Suchergebnisse

Cooper, Frederick. Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. 327 pp

A Knowledge factor, allergy history, and environment strongly influence the incidence of Dermatitis, followed by allergy history factors. From the survey results, the problem in this study is the high cases of Dermatitis in the community, which reached 623 points. This study aims to examine the impact of Knowledge, history of allergies, and the environment on the incidence of Dermatitis in the working area of Alue Rambot health center, Darul Makmur District Nagan Raya district. The research method used in this research is analytic with a cross-sectional design. This research was conducted in January 2022, The population in this study is people who suffer from Dermatitis in the working area of the Alue Rambot Health Center, as many as 623 sufferers, the sample in this study was taken based on the Slovin formula with an error rate (0.1), where a sample of 86 respondents was obtained with criteria who were willing to be interviewed and were in the working area of the Puskesmas. Processing data using statistical tests, namely univariate and bivariate analysis, then tested using the Chi-Square test. The study results stated that after being analyzed, it turned out that there was an impact of Knowledge, history of allergies, and the environment affected the incidence of Dermatitis as evidenced by the value (P-value 0.05) with the Prevalence Ratio (7.302, 3.062, and 2.460). The conclusion turns out that the lack of public knowledge about the causes of Dermatitis, the presence of a previous history of allergies, and the environment regarding poor personal Hygiene has a significant influence on the incidence of Dermatitis. Local government advice directly implement socialization about Dermatitis by increasing Knowledge, breaking the chain of causes of allergy recurrence, and improving the cleanliness of the surrounding environment for the formation of work areas whose communities are dermatitis-free.

Leo Strauss (What Is Political Philosophy?, Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1959) proposes as a criterion for the adequacy of an interpretation of a philosophical text that it understand the "thought of a philosopher exactly as he understood himself." This claim is examined from the perspective of a newly formulated version of historicism. Knowledge cannot be regarded as a timeless entity, but rather as a continuing process within history. Thus, it is not possible either to isolate one moment in a thinker's life at which his thought formed a complete & unified system, or to isolate one's own reading from the accumulation of knowledge since the work read was first written. It is possible to recognize philosophical facts that represent the universal & permanent structure of human existence, but these facts are understood in a way subject to historical change & growth. In On Rules of Philosophic Interpretation: A Critique of Ryn's "Knowledge and History," Eugene F. Miller (U of Georgia, Athens) finds that Ryn does not develop Strauss's approach in a way consistent with what Strauss intended. This approach was intended to teach philosophic humility, & embodied a rejection of the historicist position that past thinkers can be understood better in the present than they understood themselves. Ryn's views do not appear to be historicist; further he does not refute Strauss's proposed rule, & disregards Strauss's own recognition that knowledge is not static or timeless. In Strauss and Knowledge: A Rejoinder, Claes G. Ryn finds that Miller's recommended intellectual humility is implicitly based on the idea that certain great thinkers are free of the tendencies to imprecision & incompleteness that are present in all other thinkers. Strauss's actual ideas contain a number of tensions & inconsistencies that Miller does not succeed in resolving; his repetition of Strauss's position does not establish any new basis from which that position might be defended. W. H. Stoddard.

he Australian Curriculum History, like all curriculum texts, is one version of legitimate knowledge, which has been "produced out of the cultural, political, economic conflicts, tensions and compromises that organise and disorganise a people" (Apple, 1993, p.1). This presentation highlights the 'spaces' and 'places' of the curriculum as representations of particular knowledge and identities. Whose knowledge is privileged and what places and perspectives on place are positioned as significant? How do orientations to spatial markers – local, regional, national, global – seek to organise and disorganise? This paper draws on critical theory and a detailed discourse analysis of the Australian Curriculum History and accompanying professional resources. This analysis examines the way that particular perspectives and judgements about 'significance' privilege and marginalise. The document analysis is complemented by a case study of school practice that positions students as key agents in legitimating local knowledge.