English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

ing template for reifying and assessing the reasoning in arguments, but it does not dictate outcomes; novel work that is not fixed by the formulas must still be done by the human agents making the assessments. This form of logos not only cannot offer universal certainty, but it also cannot offer a pre-determined endpoint. It is obvious when a calculation is complete—all the prescribed operations of the program or sorites or equation have been done (once, in the proper order). In contrast, an argumentative deliberation is complete only when its engagers agree that it is, or when they give up on the possibility of agreement. The utility of argumentative deliberation as a techne of logos is simultaneously a taken-for-granted of much democratic theory and also is widely suspect. Its strongest support comes from the observation that, taken on the whole, deliberation engages the possibility of incorporating the maximal range and numbers of factors and perspectives into any decision. Suspicion arises precisely because it is not identical to calculative reason. Although particular human characteristics (“pooling of biases” Lu et al., 2012) and situational factors (exclusion of relevant parties) mean that this form of deliberation doesn’t always produce a better decision than instinctual responses, its potential to do so warrants the study of this kind of logos in an effort to maximize the potential embedded in the technology of argumentative deliberation.

Insufficient Fear of the “Super-flu”?: The World Health Organization’s Global Decision-Making for Health