The references to liberty and equality in the Declaration have been contested from the very beginning. Although some have argued that they had no application to slavery, many people in the late eighteenth century perceived them as clearly inconsistent with slavery. These references have triggered equally conflicting responses from courts, where judges have relied on them to abolish minimum wage laws and to strike down regulations of businesses. Other judges have invoked these references in support of more equal legislative chambers and same-sex marriage. Supporters of every conceivable position have relied on this part of the Declaration. These references have become in effect a national Rorhschach test – one sees in them what one is already inclined to see. Given this contested history, courts invoking this language should do so with caution.

We are living through a period of growing global disorder. There are various causes, but one is the declining unity and efficacy of the political ‘West’ – the coalition of countries, including the UK and led by the United States, that came together after the Second World War to defend and promote liberal democracy at home and open markets abroad. For countries like ours, in a changed and changing geopolitical landscape, the challenge is not to build a single new world order, but instead to contribute to what the historian Adam Tooze calls ‘world ordering’. This means coalitions of the willing, on a range of issues, to meet the challenges that people and nations need to face together. This imperative makes Britain’s relationship with other European countries, and the EU, more important, not less. These countries, and the EU, have shared values and interests with the UK. We face a common threat from an increasingly anarchic form of ‘might makes right’ globalisation. So we need to renew our cooperation that was sabotaged by Brexit.

In Chapter 3, we return to several questions asked at the end of Chapter 1: what, if any, are the grounds for the introduction of the rules we currently have in our mathematics books? Are they adopted arbitrarily? Why these rules, and not others? How does the introduction of such rules proceed? And so on. However, the chapter looks only at the ‘basic’ rules, such as the simplest addition rules (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4), the rules in the multiplication table (e.g., 3 × 2 = 6), and other simple multiplications, e.g., 21 × 36 = 756. These rules are ‘basic’ insofar as they emerge by ‘hardening’ certain empirical regularities displayed by people’s behavior in arranging and counting manageable physical objects; so, this is in essence a genealogical story. This chapter also serves as preparation for the discussion in the next chapter, where we tackle the possible challenges to these rules (by ‘skeptics’), with the aim of dissolving the problem of mathematical skepticism: what if we have always been wrong about our basic arithmetic?

Recently large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have received unrivalled attention not only in AI research but also in the greater public. The massive coverage in the mainstream media makes it utterly hard for an end user to get a decent overview of systems and an understanding of what these systems are actually capable of, plus how they are best and safely used. In the field of LLMs, where news and updates about the newest features are published on almost a daily basis, users, or prospective users, are overwhelmed by new possibilities on how to retrieve information. What is the best approach to tackle the challenging situation where users are inundated with various options of different LLMs, and which performs best for various use cases? This chapter presents the outcomes of a project initiated by AI bachelor students that aim to better understand different LLMs from an end-user perspective. We have thoroughly tested the capabilities of these systems in various group sessions and present our results in this chapter. As well as try to offer some guidance on how to learn about these systems by testing them in a structured way, we reflect on to which extent different LLMs met our expectations and compare them to determine which LLM to use in different scenarios. We believe this chapter can serve as a decent introduction to LLMs for researchers of all disciplines, as well as practitioners interested in exploring the potential of various systems.

Our modern sense of what the poetry of the 1800s is and means has been heavily determined by the standards proposed in William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s ‘Preface’ to Lyrical Ballads. However, during the 1800s, the ‘Preface’ was a controversial, oppositional proposition. Rather than being seen as the ‘breath and finer spirit of all knowledge’, poetry was more commonly perceived to be a social form of networked writing that was tightly aligned with performances of politeness, privilege, affiliation, and discernment. This essay explores three 1800s publications that sought to regulate poetry as a social world: the Poetical Register (commenced in 1801), the Edinburgh Review (commenced in 1802), and Lord Byron’s English Bards and Scotch Reviewers (1809). These works serve as exemplars of the contradictions inherent in attempts to delimit poetry during a decade in which its forms and manifestations were becoming increasingly popular, diverse, and contested.

We present historical background, contemporary status, and potential future development of the psychology of religion (PoR) in Hungary, beginning with its origins: the formative people, places, and various intellectual schools of thought. Writing about the current state of the topic, we reflect on influential factors that are either facilitating or inhibiting the study of PoR, including publication options, topical emphases, practitioners, orientations, methodologies, and professional organizations.

We offer opinions concerning future development topics that are emerging as important in the immediate future and/or are perennially important in order to stimulate creative and useful research including Western theoretical relevance, the extent to which Western PoR theories may or may not contain reasonable expectations and concepts for this region, contextual nuances, Indigenous theoretical concerns, collaborative research opportunities, and common faux pas – reflections on what people unfamiliar with this region commonly and incorrectly assume about conducting PoR work in this context.

Americans looking back at the Declaration did so through court cases, political debate, and celebrations in popular culture. Numerous judicial decisions beginning in the late eighteenth century and continuing through the twentieth century have upheld the view that the Declaration of Independence created one nation, the United States of America. This was also the view of some of the greatest lawyers of the mid nineteenth century: Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln. Even Andrew Jackson, largely seen as a proponent of states’ rights, embraced this view in the nullification dispute with South Carolina. And ordinary Americans have celebrated the Fourth of July as the birth of a nation from the very beginning. For the thirteen independent nations view to be correct, all of these decisions, statements, and celebrations would have to be wrong. (They are not.)

We present historical background, contemporary status, and potential future development of the psychology of religion (PoR) in Japan, beginning with its origins: the formative people, places, and various intellectual schools of thought. Writing about the current state of the topic, we reflect on influential factors that are either facilitating or inhibiting the study of PoR, including publication options, topical emphases, practitioners, orientations, methodologies, and professional organizations.

We offer opinions concerning future development topics that are emerging as important in the immediate future and/or are perennially important in order to stimulate creative and useful research including Western theoretical relevance, the extent to which Western PoR theories may or may not contain reasonable expectations and concepts for this region, contextual nuances, Indigenous theoretical concerns, collaborative research opportunities, and common faux pas – reflections on what people unfamiliar with this region commonly and incorrectly assume about conducting PoR work in this context.

Connection to Country or traditional lands is critical to the life and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In the Indigenous worldview, collective identity, stories, language, law/lore, ancestors, and all living things are intimately interconnected with Country, which provides the central pivot point around which all life revolves. Attempts by the ‘colonial project’ to disconnect Indigenous Peoples from their sovereign Country and distinct worldviews has undermined their source of wellbeing and generated traumatic social and health outcomes. Yet, Indigenous Peoples continue to resist. This chapter provides examples of how several Wiradjuri Elders and Wiradjuri Nation-rebuilders are resisting the colonial project through reclaiming the Wiradjuri language and building connection to Country to solidify their Wiradjuri worldview. We discuss the importance of an Indigenous sense of place for collective healing and wellbeing and how interconnection with Country informs a world where we face the potential for environmental crisis and collapse.

The reduced fiber theorem asserts that a scheme of finite type over a discrete valuation ring has a reduced closed fiber after taking a suitable base change and normalization. This is deduced from the study of cyclic extensions of degree p in Chapter 3. It is also an essential ingredient in the construction of upper ramification groups in Chapter 12.

Conceiving of mathematics as a network of rules may prompt worries about their arbitrariness. In the previous chapter, it was argued that these concerns can be appeased by Wittgenstein’s genealogical-anthropological approach, where the origin of these basic rules is found in human practices, which in turn presuppose large-scale and long-term consensus of action. Chapter 4 continues this discussion by raising, and answering, additional questions, e.g., about the conditions in which the basic rules can be modified, or even dropped altogether and replaced by other rules. It makes the case that the problem-question ‘what if we have always been wrong about basic arithmetic, e.g., that 25 × 25 = 625?’, i.e., the problem of mathematical skepticism – can be eliminated as well. The last section takes up, and mostly rejects, an idea often mentioned in this context, that Wittgenstein was a social constructivist about mathematics.