مطالب

This paper argues that it is not reasonable for a critical rationalist to be a religious believer in the Abrahamic tradition. The argument is distinctive, in that it takes seriously the critical rationalist view that we should abandon ‘justificationist’ argument. What this means, is that the structure of argument then becomes a matter of offering theories as resolutions of problems, and then judging how they fare in the face of ongoing critical appraisal. The paper surveys issues in several areas, including God and what is good; homosexuality; mysticism; and messianic ideas. It argues that, unless the believer engages in intellectual retreat (something that is unacceptable for the critical rationalist), the problem-situation facing the believer appears to be so daunting that it would be unreasonable for them to hope that they can overcome it.

This study investigates the effects of stock anomalies on excess stock and unexplained returns of multifactorial models in the companies listed at the Tehran Stock Exchange. We selected a sample of 120 companies listed at the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2008 to 2019 using the Fama-Macbeth [18] regression approach. The results revealed that stock anomalies led to considerable differences in excess stock returns of different portfolios, implying that stock returns at different anomaly levels significantly differ. In addition, it was found that the anomalies related to stock characteristics greatly impacted explaining excess stock returns in the three-factor and five-factor models suggested by Fama and French. Besides, in different portfolios of the anomalies, the unexplained return rates were significantly different from each other. Moreover, in Fama and French's three-factor and five-factor models, different anomaly portfolios show significant differences in explaining excess stock returns.

Evaluating the performance of countries in international markets and measuring how they utilize allocated resources provides a lucid picture of the state of business management in countries also assessing performance sustainability in international markets, is one of the important issues in predicting international trade. In international markets knowledge of countries' performance leads to the recognition of their economic and non-economic management statuses even more it is used to allocate financial support of global organization. In the present article, an attempt was made to design a model capable of examining the performance of nations in international markets by both economic and non-economic dimensions in the presence of undesirable factors and two preparation and exploitation stages of existing platforms and also assessing the sustainability of countries' performance in the studied period which is quite innovative. Then, data from 21 countries, from 2010 to 2017 were evaluated to test the model. The results indicated that the model is capable of examining the performance of countries and assess the sustainability of the countries over a period of time. According to the results of this model, an attempt was made to evaluate Iran's performance status among homogeneous countries and provide a roadmap for enhancing Iran's performance

The doctrine that the content of the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is included in the content of its premises, taken jointly, is a familiar one. It has important consequences for the question of what value valid arguments possess, since it indicates the poverty of three traditional answers: that arguments may and should be used as instruments of persuasion, that they may and should be used as instruments of justification; and that they may and should be used to advance knowledge. The truth is, however, that in each of these cases the argument has only a managerial role and, if there is any work done, it is the premises that do it. It will be maintained that this point has little force against the critical rationalist answer, which I shall defend, that the principal purpose of deductive reasoning from an assemblage of premises is the exploration of their content, facilitating their criticism and rejection. That said, the main aim of the present paper is not to promote critical rationalism but to consider some published objections to the doctrine that a statement asserts every statement that is validly deducible from it. The alleged counterexamples to be considered fall roughly into two groups: statements that emerge with time from a rich mathematical or empirical theory, but were originally unformulated and are deducible from the theory only in a non-trivial way (Frederick 2011, 2014; Williamson 2012); and statements, notably disjunctions, that are easily formulated and are deducible from a theory in a trivial way (Schurz & Weingartner 1987; Mura 1990, 2008; Gemes 1994; Yablo 2014). Each of these counterexamples will be evaluated and dismissed.