Modeling Truth

Many in philosophy understand truth in terms of precise semantic values, true propositions. Following Braun and Sider, I say that in this sense almost nothing we say is, literally, true. I take the stand that this account of truth nonetheless constitutes a vitally useful idealization in understanding many features of the structure of language. The Fregean problem discussed by Braun and Sider concerns issues about application of language to the world. In understanding these issues I propose an alternative modeling tool summarized in the idea that inaccuracy of statements can be accommodated by their imprecision. This yields a pragmatist account of truth, but one not subject to the usual counterexamples. The account can also be viewed as an elaborated error theory. The paper addresses some prima facie objections and concludes with implications for how we address certain problems in philosophy

A qualitative program evaluation of a structured leadership mentoring program at a large aerospace corporation

The researcher utilized a qualitative approach to conduct a program evaluation of the organization where he is employed. The study intended to serve as a program evaluation for the structured in-house mentoring program at a large aerospace corporation (A-Corp). This program evaluation clarified areas in which the current mentoring program is lacking and could be improved to align with best practices for mentoring that have been identified in the research literature. As a participant observer, the researcher used telephone focus groups as the main data source. A secondary data source included documents such as the training manual and intranet descriptions of the program. Conclusions are discussed as follows: (a) the formal mentoring program offered several important benefits to mentees, mentors, and the company; (b) areas in which the mentoring program matches the best practices noted in the literature, according to participant responses and training materials reviewed by the researcher, in table format; and (c) a list summarizes what participants stated as the areas needing improvement, and this list is used as the basis for organizing the recommendations for practical applications

Probing Quantized Einstein-Rosen Waves with Massless Scalar Matter

The purpose of this paper is to discuss in detail the use of scalar matter coupled to linearly polarized Einstein-Rosen waves as a probe to study quantum gravity in the restricted setting provided by this symmetry reduction of general relativity. We will obtain the relevant Hamiltonian and quantize it with the techniques already used for the purely gravitational case. Finally we will discuss the use of particle-like modes of the quantized fields to operationally explore some of the features of quantum gravity within this framework. Specifically we will study two-point functions, the Newton-Wigner propagator, and radial wave functions for one-particle states.Comment: Accepted for publication in Physical Review

Conflict of Laws (2003)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2001, through November 1, 2002. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflicts of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. The discussion is organized according to conflict of laws categories. For jurisdiction over nonresidents, the categories are the grounds for amenability-consent, forum contacts, and grounds for declining jurisdiction. The choice of law categories reflect the hierarchy of choice of law rules, first statutory, then party choice of law, then the Restatement (Second)\u27s most-significant-relationship test, followed by miscellaneous issues such as constitutional limits, proof of foreign law, and limitations. The foreign judgments categories are enforcement (according to specific uniform acts) and preclusion (interstate and international). During the Survey period, forum contests included a variety of jurisdictional assertions over nonresidents in contract, tort and other settings. Jurisdictional theories included a service-of-suit clause construed as consent to amenability, alter-ego and the single-enterprise doctrine, and cases exploring the boundaries of general jurisdiction (such as jurisdiction based on unrelated banking activity). Jurisdiction was lacking over a Belgian employment law claim, and a nationwide federal long-arm failed because of a predicate venue provision. Courts reached opposite results in two internet cases, discussed retained jurisdiction under the new child custody act, and issued an unauthorized anti-suit injunction against a Mississippi lawsuit. Choice of law cases affirmed the parties\u27 right to choose their governing law, declined to adopt the Restatement\u27s statute of limitations rule, upheld arbitration agreements but strictly construed them to exclude children not subject to the contract, applied Texas insurance law--the insurable interest doctrine--to several companies\u27 purchase of life insurance policies on Texas employees (and considered the constitutionality given the case\u27s contacts with eight states), reiterated the requirements for proof of foreign law, and applied Texas\u27s new borrowing statute to an asbestosis claim arising in Alaska. Foreign judgments cases discussed the difference between jurisdictional facts and the merits in a jurisdictional challenge to a New Jersey judgment, upheld the validity of English due process, and found the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act persuasive in a preclusion case rejecting a non-monetary Mexican judgment

Conflict of Laws (2005)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2003 through November 31, 2004. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts; intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue; and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. The Survey period saw continued growth in forum contests, a record number of choice of law decisions, and a static number of judgment enforcements. The Texas Supreme Court offered significant opinions on (1) child custody jurisdiction, finding continuing Texas jurisdiction where the children had not lived in Texas for five years; (2) forum selection clauses, approving--in a case of first impression-- a mandamus remedy for a trial court\u27s refusal to honor a choice of forum clause; and (3) class actions, clarifying the requirement of a choice of law analysis in certifying multistate class actions

Conflict of Laws (2004)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2002, through November 1, 2003. The article excludes cases involving federalstate conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. The Survey period saw an expansive litigation of forum contests, including nine cases based on agency, alter ego, or corporate relationship. In choice of law, the United States Supreme Court issued what may be its most important ruling in fifty years, holding that the forum state may apply its own law without balancing the competing interests of other states, diminishing the constitutional role of interest analysis in choice of law. Texas state and federal courts continued their development of the most significant relationship test, including an unusual application of choice of law to fraudulent joinder in a federal diversity case. Foreign judgments cases followed a similar pattern of routine application of the uniform acts, but with instructive holdings in several areas of commercial litigation, arbitration and family law

Conflict of Laws (2003)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2001, through November 1, 2002. The article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time, such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflicts of laws is mostly a state law topic, except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. The discussion is organized according to conflict of laws categories. For jurisdiction over nonresidents, the categories are the grounds for amenability-consent, forum contacts, and grounds for declining jurisdiction. The choice of law categories reflect the hierarchy of choice of law rules, first statutory, then party choice of law, then the Restatement (Second)\u27s most-significant-relationship test, followed by miscellaneous issues such as constitutional limits, proof of foreign law, and limitations. The foreign judgments categories are enforcement (according to specific uniform acts) and preclusion (interstate and international). During the Survey period, forum contests included a variety of jurisdictional assertions over nonresidents in contract, tort and other settings. Jurisdictional theories included a service-of-suit clause construed as consent to amenability, alter-ego and the single-enterprise doctrine, and cases exploring the boundaries of general jurisdiction (such as jurisdiction based on unrelated banking activity). Jurisdiction was lacking over a Belgian employment law claim, and a nationwide federal long-arm failed because of a predicate venue provision. Courts reached opposite results in two internet cases, discussed retained jurisdiction under the new child custody act, and issued an unauthorized anti-suit injunction against a Mississippi lawsuit. Choice of law cases affirmed the parties\u27 right to choose their governing law, declined to adopt the Restatement\u27s statute of limitations rule, upheld arbitration agreements but strictly construed them to exclude children not subject to the contract, applied Texas insurance law--the insurable interest doctrine--to several companies\u27 purchase of life insurance policies on Texas employees (and considered the constitutionality given the case\u27s contacts with eight states), reiterated the requirements for proof of foreign law, and applied Texas\u27s new borrowing statute to an asbestosis claim arising in Alaska. Foreign judgments cases discussed the difference between jurisdictional facts and the merits in a jurisdictional challenge to a New Jersey judgment, upheld the validity of English due process, and found the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act persuasive in a preclusion case rejecting a non-monetary Mexican judgment

Conflict of Laws (2006)

States\u27 and nations\u27 laws collide when foreign factors appear in a lawsuit. Nonresident litigants, incidents outside the forum, parallel lawsuits, and judgments from other jurisdictions can create problems with personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition of foreign judgments. This Article reviews Texas conflicts cases from Texas state and federal courts during the Survey period from October 1, 2004 through November 31, 2005. The Article excludes cases involving federal-state conflicts, intrastate issues such as subject-matter jurisdiction and venue, and conflicts in time such as the applicability of prior or subsequent law within a state. State and federal cases are discussed together because conflict of laws is mostly a state law topic except for a few constitutional limits, resulting in the same rules applying to most issues in state and federal courts. During the Survey period, the Texas Supreme Court offered only two significant opinions: the first limited Texas jurisdiction for claims by Texas residents against nonresident vendors for products bought out of state, and the second reaffirmed the requirement that trial courts conduct rigorous choice-of-law analyses before certifying multi-state or nationwide class actions. Overall, the Survey period saw continued growth in forum contests, a record number of choice of law decisions, and a static number of judgment enforcements. Insurance-coverage disputes were prominent this year, including an impressive analysis by a Houston federal court in an Enron-related case. Other cases of interest include the dismissal, on parallel-litigation grounds, of the largest bankruptcy ever filed in the United States; a rare rejection of in rem jurisdiction on minimum-contacts grounds; and a good analysis of multiple forum clauses in badly drafted joint venture agreements