Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

Objective: the objective of this research work was to obtain the varietal description of two varieties of chile manzano in Las Montañas in the center of Veracruz, México. Design/methodology/approach: the varietal characterization module was established under greenhouse conditions at the Centro de Bachillerato Tecnológico Agropecuario No. 99 in the municipality of Coscomatepec de Bravo. The recorded descriptors were in accordance with the International of Plant Genetic Resources Institute for Capsicum and the Graphic Handbook for Variety Description of manzano hot pepper. The plants were characterized from the seedling to the adult plant. The agronomic management of the crop was carried out in accordance with the manual for the production of manzano hot pepper in Las Montañas of the state of Veracruz. Results: all qualitative descriptors were constant for the two varieties MEXUVNE1-15-C2 and MEXUVCU1-16-C2 from seedling to fruiting; in contrast, there were dissimilarities in plant height, stem, leaf, flower, fruit and seed dimensions. Limitations of the study/implications: the pandemic caused by COVID-19 was the main limitation so that some descriptors were not recorded in a timely manner as indicated in the Graphic Handbook. Findings/conclusions: both varieties are very similar; however, the greatest distinction was in the quantitative type descriptors such as: plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter and number of seeds.

I will defend that it is necessary to defeat first-person perspective primacy arguments within the epistemology of disagreement to preserve the required epistemic equivalence for assessing appropriately dispute between pairs. The latter implies to argue why these arguments undermine the aforementioned equivalence. Secondly, I will justify the relevance of this symmetry for the epistemological analysis of disagreement. Thirdly, I will argue that maintaining the epistemic equivalence in idealized cases of disagreement does not imply a conciliationist stance since it is possible to propose a non-conformist approach without undermining symmetry by distinguishing acceptance and belief.

We present a novel interpretation of Frege’s theories in Begriffsschrift (1879/2016) and “Über Sinn und Bedeutung” (1892a [2016]). We focus on the role of circumstances as the conceptual content of sentences in Begriffsschrift and we argue that none of the reasons Frege gives in “Über Sinn und Bedeutung” to establish truth-values as the reference of sentences justifies their elimination. This paper is not mainly historical, but rather of conceptual reconstruction. We look for the roots of a pluralist conception of sentence’s content (Perry, 2001/2012; Korta & Perry, 2011) in Frege.

The Frege-Geach problem relates to give an account of the same propositional content appearing in different contexts both affirmed and not affirmed. It is a major challenge for a view in which a predicative proposition is inherently committal. Fairly, Peter Hanks has recently supported such a view by holding that an act of predication is a judgement. He then faces the Frege-Geach problem by arguing that some contexts cancel the normal commitment with the truth. But according to several critics, there is a dilemma here of either cancellation leaving us with something minus predication or leaving us with predication minus commitment. In this paper, I propose an approach to the dilemma that appeals to the non-committal nature of propositions but saves the close link between predication and judgement. I also try to explain such a close link by developing a metaphysics of judgement in terms of grounding between facts, with facts about judgement only partially grounded in facts about predication.

In this paper I will be interested in presenting some feminist arguments against surrogacy. My main aim is to distinguish them from conservative or neo-conservative positions that are also against surrogacy but are based on different assumptions and it is not appropriate to compare them even if they also present themselves as objectors. I will also be interested in highlighting the impact of some early feminist approaches to bioethics. Thirdly, I will propose two axes for further reflection on this topic: a relational and contextual vision of autonomy and the de-biologisation and re-biologisation of a social bond.

In his well-known Knowledge Argument (KA) Frank Jackson attempted to show that physicalism is false by offering a case that allegedly showed that a complete physicalist description of the world leaves something crucial out, namely the phenomenal qualities of experience. Eventually Jackson himself retracted and claimed that the interesting task is to explain where and why intuition-pumping arguments against physicalism such as the KA go wrong. This is exactly the task that occupies this paper: to discuss and criticize three of the most important diagnoses of the KA’s weak points and to offer my own view about the latter. Along the way, several important but often neglected features of the KA are expounded and clarified.

Within the philosophy of mathematical practice, the question of purity of methods has been gaining a place in research and publication agendas. It is usually assumed that “pure” is a predicate of solutions or proofs, which is satisfied when they are intrinsic to the problems or theorems. In this paper I argue for the adoption of a broader conception, according to which purity of method emerges naturally in the practice of constructing autonomous mathematical theories, and I show how the usual conception is enriched from this.

The research on joking is at the center of the study of the relationship between language and humor. We firstly examine the possibility of analyzing joking using the tools provided by Speech Act Theory, in particular by neoaustinian versions of the theory. Secondly, the results obtained in the first part of the work are applied to set a hypothesis about the linguistic relativity of humor, according to which the habits in the use of joking in a certain society or group nontrivially influence the private-individual uses of humor.

How to conceive a school as a space of acceptance and coexistence between subjects who act in such different ways? Where do many no longer fit within the pre-established (hetero) norm that judges, sentences and punishes behavior outside of male / female binarism? The idea of a non-heteronormative school fits within the concept of heterotopy, a place or space that operates in non-hegemonic conditions. It is intended to describe situations in which students who have different forms of subjectivity assume a posture of acceptance and conviviality of their differences. A study is proposed using post-structuralist and Queer Theory assumptions, aiming to demonstrate how students (dancers) and non-dancers live in a non-heteronormative way. It was analyzed through ethnography how the students positioned themselves in relation to issues of heteronormative differences and the interactions between dancers and non-dancers students at different times and spaces in the school were described. The analyzed school can be considered a heterotopy, where most students accept each other and live together in order to respect their subjectivities.

This article presents the results of research conducted at Macaé Campus of Instituto Federal Fluminense (Rio de Janeiro State/Brazil). The information was collected from students who did not finish their technical education at the institution. From references that put social and educational inequalities into question, which consider these problems as interrelated processes, a survey questionnaire was elaborated and sent to students who were dropping out, transferring, suspending, or canceling their enrollment, to get to know their reality and the cause(s) of their early exit from the course. The description and analysis of the main reasons mentioned by them for dropping out are the primary focus of this text.