This book, first published in 1938, is based on the Muirhead Lectures given at Birmingham University in February and March of 1937. The first half of this book is mainly devoted to an exposition of the principles of genetics, whilst the second half deals with more controversial topics, with the text providing an insight into the ideology of the time. This title will be of interest to students of politics and history.

We investigate the relative probabilistic support afforded by the combination of two analogies based on possibly different, structural similarity (as opposed to e.g. shared predicates) within the context of Pure Inductive Logic and under the assumption of Language Invariance. We show that whilst repeated analogies grounded on the same structural similarity only strengthen the probabilistic support this need not be the case when combining analogies based on different structural similarities. That is, two analogies may provide less support than each would (...) individually. (shrink)

Although the existence of tachyons is not ruled out by special relativity, it appears that causal paradoxes will arise if there are tachyons. The usual solutions to these paradoxes employ some form of the reinterpretation principle. In this paper it is argued first that the principle is incoherent, second that even if it is not, some causal paradoxes remain, and third, the most plausible “solution,” which appeals to boundary conditions of the universe, will conflict with special relativity.

Girard and Reynolds independently invented System F to handle problems in logic and computer programming language design, respectively. Viewing F in the Curry style, which associates types with untyped lambda terms, raises the questions of typability and type checking. Typability asks for a term whether there exists some type it can be given. Type checking asks, for a particular term and type, whether the term can be given that type. The decidability of these problems has been settled for restrictions and (...) extensions of F and related systems and complexity lower-bounds have been determined for typability in F, but this report is the first to resolve whether these problems are decidable for System F. This report proves that type checking in F is undecidable, by a reduction from semi-unification, and that typability in F is undecidable, by a reduction from type checking. Because there is an easy reduction from typability to type checking, the two problems are equivalent. The reduction from type checking to typability uses a novel method of constructing lambda terms that simulate arbitrarily chosen type environments. All of the results also hold for the λI-calculus. (shrink)

Woodger's substitution of the "allegedly more precise term 'an environmentally insensitive set of lives'" for the term 'an inborn character' is discussed by haldane. He proposes that "woodger's definitions do not appear to have reached precision." (staff).

The contention that the Homeric epics, and perhaps also the Hesiodic poems and the Homeric Hymns, are the products, directly or at a very short remove, of a tradition of orally improvised poetry is widely accepted as a basic premiss in Homeric criticism. The cogency of the argument depends on the frequency and characteristic use of formulae in the early hexameter poetry, and their rarity in the literature of Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman times, which is known or assumed to have (...) been composed in the study. The reasoning appears to me valid, but in some respects overstated or ambiguously stated in recent publications, and the first fault arises out of the second. (shrink)

Adams 's suggestion that there must be one really right way of presenting the history of moral philosophy seems implausible to me, so I reject – with additional reasons – his charges against the structure of Invention of Autonomy. Skorupski's way of stating the ‘equal moral abilities’ thesis is not, I argue, very Kantian; a more Kantian version is not open to his objections. I am unconvinced by Schultz's claim that Sidgwick did not really hold that thesis. Deigh raises questions (...) I cannot reply to here, but I do offer some texts that seem to show that Sidgwick is not guilty of the confusion about ‘ought’ with which Deigh charges him. Correspondence:c1 [email protected]. (shrink)

Sidgwick is usually considered to be a utilitarian, and with good reason. In an autobiographical fragment he tells us that his “first adhesion to a definite Ethical system was to the Utilitarianism of Mill”, and that after a variety of intellectual changes he became “a Utilitarian again, but on an Intuitional basis.” He refers to himself in other works and in letters as a utilitarian, and he was so viewed by his contemporaries. Hence it is understandable that Albee should view (...) The Methods of Ethics as “an independent contribution to the literature of Utilitarianism”, labelling it “the last authoritative utterance of traditional Utilitarianism”, and that almost everyone who discusses the book should agree with this classification of it. Yet Sidgwick did not himself say that the Methods is a defense or a restatement of utilitarianism. On the contrary: he was from the first at pains to disavow any intention of proving a system of morality and to insist that he is presenting only an examination of “the different methods of obtaining reasoned convictions as to what ought to be done which are to be found … in the moral consciousness of mankind generally.” In the “Preface” to the second edition he bemoans the misunderstanding which led critics to suppose that he was “writing as an assailant of two of the methods” he examines. One critic, he complains, thought he was giving “mere hostile criticism” of intuitionism, another “has constructed an article on the supposition that my principal object is ‘the suppression of Egoism’”. Yet a third critic, he remarks dryly, referring to a savage attack by F. H. Bradley, “has gone to the length of a pamphlet under the impression that the ‘main argument’ of my treatise is a demonstration of Universalistic Hedonism. I am concerned”, he comments, “to have caused so much misdirection of criticism”; and he goes on to reiterate his position about the two forms, egoistic and universalistic, of hedonism: “I do not hold the reasonableness of aiming at happiness generally with any stronger conviction than I do that of aiming at one’s own.”. (shrink)

In this wide-ranging, richly detailed, and philosophically provocative volume, Annas presents not a history of ancient ethics but a study of "the form and structure of ancient ethical theory". Ignoring Plato and his predecessors almost entirely, and thinking Aristotle overrated, Annas concentrates on post-Aristotelian moral philosophy. She is thoroughly at home in the new work on Hellenistic philosophy that scholars, herself included, have been publishing in the last couple of decades. Here she provides the fullest overview to date of Hellenistic (...) moral thought, beginning with Aristotle and covering the later Peripatetics, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Cyrenaics, and the Skeptics both Academic and Pyrrhonist. (shrink)

In the paper I offer a brief sketch of one of the sources of utilitarianism. Our biological ancestry is a matter of fact that is not altered by the way we describe ourselves. With philosophical theories it is otherwise. Utilitarianism can be described in ways that make it look as if it is as old as moral philosophy – as J. S. Mill thought it was. For my historical purposes, it is more useful to have an account that brings out (...) what is specific about Benthamism and its descendants. Let us try to make do with the following. First, utilitarianism asserts that the fundamental requirement of morality is that we are to maximize good, for everyone and not just for the agent. This basic principle presupposes that it makes sense to think of aggregating goods to make a total, and of comparing amounts of good thus aggregated. Second, the good to be brought about is located in feelings of pleasure, and the evil to be avoided in feelings of pain. These feelings have inherent value or disvalue regardless of how they are caused to exist and regardless of their own consequences. Third, all moral principles can be derived from the requirement that good be maximized. The principles involved in evaluating agents as well as in giving moral direction to action are nothing but applications of the basic principle. (shrink)