Testing future weak lensing surveys through simulations of observations

Weak lensing experiments such as the future ESA-accepted mission Euclid aim to measure cosmological parameters with unprecedented accuracy. It is important to assess the precision that can be obtained in these measurements by applying analysis software on mock images that contain many sources of noise present in the real data. In this Thesis, we show a method to perform simulations of observations, that produce realistic images of the sky according to characteristics of the instrument and of the survey. We then use these images to test the performances of the Euclid mission. In particular, we concentrate on the precision of the photometric redshift measurements, which are key data to perform cosmic shear tomography. We calculate the fraction of the total observed sample that must be discarded to reach the required level of precision, that is equal to 0.05(1+z) for a galaxy with measured redshift z, with different ancillary ground-based observations. The results highlight the importance of u-band observations, especially to discriminate between low (z < 0.5) and high (z ~ 3) redshifts, and the need for good observing sites, with seeing FWHM < 1. arcsec. We then construct an optimal filter to detect galaxy clusters through photometric catalogues of galaxies, and we test it on the COSMOS field, obtaining 27 lensing-confirmed detections. Applying this algorithm on mock Euclid data, we verify the possibility to detect clusters with mass above 10^14.2 solar masses with a low rate of false detections.

In defence of modeling simultaneity for a correct approximation of cultural aspects: implications for food consumers studies with latent variables

Dealing with latent constructs (loaded by reflective and congeneric measures) cross-culturally compared means studying how these unobserved variables vary, and/or covary each other, after controlling for possibly disturbing cultural forces. This yields to the so-called ‘measurement invariance’ matter that refers to the extent to which data collected by the same multi-item measurement instrument (i.e., self-reported questionnaire of items underlying common latent constructs) are comparable across different cultural environments. As a matter of fact, it would be unthinkable exploring latent variables heterogeneity (e.g., latent means; latent levels of deviations from the means (i.e., latent variances), latent levels of shared variation from the respective means (i.e., latent covariances), levels of magnitude of structural path coefficients with regard to causal relations among latent variables) across different populations without controlling for cultural bias in the underlying measures. Furthermore, it would be unrealistic to assess this latter correction without using a framework that is able to take into account all these potential cultural biases across populations simultaneously. Since the real world ‘acts’ in a simultaneous way as well. As a consequence, I, as researcher, may want to control for cultural forces hypothesizing they are all acting at the same time throughout groups of comparison and therefore examining if they are inflating or suppressing my new estimations with hierarchical nested constraints on the original estimated parameters. Multi Sample Structural Equation Modeling-based Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MS-SEM-based CFA) still represents a dominant and flexible statistical framework to work out this potential cultural bias in a simultaneous way. With this dissertation I wanted to make an attempt to introduce new viewpoints on measurement invariance handled under covariance-based SEM framework by means of a consumer behavior modeling application on functional food choices.

Weak reasoning argumentative theory. A dialogical approach for the discovery of philosophy in high schools

In the literature on philosophical practices, despite the crucial role that argumentation plays in these activities, no specific argumentative theories have ever been proposed to assist the figure of the facilitator in conducting philosophical dialogue and to enhance student’s critical thinking skills. The dissertation starts from a cognitive perspective that challenges the classic Cartesian notion of rationality by focusing on limits and biases of human reasoning. An argumentative model (WRAT – Weak Reasoning Argumentative Theory) is then outlined in order to respond to the needs of philosophical dialogue. After justifying the claim that this learning activity, among other inductive methodologies, is the most suitable for critical thinking education, I inquired into the specific goal of ‘arguing’ within this context by means of the tools provided by Speech Act Theory: the speaker’s intention is to construct new knowledge by questioning her own and other’s beliefs. The model proposed has been theorized on this assumption, starting from which the goals, and, in turn, the related norms, have been pinpointed. In order to include all the epistemic attitudes required to accomplish the complex task of arguing in philosophical dialogue, I needed to integrate two opposed cognitive accounts, Dual Process Theory and Evolutionary Approach, that, although they provide incompatible descriptions of reasoning, can be integrated to provide a normative account of argumentation. The model, apart from offering a theoretical contribution to argumentation studies, is designed to be applied to the Italian educational system, in particular to classes in technical and professional high schools belonging to the newly created network Inventio. This initiative is one of the outcomes of the research project by the same name, which also includes an original Syllabus, research seminars, a monitoring action and publications focused on introducing philosophy, in the form of workshop activities, into technical and professional schools.