From Fall 2016 to Fall 2019 Marcelo Gleiser conducted a series of nine public dialogues between eminent scientists and humanists on challenging topics and ideas whose very definitions and meanings are disputed. Sponsored by the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement at Dartmouth College, founded by Gleiser, these events were held in theaters and universities across the US and immediately followed by workshops, open to the public, at which attendees could converse directly with participants. Great Minds Don't Think Alike collects edited versions (...) of these discussions, which set an example, in a time when public discourse is seriously threatened, of how people can engage in a fruitful exchange of ideas even when they strongly disagree. The cast of characters is stellar: David Chalmers and Antonio Damasio on consciousness, Sean Carroll and Alan Wallace on reality, Patricia Churchland and Jill Tarter on the future of intelligence, Rebecca Goldstein and Alan Lightman on faith, Jimena Canales and Paul Davies on time, Ed Boyden and Mark O'Connell on transhumanism, Elizabeth Kolbert and Siddhartha Mukherjee on immortality, and Jeremy DeSilva, David Grinspoon, and Tasneem Zehra Husain on being human. (shrink)

From Fall 2016 to Fall 2019 Marcelo Gleiser conducted a series of nine public dialogues between eminent scientists and humanists on challenging topics and ideas whose very definitions and meanings are disputed. Sponsored by the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement at Dartmouth College, founded by Gleiser, these events were held in theaters and universities across the US and immediately followed by workshops, open to the public, at which attendees could converse directly with participants. Great Minds Don't Think Alike collects edited versions (...) of these discussions, which set an example, in a time when public discourse is seriously threatened, of how people can engage in a fruitful exchange of ideas even when they strongly disagree. The cast of characters is stellar: David Chalmers and Antonio Damasio on consciousness, Sean Carroll and Alan Wallace on reality, Patricia Churchland and Jill Tarter on the future of intelligence, Rebecca Goldstein and Alan Lightman on faith, Jimena Canales and Paul Davies on time, Ed Boyden and Mark O'Connell on transhumanism, Elizabeth Kolbert and Siddhartha Mukherjee on immortality, and Jeremy DeSilva, David Grinspoon, and Tasneem Zehra Husain on being human. (shrink)

“An original, compelling, and provocative exploration of ethical issues in our society, with thoughtful and balanced commentary. I have not seen anything like it.” —Alan Lightman, author of Einstein’s Dreams Drawing upon the author’s two decades teaching medical ethics, as well as his work as a practicing psychiatrist, this profound and addictive little book offers up challenging ethical dilemmas and asks readers, What would you do? A daughter gets tested to see if she’s a match to donate a (...) kidney to her father. The test reveals that she is not the man’s biological daughter. Should the doctor tell the father? Or the daughter? A deaf couple prefers a deaf baby. Should they be allowed to use medical technology to ensure they have a child who can’t hear? Who should get custody of an embryo created through IVF when a couple divorces? Or, when you or a loved one is on life support, Who says you’re dead? In short, engaging scenarios, Dr. Appel takes on hot-button issues that many of us will confront: genetic screening, sexuality, privacy, doctor-patient confidentiality. He unpacks each hypothetical with a brief reflection drawing from science, philosophy, and history, explaining how others have approached these controversies in real-world cases. Who Says You’re Dead? is designed to defy easy answers and to stimulate thought and even debate among professionals and armchair ethicists alike. (shrink)

Book Review of The Future of Spacetime, by Stephen Hawking et al.

What is new here is the detailed discussion of several important results in the classical foundations of mathematics and of the relation of logic to mathematics. As regards logical questions, the central thesis of Wittgenstein's later philosophy is well known, both from the earlier posthumous volume and from the writings of his many disciples. In the Investigations the thesis is applied to the "logic of our expressions" in everyday contexts; here he discusses in the same spirit the more specialized language (...) used in talking about the foundations of mathematics. (shrink)

Idealization is a reasoning strategy that biologists use to describe, model and explain that purposefully departs from features known to be present in nature. Similar to other strategies of scientific reasoning, idealization combines distinctive strengths alongside of latent weaknesses. The study of ontogeny in model organisms is usually executed by establishing a set of normal stages for embryonic development, which enables researchers in different laboratory contexts to have standardized comparisons of experimental results. Normal stages are a form of idealization because (...) they intentionally ignore known variation in development, including variation associated with phenotypic plasticity (e.g. via strict control of environmental variables). This is a tension between the phenomenon of plasticity and the practice of staging that has consequences for evolutionary developmental investigation because variation is conceptually removed as a part of rendering model organisms experimentally tractable. Two compensatory tactics for mitigating these consequences are discussed: employing a diversity of model organisms and adopting alternative periodizations. (shrink)

The themes of the book—the value of knowledge and epistemic appraisal broadly conceived—are introduced in this chapter. The Meno problem is explained and related to the swamping problem as discussed by Jonathan Kvanvig. The stance of virtue epistemologists is outlined. This is followed by a brief discussion of the role of truth in epistemic appraisal. The remainder of the introduction summarises the contributions to the book.

O texto investiga algumas dimensões do pensamento de Levinas em relação aos temas da linguagem, justiça, perdão e pluralidade, entre outros, a partir da leitura talmúdica “Envers Autrui”, estabelecendo relações com alguns aspectos da filosofia analítica e do pensamento do Kant e William Galston.

(1986). Reason and Nuclear Deterrence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 16, Supplementary Volume 12: Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence and Disarmament, pp. 129-159.

Although retroviral integration requires specific viral DNA sequences, factors which govern the choice of a chromosomal target site within an infected celi are less clear. For example, certain chromosomal regions may be inaccessible to the viral integration machinery, while others may favor integration. A recent paper by Withers‐Ward et al.(1) addresses this issue using a polymerase chain reaction‐based assay capable of identifying single integration events within a large population of infected cells. Their results show that integration can occur into many (...) different chromosomal regions, and that local DNA structure can influence the site of integration within a given region. (shrink)

Michael Tooley defends infanticide by analysing ‘A has a right to X’ as roughly synonymous with ‘If A desires X, then others are under a prima facie obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive him [or her] of it.’ An infant who cannot conceive of himself or herself as a continuing subject of experiences cannot desire to continue existing. Hence, on Tooley’s analysis, killing the infant is not impermissible, for it does not go against any of the infant’s desires. (...) However, Tooley’s argument in support of his analysis seems to justify, instead, a slightly more subtle analysis—namely, ‘A has a right to X’ is roughly extensionally equivalent with ‘Unless A expresses his or her desire that not‐X, then others are under a prima facie obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive him or her of X.’ But given this analysis, the infant’s purported lack of any capacity to conceive of himself or herself as a continuing subject of experiences implies that we cannot be released from any duty that we might have not to harm him or her. In short, Tooley’s argument in support of his analysis actually implies that infanticide may well be impermissible. (shrink)