Restructuring -- 2.3.1. Some Examples of the Evaluation of Railway Restructuring -- 2.4. Influence of Restructuring on Railway Safety -- 2.5. Overview of Areas and Parameters of Railways Affected by Restructuring -- 3. Development of the MCDM Tool -- 3.1. A Brief about the AHP Method -- 3.2. Description of TOPSIS Method