Search

The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman).Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best-corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared.For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout.The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.

Purpose To investigate the effect of font choice on reading parameters by using the RADNER Reading Charts printed in two fonts (Helvetica vs. Times Roman) equalized in terms of x-height. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of 40 participants with healthy eyes (18 to 60 years of age; mean: 42.13 ± 12.28 years). Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe). The test distance was 40 cm. Reading charts were presented in random order. Reading acuity (RA), mean reading speed of all sentences read (MEAN-ALL RS), mean reading speed from 0.8 logRAD to 0.3 logRAD (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed (MAX-RS), and critical print size (CPS) were compared. Results The RA values obtained for the Helvetica and Times Roman fonts (in full logarithmic units of 0.1 logRAD) did not differ between the two fonts (mean for both fonts: − 0.128 ± 0.064 logRAD; 95% CI for both: − 0.148; − 0.107 logRAD). The differences in all other reading parameters between the two fonts were small and not statistically significant. The analyses revealed narrow confidence intervals and good coefficients of reliability. Except for the CPS (r = 0.49) and RA (equal for Helvetica and Times Roman), the correlations for all parameters were high, ranging from r = 0.92 to r = 0.98. Conclusion The equivalent reading performance obtained with Helvetica and Times Roman (when equalized in x-height and layout) makes these font types interchangeable as standards for reading charts.

L'A. se propose de rehabiliter les arguments de la seconde antinomie de la «Critique de la raison pure» de Kant au sein des mathematiques et de la philosophie de la substance du XVIII e siecle, en general, et dans la philosophie de C. Wolff, en particulier. Mesurant la validite de la these et de l'antithese de l'antinomie concernant le statut des corps physiques dans la geometrie et dans la metaphysique, l'A. evalue la compatibilite epistemologique des deux positions, d'une part, et celle de l'ensemble du systeme kantien avec l'idealisme transcendantal, d'autre part

Daniel Dennett advocates the use of the intentional stance in adaptationist biology and in cognitive ethology. He sees intentional system theory as closely related to decision theory and game theory. In biological decision and game theory models, nature “chooses” the strategy by which the animal chooses a course of action. The design of the animal imposes constraints on the model. For Dennett, by contrast, the description of nature's rationale imposes constraints on the design of the animal. Dennett's oversimplified conception of nature's rationale undermines the usefulness of the intentional stance as a tool in cognitive ethology. Intentional system theory can be made more useful in investigating animal cognition by modifying its application to questions of biological function.

Book reviewed in this article: Animal Consciousness. By Daisie Radner and Michael Radner The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. By Bernard E. Rollin

Logicism is the doctrine that mathematics is reducible to logic. It is usually presented in two theses: (1) Every mathematical concept is definable in terms of logical concepts. (2) Every mathematical theorem is deducible from logical principles. In this paper, I am not concerned with the truth or falsity of (1) and (2). Rather, I am concerned with the underlying philosophical system. Logicism is connected with the names of Frege, Russell (and Whitehead). But the logicism which is familiar to most philosophers is not the original logicist system of Russell. Instead, we read either Russell's later Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy or articles by Carnap and Hempel. My purpose in this paper is to return to the original logicist system of Russell. This system, at least in essentials, lasts through the publication of the First Edition of Principia Mathematica. I believe that examination of this system will shed light on why certain difficulties arose in later logicism, including the logicist views of the Logical Empiricist movement. Further, the issues are closely connected with general doctrines on the nature of philosophical analysis.

Miller' and Popper2 have claimed that the 'straight rule' (Reichenbach's rule of induction) is inconsistent, on the basis of a 'paradox' formulated by Miller. Mackie3 has suggested that Miller's argument is fallacious, but his attempt to analyse the paradox in terms of the quantifiers involved at each stage of the derivation is essentially irrelevant. In a reply,4 Miller has rightly rejected this criticism. However, he has unfortunately further confused the issue by ignoring the central thesis of Mackie's note.