The dominant approach to environmental policy endorsed by conservative and libertarian policy thinkers, so-called “free market environmentalism”, is grounded in the recognition and protection of property rights in environmental resources. Despite this normative commitment to property rights, most self-described FME advocates adopt a utilitarian, welfare-maximization approach to climate change policy, arguing that the costs of mitigation measures could outweigh the costs of climate change itself. Yet even if anthropogenic climate change is decidedly less than catastrophic, human-induced climate change is likely (...) to contribute to environmental changes that violate traditional conceptions of property rights. Viewed globally, the actions of some countries—primarily industrialized nations—are likely to increase environmental harms suffered by other countries—less developed nations that have not made any significant contribution to climate change. It may well be that aggregate human welfare would be maximized in a warmer, wealthier world, or that the gains from climate change will offset environmental losses. Yet such claims, even if demonstrated, would not address the normative concern that the consequences of anthropogenic global warming would infringe upon the rights of people in less-developed nations. As a consequence, this paper calls for a rethinking of FME approaches to climate change policy. (shrink)

Arguing that the universe is absolutely directioned and that there exist spatial (directional) relations that Leibniz overlooked, H. Scott Hestevold formulates a new relationalist theory of space, exploring its implications for the Special Composition Question, reductivism regarding boundaries and holes, and the nature of spacetime.

This book covers the author's conception of God aside from any religion. He does not come from a religious view in order to transmit the truest conception of God that he is capable of because any religion, whatever it might be, always claims God for itself in an exclusionary fashion. In other words, you must be a follower of the chosen faith before God will accept you into his kingdom. Wells rejects this view. Any man or woman who accepts God's (...) love as one person connecting to their own creator, is fine. An intermediary, despite what they might crow from whatever pulpits they use, is not necessary. We are all God's children. We are all seeking the same God, so to be dogmatic within a certain exclusionary faith is small-minded and petty. If you want to grow up, spiritually, then this book is for you. (shrink)

There has always, apparently, been a strangely persistent belief among scholars in the existence of Knights of Senatorial rank, and though the definition of these has varied from time to time, their existence seems to be universally accepted.The first form of this idea is to be found in the view that the phrase ‘equitesillustres’ used by Tacitus refers to Knights possessing Senatorial rank. In a recent article the writer has dealt with this question, and tried to show how Mommsen definitely (...) disposed of this theory. But in spite of his masterly refutation of it, it has found acceptance among more recent scholars, such as Furneaux, Pelham, Cagnat, and others. (shrink)

Articles; chiefly on Islamic ethics and conveying non Muslims for Islam.

Peirce claims in his Lectures on Pragmatism [CP 5.196] that “If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism you will see that it is nothing else than the question of the logic of abduction;” and further “no effect of pragmatism which is consequent upon its effect on abduction can go to show that pragmatism is anything more than a doctrine concerning the logic of abduction.” Plausibly, there is, at best, a quasi-logic of abduction, which properly issues in our best means (...) for the methodological evaluation and ordering of (yet untested) hypotheses or theories. There is always a range of explanatory innovations that may be proposed, from more conservative to less conservative; and it is important, in light of what Peirce has to say on the relation of abduction to pragmatism, that in ruling out “wild guessing,” attention be initially directed to more conservative proposals. Still conservatism, which we might understand in terms of Peircean continuity, is sometimes justly sacrificed for greater comprehension or overall simplicity of approach. This paper explores the relationships among Peircean abduction and pragmatism, the “theoretical virtues” approach to the evaluation of hypotheses, and contextual constraint on the scientific imagination. (shrink)

Upshot: Firstly, we discuss the main criticisms of our arguments. Secondly, we address the comments and observations on some parts of our article. We conclude with some reflections about the perspectives of the discussion on the autopoiesis concept.