The Influence of Salt on Handheld Electrical Moisture Meters: Can They Be Used to Detect Salt Problems in Porous Stone?

Salt contamination in heritage stone affects handheld moisture meter measurements on-site. This poses a problem when the readings indicate erroneously higher levels of moisture than actually present. For decision making with regards to moisture prevention treatment it is therefore crucial to distinguish between actual dampness and the hygroscopic action of salts. This study investigated the effect on moisture meter readings of both increased conductivity of pore water and the increased water retention caused by the presence of sodium chloride (NaCl) in artificially contaminated Portland limestone samples. The influence of NaCl contamination on selected handheld moisture meters was quantified. As a result, this article proposes that under certain circumstances moisture meters could be used to diagnose, reliably, both moisture and salt problems in heritage stone.     

Rescuing “Diversity” from Affirmative Action and Campus Activists

Although diversity is constantly celebrated, the word is regularly used in a distorted if not dishonest manner. In connection with Fisher v. University of Texas and the 2003 Supreme Court cases involving the University of Michigan, for example, critics of racial preferences who promote color-blindness have been portrayed as enemies of “diversity.” Scrutinizing the recent explosion of racially themed campus protests reveals tendencies that are even more alarming. First, activists are demanding rapid increases in the hiring of minority faculty and staff while ignoring the antidiscrimination mandates imposed by the Civil Rights Act. Novel dangers to academic freedom and intellectual rigor, moreover, have been surfacing as student groups assert imperious authority over university affairs, threaten to squelch criticisms of Black Lives Matter, and demand that professors be evaluated for “microaggressions.”     

Deconstructive vs Pragmatic: A Critique of the Derrida–Searle Debate

ABSTRACT

This article presents a critical account of the debate between Derrida and Searle in which I defend Austin’s and Searle’s pragmatic analysis of speech against Derrida’s complex deconstructionist approach. I first formalize Derrida’s argument, reducing it to its main tenets that can be positively identified and critically reviewed. On the basis of this formalization I argue that the apparent incompatibility between Derrida’s and Searle’s approach to language becomes clear once we formalize, according to their type and content, the three concepts of “intention” that are confusedly referred to under one and the same label in the debate. This formalization reduces and clarifies the obscurity associated with the Derrida–Searle debate, and helps demonstrating the shortcomings of Derrida’s position.