This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

When I was asked to formulate some questions or remarks about Prof. Barry’s paper, it was probably assumed that I would not confine myself to the expression of pure agreement. And yet, that is what I am inclined at first to do. I do agree that the view he criticizes is wrong for the reasons he mentions. And I admire the clarity and vigour of his arguments. However the reasons one has for agreeing with a thesis may belong to a (...) context that is very different from the context the thesis itself belongs to. Prof. Barry’s paper can be read at one level as the defence of a certain policy — it contains political recommendations. It is at that level that I entirely agree with it. But his recommendations are probably part of a theoretical outlook I do not share.The question I would like to deal with is: “How should the position which is the target of Brian Barry’s criticism be characterized?” One could say that it is anti-liberal. It is certainly opposed to the liberalism Brian Barry advocates. But there are, I think, also good reasons for characterizing it as a kind of liberalism. It is a sort of excessive, perverse, loony liberalism, but liberalism nevertheless. For the sake of convenience I call it quasi-liberalism. (shrink)

The underdetermination of theory by data obtains when, inescapably, evidence is insufficient to allow scientists to decide responsibly between rival theories. One response to would-be underdetermination is to deny that the rival theories are distinct theories at all, insisting instead that they are just different formulations of the same underlying theory; we call this the identical rivals response. An argument adapted from John Norton suggests that the response is presumptively always appropriate, while another from Larry Laudan and Jarrett Leplin suggests (...) that the response is never appropriate. Arguments from Einstein for the special and general theories of relativity may fruitfully be seen as instances of the identical rivals response; since Einstein’s arguments are generally accepted, the response is at least sometimes appropriate. But when is it appropriate? We attempt to steer a middle course between Norton’s view and that of Laudan and Leplin: the identical rivals response is appropriate when there is good reason for adopting a parsimonious ontology. Although in simple cases the identical rivals response need not involve any ontological difference between the theories, in actual scientific cases it typically requires treating apparent posits of the various theories as mere verbal ornaments or computational conveniences. Since these would-be posits are not now detectable, there is no perfectly reliable way to decide whether we should eliminate them or not. As such, there is no rule for deciding whether the identical rivals response is appropriate or not. Nevertheless, there are considerations that suggest for and against the response; we conclude by suggesting two of them. (shrink)

Abstract This paper argues that in modern (agro)biotechnology, (un)naturalness as an argument contributed to a stalemate in public debate about innovative technologies. Naturalness in this is often placed opposite to human disruption. It also often serves as a label that shapes moral acceptance or rejection of agricultural innovative technologies. The cause of this lies in the use of nature as a closed, static reference to naturalness, while in fact “nature” is an open and dynamic concept with many different meanings. We (...) propose an approach for a dynamic framework that permits an integrative use of naturalness in debate, by connecting three sorts of meaning that return regularly in the arguments brought forward in debate; cultural, technological, and ecological. We present these as aspects of nature that are always present in the argument of naturalness. The approach proposes a dynamic relation between these aspects, formed by gradients of naturalness, which in turn are related to ethical concerns. In this way we come to an overview that makes it possible to give individual arguments a relative place and that does justice to the temporality of the concept of nature and the underlying ethical concerns stakeholders have in respect to innovation in agriculture. Content Type Journal Article Category Articles Pages 1-16 DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9359-6 Authors P. F. Van Haperen, Wageningen University and Research Centre, META, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands B. Gremmen, Wageningen University and Research Centre, META, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands J. Jacobs, Wageningen University and Research Centre, META, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands Journal Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Online ISSN 1573-322X Print ISSN 1187-7863. (shrink)

The most important method of the experiential sciences is the so-called scientific induction, viz. the method that starts from the observation of the particular and individual and tends to obtain abstractly-general or universal statements. This article explains that such a progression from the individual to the universal can only be accounted for if it can be considered as an application of some general intellectual insights. As to the main feature, this application can be made explicit by means of the following (...) deductive syllogism : Maior : Whatever happens with regularity in the material world happens of necessity, i.e. by virtue of the proper nature of things. Minor : Now an investigation of the data of experience shows that a phenomenon of species A is regularly connected with a phenomenon of species B. Conclusion : Therefore, a phenomenon of species A is necessarily connected with a phenomenon of species B. The minor of this syllogism gives the result of the empirical research and this way of acting has to be accounted for by a critical investigation of the general methods used by physical science, the so-called methods of Stuart Mill . The foundation of the maior is given in section 4. It appears that this principle presupposes the absolute validity of the law of causality and, moreover, the determinism of the material nature. A few remarks are added concerning regularity and probability. The various individual instances which are the starting-point of scientific research are supposed to be the representatives of a certain species. This amounts to the supposition that there is a certain species-individual-structure in the material things. This problem is treated in section 5. In order to arrive at a general statement about a certain kind of phenomena it will usually be necessary to combine experiential data obtained at different times and places and in different individual circumstances. Such a procedure is based upon the general presupposition that nature is uniform. This general presuppositions implies in particular two presuppositions concerning the irrelevancy of time and place. These questions are dealt with in section 6. Finally in section 8 a few remarks are added concerning character and value of the general conclusions obtained by scientific induction. (shrink)

The article offers an extensive interpretation of Human All Too Human I, 114: “The non-Greek element in Christianity”. The origin of this section goes back to 1875 when Nietzsche was preparing a course on “The Religion of the Greek”. It is pointed out that for Nietzsche the opposition as such and in general is much more important than this specific opposition between Greek and Christian religion or culture. Christianity is in Nietzsche's writings almost always presented in some sort of opposition, (...) but there are many different oppositions in which it appears. The nature of the opposition which is so highly valued by Nietzsche, is described as agon, and is shown to be very different from the metaphysical opposition as criticized by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil § 2. Nietzsche attempts to put Christianity back into an agonistic relation with Greek culture. But whereas Greek culture recognizes the principle of the agon, it is denied and condemned in Christianity. Greek culture shows the agon to be a principle of measure. Christianity turns out to be a religion of excessiveness. (shrink)

Cadaveric donation comprises organ donation—that is, taking organs from brain dead people, as well as tissue donation, meaning taking tissues from brain dead as well as heart dead people. The organ transplant procedure from brain dead patients is beyond the scope of the pathologist, as it is done by surgeons in the operating theatre. In a broader sense, however, pathologists are involved in cadaveric tissue donation as well as taking tissues from cadavers for diagnostic procedures within the framework of the (...) autopsy , and to gather material for research and training students and pathology residents . For cadaveric tissue donation, different ethical and practical issues must be considered, which we will try to review in this paper from the perspective of the pathologist.CADAVERIC TISSUE SAMPLING FOR TRANSPLANTATION PURPOSESSeveral tissues can be taken from “true” cadavers that may still be used for transplantation such as skin, corneas, tendons, bone. This is usually done in collaboration with the pathologist, who is in most countries responsible for the body after the death of the patient in the hospital. All these tissues can be harvested several hours after death, as they undergo only slow degradation. In The Netherlands, as dictated by law, patients must actively have given permission for donation during life by registering with the Transplantation Register. Since this procedure was implemented, the number of organs available for donation has not increased but decreased somewhat, while the number of tissues has increased. A great obstacle to the increase in the number of donations is that only 37% of the population is registered …. (shrink)

It is argued that mass anomalies at the N≈Z line are associated with SU(4) isospin-spin symmetry. Drawing on these arguments, a Weizsäcker-type nuclear mass formula is investigated which has the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir operator of SU(4) as a Wigner term. This SU(4)-based mass formula yields a better agreement than the one with the usual Wigner term |N—Z|/A. In addition, the SU(4) eigenvalue expression adequately replaces the usual pairing term of the Weizsäcker formula giving a lower overall rms deviation (...) than the latter. (shrink)

Information about positions, from which differences in position are computed (as proposed in the vector-integration-to-endpoint model), provides a more plausible perceptual basis for the control of goal-directed arm movements than information about distance (as proposed in the kinematic model).

The significance of tradition for moral life seems at the same time to be obvious and controversial. Both evaluations refer to the meaning of tradition as the rule that reigns with the force of self-evidence. The first section of the article elaborates a philosophical basis for the significance of tradition. Human life is characterised by logos, which is interpreted as the capacity to understand and communicate meaning. Meaning does not exist outside tradition, taken as the conversation or controversy among different (...) interpretations. The second section of the article concentrates on the ethical meaning of tradition. With the help of Nietzsche, tradition is suggested to be the name for the adequate realization by human beings of their own historicality. (shrink)