Philosophers as Unreliable Narrators
The notorious distance between many academic writers’ on-the-page personae and their in-person personalities is widely thought to be a good thing. If, in person, many of us are quarrelsome, neurotic, egotistical, oblivious, thin-skinned, competitive, self-aggrandizing, and self-indulgent, yet on the page we appear gentle, thoughtful, courageous, well-informed, and touchingly vulnerable, then at least the research has not been contaminated by the personality. In daily life, we may or may not want to know the person behind the prose as a friend, colleague, boss, neighbor, lover, or presiding judge, but in our studies we expect to hear from a distinctive writing persona, someone calmer, more reliable, more open-minded than most of us ordinarily are. As philosophers, we are supposed to aspire to a higher writing self.
Performing Philosophy of Education "Whitely": Reliable Narration as Racialized Practice
In this essay, building upon Audrey Thompson’s analysis in “Philosophers as Unreliable Narrators,” I am interested in exploring how reliable narration lends itself to the performance of “whiteliness” through the creation and policing of racialized borders that dictate what can be said and by whom. That is, I wish to ask: how might reliable narration function within some philosophy of education discourse as part of a project of white identity formation? Furthermore, what might be the investments in and effects of structuring philosophy of education scholarship in such a way as to eliminate or assimilate the unpredictable, the “unruly,” the unknowable, in an attempt to claim civility and rationality for oneself? How might philosophy of education be narrated in a way that more adequately avoids the reproduction of racist discourses?
A Novel Approach for Evaluation of Multivariate Individual Bioequivalence
....................................................................................................................... XV PART – I ................................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 BIOEQUIVALENCE ................................................................................ 2 1.1 BIOEQUIVALENCE ............................................................................................................ 2 1.2 PHARMACOKINETIC (PK) PARAMETERS .......................................................................... 4 1.3 DESIGN OF BIOEQUIVALENCE STUDIES ............................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 2 ESTIMATION OF BIOEQUIVALENCE ............................................ 10 2.1 TYPES OF BIOEQUIVALENCE MEASURES ....................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Average Bioequivalence ........................................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Population Bioequivalence .................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Individual Bioequivalence ..................................................................................... 11 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF AVERAGE BIOEQUIVALENCE ............................................................... 12 2.2.1 Confidence Interval Approach ............................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Interval Hypothesis approach ............................................................................... 14 2.3 BASIS FOR POPULATION AND INDIVIDUAL BIOEQUIVALENCE ........................................ 16 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF POPULATION BIOEQUIVALENCE .......................................................... 20 2.5 ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL BIOEQUIVALENCE ........................................................... 22