Lives and works of great thinkers from Jonathan Edwards to Albert Einstein, from Wiliam Penn, escaping English tyranny, to Paul tillich, fleeing German despotism.

The number of technical terms employed by existentialist philosophy must be precisely defined in order that the intended thought may be properly understood. This book is designed to present such definitions based on documentary source materials by the major existentialists, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Jaspers, Marcel, Heidegger, Camus and Berdysev.

We show that for random bit strings, Up, with probability, image, the first order quantifier depth D) needed to distinguish non-isomorphic structures is Θ, with high probability. Further, we show that, with high probability, for random ordered graphs, G≤,p with edge probability image, D)=Θ, contrasting with the results for random graphs, Gp, given by Kim et al. [J.H. Kim, O. Pikhurko, J. Spencer, O. Verbitsky, How complex are random graphs in first order logic? Random Structures and Algorithms 26 119–145] of (...) D)=log1/pn+O. (shrink)

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that (...) the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being “filtered out” or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses. (shrink)

[1] Lev Yehudah ḥeleḳ 1, u-vo ḥidushim u-veʼurim be-ʻinyanim shonim. Lev Yehudah ḥeleḳ 2, u-vo heʻarot ṿe-heʼarot ḳetsarot. Boʼu ḥeshbon, u-vo heʻarot be-ḥeshbonot u-midot Ḥazal -- [2] Ḳunṭres Boʼu ḥeshbon ḥeleḳ 2.