The relativity of evaluative sentences: disagreeing over disagreement

Evaluative sentences (moral judgments, expressions of taste, epistemic modals) are relative to the speaker's standards. Lately, a phenomenon has challenged the traditional explanation of this relativity: whenever two speakers disagree over them they contradict each other without being at fault. Hence, it is thought that the correction of the assertions involved must be relative to an unprivileged standard not necessarily the speaker's. I will claim instead that so far, neither this nor any other proposal has provided an explanation of the phenomenon. I will point out several problems presented by them and I will hint to how this phenomenon could be explained by making minor adjustments to our semantic theory.

Turbidimetry as an alternative method to determine the rating curve of suspended sediments

Understanding hydrosedimental behavior of a watershed is essential for properly managing and using its hydric resources. The objective of this study was to verify the feasibility of the alternative procedure for the indirect determination of the sediment key curve using a turbidimeter. The research was carried out on the São Francisco Falso River, which is situated in the west of the state of Paraná on the left bank of ITAIPU reservoir. The direct method was applied using a DH-48 sediment suspended sampler. The indirect method consisted of the use of a linigraph and a turbidimeter. Based on the results obtained, it was concluded that the indirect method using a turbidimeter showed to be fully feasible, since it gave a power function-type mathematical model equal of the direct method. Furthermore, the average suspended sediment discharge into the São Francisco Falso River during the 2006/2007 harvest was calculated at 7.26 metric t day-1.