A classical degree-theoretic treatment of the sorites paradox : master's thesis in philosophy

Since 1970s, degree-of-truth theory has been proposed as a solution to the Sorites paradox. However, one perennial attack to degree-of-truth theory is that its logic - fuzzy logic - is non-classical. Inspired by Gödel (1933), I attempt to better degree-of-truth theory by classicalizing it. That is, I attempt to give an interpretation of fuzzy logic within classical logic enriched by degree operators {⚪, ◔, ◑, ◕, ⚫} - “it is of no/low/moderate/high/full degree that …”. Intuitively, degree-of-truth is classicalized as classical bivalent truth-value and a largely independent notion of degrees. A formal semantics of this enriched classical logic is presented, from which two semantic consequences are derived. The two semantic consequences are applied to analyse the (in)validity of the Sorites argument. There are two results: 1. the validity of the standard Sorites argument is reasserted, 2. a new argument for the invalidity of the degreed version of the Sorites argument is presented.https://www.ester.ee/record=b5239778*es

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field