文法识别与数据库汉语查询语言的结构分析

由于自然语言的复杂性和随意性，自然语言理解在人工智能领域中遇到了一些问题，而作为数据库，自然语言界面从一定程度上简化了自然语言理解的难度．把这些查询句加以归类整理，形成相应的模式类，并提出了具体的理解算法，较好地解决了在自然语言用于数据库查询时的理解问题，达到了预想的结果．     

The goal of explanation

I defend the claim that understanding is the goal of explanation against various persistent criticisms, especially the criticism that understanding is not truth-connected in the appropriate way, and hence is a merely psychological (rather than epistemic) state. Part of the reason why understanding has been dismissed as the goal of explanation, I suggest, is because the psychological dimension of the goal of explanation has itself been almost entirely neglected. In turn, the psychological dimension of understanding—the Aha! experience, the sense that a certain explanation “feels right”, and so on—has been conspicuously overemphasized. I try to correct for both of these exaggerations. Just as the goal of explanation includes a richer psychological—including phenomenological—dimension than is generally acknowledged, so too understanding has a stronger truth connection than is generally acknowledged.     

科技英语翻译中词汇的理解和选择

词义的理解和选择是科技英语翻译中的难点,本文通过一些译例和说明,阐述了科技英语翻译中,如何进行词义的选择和确定。     

知生知死知我——“子曰：‘未知生焉知死？’”简论

“生”与“死”是孔子学说中没有明言的问题，通过遮诠的表述，孔子表达了对“生”、“死”问题上采用对象化把握方式的反对。孔子对“知生”与“知死”割裂表诠，意在通过不可言说的言说，达到对“知生”与“知死”本是同一过程的领悟。在此领悟中，此在退回到本真能在。知生即为知死，知死即为知我。     

和谐社会的系统理解范式

基于思想史,指出了构建和谐社会的系统理解范式的现实意义;揭示了和谐社会的历史性、地域性、系统性和涌现性特征和社会主义和谐社会的本质特征;阐释了和谐社会理解的系统性、认知主体的层次性,在认识论维度、本体论维度和伦理维度下阐述了和谐社会理解系统的基本范畴及其辨证关系,并在此基础上构建了和谐社会的系统理解范式。     

"领会教学法"在高校羽毛球选项课中的教学实验研究

为适应高校体育教学课程改革,本文将"领会教学法"运用于高校羽毛球球选修课的教学中,进行了108学时的教学实验,实验结果表明:"领会教学法"可更好地调动学生学习的积极性和主动性,对学生羽毛球技术掌握、技战术灵活运用和提高身体素质等反面收到很好的效果,符合素质教育的发展方向,适合高校大学生学习的心理特征。建议在高校羽毛球球选项课教学中推广"领会教学法"。     

No understanding without explanation

Scientific understanding, this paper argues, can be analyzed entirely in terms of a mental act of “grasping” and a notion of explanation. To understand why a phenomenon occurs is to grasp a correct explanation of the phenomenon. To understand a scientific theory is to be able to construct, or at least to grasp, a range of potential explanations in which that theory accounts for other phenomena. There is no route to scientific understanding, then, that does not go by way of scientific explanation.     

做好一名高职数学教师的一点体会

要做好一名高职数学教师,必须做到专心、用心、热心、信心、耐心及关心。专心提高自己的业务素质,用心结合学生的专业,热心帮助和关心学生,树立信心,坚持不懈,就一定能成为一名优秀的高职数学教师。     

Interpreting the Wigner–Eckart Theorem

The Wigner–Eckart theorem is central to the application of symmetry principles throughout atomic, molecular, and nuclear physics. Nevertheless, the theorem has a puzzling feature: it is dispensable for solving problems within these domains, since elementary methods suffice. To account for the significance of the theorem, I first contrast it with an elementary approach to calculating matrix elements. Next, I consider three broad strategies for interpreting the theorem: conventionalism, fundamentalism, and conceptualism. I argue that the conventionalist framework is unnecessarily pragmatic, while the fundamentalist framework requires more ontological commitments than necessary. Conceptualism avoids both defects, accounting for the theorem’s significance in terms of how it epistemically restructures the calculation of matrix elements. Specifically, the Wigner–Eckart theorem modularizes and unifies matrix element problems, thereby changing what we need to know to solve them.     

Hempel on scientific understanding

Hempel seems to hold the following three views: (H1) Understanding is pragmatic/relativistic: Whether one understands why X happened in terms of Explanation E depends on one's beliefs and cognitive abilities; (H2) Whether a scientific explanation is good, just like whether a mathematical proof is good, is a nonpragmatic and objective issue independent of the beliefs or cognitive abilities of individuals; (H3) The goal of scientific explanation is understanding: A good scientific explanation is the one that provides understanding. Apparently, H1, H2, and H3 cannot be all true. Some philosophers think that Hempel is inconsistent, while some others claim that Hempel does not actually hold H3. I argue that Hempel does hold H3 and that he can consistently hold all of H1, H2, and H3 if he endorses what I call the “understanding argument.” I also show how attributing the understanding argument to Hempel can make more sense of his D-N model and his philosophical analysis of the pragmatic aspects of scientific explanation.