Standpoint epistemologies are based on two central theses: the situated knowledge thesis and the thesis of epistemic privilege. The bias paradox suggests that there is a tension between these two notions, in the sense that they are self-contradictory. In this paper, I aim to defend standpoint epistemologies from this challenge. This defense is based on a distinction between subjective and objective justifications. According to the former, a subject S is subjectively justified in believing a proposition P iff S's belief in P coheres with S's pre-existing beliefs. According to the latter, a subject S is objectively justified in believing a proposition P iff S's subjective justification is truth-conducive. I argue that, if the situated knowledge thesis is spelled out in terms of subjective justification, and if the thesis of epistemic privilege is spelled out in terms of objective justification, then there is no contradiction. If this line of thought is correct, then the bias paradox does not show that standpoint epistemologies are self-contradictory.

The design and analysis of competition experiments should be based on an unambiguous objective. Recent criticisms of particular designs have been made without reference to objectives and may be misleading. Three common designs are discussed: additive, replacement series, and response surface. Additive designs are well suited to agronomic objectives; replacement series are useful for comparing pairs of species; response surface designs can be used for most objectives but may be unnecessarily complex. The published criticisms of additive and replacement series designs are argued to be acceptable limitations within the bounds of the objectives for which they are used. Concerns about these designs confounding density and proportion are irrelevant to the objectives for which they are most suited. The continued use of multiple comparison tests is argued to be illogical. Regression approaches to analysis are more relevant, many non-linear equations are now easy to fit to data and these can be used without the need for linearization. However, there are various pitfalls not adequately reported to date. In particular, error structures need to be checked carefully and over-elaborate equations should be avoided.

When seeking help or advice, one naturally wishes to get that aid from someone who does the task well, from an expert. Determining whether someone merits that label is not trivial, and the judgment can have important consequences. Experts in most domains, from athletes to plumbers, need to exhibit a high level of performance to maintain their status. But there is another group of professionals that is never examined. The expert status of such experts is conferred via criteria such as education or experience. While their credentials may be challenged, their work itself is not seen to bear upon their status. We refer to this group as privileged experts. These experts make assessments or predictions whose correctness is rarely evaluated. Even if prophecy fails, errors are forgiven. We account for this non-evidentiary perspective by positing a widely-held misconception that expertise generalizes. We outline a task-specific, performance-based, limited-term certification scheme that can supplant privilege.

Background: Subjective memory complaints are a requirement in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as they are thought to indicate a decline in objective memory performance. However, recent research suggests that the relationship between subjective memory complaint and objective memory impairment is less clear. Thus, it is possible that many people without subjective memory complaints who develop Alzheimer's disease are precluded from a diagnosis of MCI.

Methods: The present study examined the relationship between subjective memory complaint assessed using the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ) and objective memory impairment assessed using standard neuropsychological measures in cases of amnestic MCI (n = 48), non-amnestic MCI (n = 27), and unimpaired healthy participants (n = 64).

Results: Correlational and regression analyses indicated that subjective memory complaints displayed a poor relationship with objective memory performance. A subsequent discriminant function analysis indicated that subjective memory complaints failed to improve the diagnostic accuracy of MCI and resulted in increased rates of false negative and false positive diagnoses.

Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that a diagnostic criterion of subjective memory complaint reduces the accuracy of MCI diagnosis, resulting in an elevated rate of false positive and false negative diagnoses. The results of this study in conjunction with recent research indicate that a criterion of subjective memory complaint should be discarded from emerging diagnostic criteria for MCI.

In general, the smile that orthodontists try to create at the end of treatment satisfies objective functional criteria as well as subjective esthetic criteria.

It’s obvious that in today’s society, a smile plays an important role in nonverbal communication: restoring or enhancing this smile is, in fact, the main reason patients consult their orthodontists.

After reviewing the literature, we were able to identify various factors involved in the perception of a smile and to underscore the esthetic connection between the smile and the face.

Is there a relationship between the smile and facial harmony?

What are the objective criteria that allow us to discern whether a smile is pleasant or not?

Our study confirmed that the esthetics of the face correlates with the perception of the smile and that the factors discussed in the literature pertaining to this correlation are valid.

However, the study has also made it possible to clarify the respective influence of various factors as they relate to a pleasant smile, an unattractive smile or an unsightly smile. Therefore, our study has shown that objective functional criteria are involved in the entirely subjective esthetic realm of a smile.

The effectiveness of humanitarian programs normally is evaluated according to a limited number of pre-defined objectives. These objectives typically represent only selected positive expected impacts of program interventions and as such, are inadequate benchmarks for understanding the overall effectiveness of aid.This is because programs also have unexpected impacts (both positive and negative) as well as expected negative impacts and expected positive impacts beyond the program objectives.The authors contend that these other categories of program impacts also should be assessed, and suggest a methodology for doing so that draws on input from the perspectives of beneficiaries. This paper includes examples of the use of this methodology in the field. Finally, the authors suggest future directions for improving this type of expanded assessment and advocate for its widespread use, both within and without the field of disaster response.

Whilst clinical success of endoscopic surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis has necessarily depended primarily upon subjective evaluation, a range of objective techniques are now available which may facilitate our interpretation of results. A group of 200 patients underwent assessment of symptoms by sequential visual analogue scoring, olfaction by qualitative and quantitative testing, nasal airflow by forced inspiratory peak flow, anterior rhinomanometry, nasomucociliary function by ciliary beat frequency and nasal topography by acoustic rhinometry performed pre- and post-operatively. Significant improvement was demonstrated in all symptoms examined, olfactory tests and ciliary beat frequency whilst acoustic rhinometry provided an attempt to quantify the surgical cavities. These results offer an interesting perspective on the pathology of rhinosinusitis and the rationale for surgery within the ostiomeatal complex.