Mortal and immortal DNA : Craig Venter and the lure of "lamia" -- Homeopathy : Holmes, hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales -- Citizen Pinel and the madman at Bellevue -- The experimental pathology of stress : Hans Selye to Paris Hilton -- Gore's fever and Dante's Inferno : Chikungunya reaches Ravenna -- Giving things their proper names : Carl Linnaeus and W.H. Auden -- Spinal irritation and fibromyalgia : Lincoln's surgeon general and the three graces -- Tithonus and (...) the fruit fly : new science and old myths -- Swiftboating "America the beautiful" : Katharine Lee Bates and a Boston marriage -- Nothing makes sense in medicine except in the light of biology -- Apply directly to the forehead : Holmes, Zola, and Hennapecia -- Elizabeth Blackwell breaks the bonds -- Chronic lyme disease and medically unexplained syndromes -- Eugenics and the immigrant : Rosalyn Yalow and Rita Levi-Montalcini -- Science in the Middle East : Robert Koch and the cholera war -- How to win a Nobel prize : thinking inside and outside the box -- Homer Smith and the lungfish : the last gasp of intelligent design -- DDT is back : let us spray! -- Academic boycotts and the Royal Society -- Teach evolution, learn science : John William Draper and the "bone bill" -- Diderot and the yeti crab : the encyclopedias of life -- Dengue fever in Rio : Macumba versus Voltaire. (shrink)

This article explores the connection between objective chance and the randomness of a sequence of outcomes. Discussion is focussed around the claim that something happens by chance iff it is random. This claim is subject to many objections. Attempts to save it by providing alternative theories of chance and randomness, involving indeterminism, unpredictability, and reductionism about chance, are canvassed. The article is largely expository, with particular attention being paid to the details of algorithmic randomness, a topic relatively unfamiliar to philosophers.

I resolve an argument over “flat” versus “dimensioned” theories of realization. The theories concern, in part, whether realized and realizing properties are instantiated by the same individual (the flat theory) or different individuals in a part-whole relationship (the dimensioned theory). Carl Gillett has argued that the two views conflict, and that flat theories should be rejected on grounds that they fail to capture scientific cases involving a dimensioned relation between individuals and their constituent parts. I argue on the contrary (...) that the two types of theory complement one another, even on the same range of scientific cases. I illustrate the point with two popular functionalist versions of flat and dimensioned positions – causal-role functionalism and a functional analysis by decomposition – that combine into a larger picture I call “comprehensive functional realization.” I also respond to some possible objections to this synthesis of functionalist views. (shrink)

We connect learning algorithms and algorithms automating proof search in propositional proof systems: for every sufficiently strong, well-behaved propositional proof system [Formula: see text], we prove that the following statements are equivalent, (1) Provable learning. [Formula: see text] proves efficiently that p-size circuits are learnable by subexponential-size circuits over the uniform distribution with membership queries. (2) Provable automatability. [Formula: see text] proves efficiently that [Formula: see text] is automatable by non-uniform circuits on propositional formulas expressing p-size circuit lower bounds. Here, (...) [Formula: see text] is sufficiently strong and well-behaved if I.–III. hold: I. [Formula: see text] p-simulates Jeřábek’s system [Formula: see text] (which strengthens the Extended Frege system [Formula: see text] by a surjective weak pigeonhole principle); II. [Formula: see text] satisfies some basic properties of standard proof systems which p-simulate [Formula: see text]; III. [Formula: see text] proves efficiently for some Boolean function [Formula: see text] that [Formula: see text] is hard on average for circuits of subexponential size. For example, if III. holds for [Formula: see text], then Items 1 and 2 are equivalent for [Formula: see text]. We use the following modified notion of automatability in Item 2, the automating circuits output a [Formula: see text]-proof of a given formula (expressing a p-size circuit lower bound for a function [Formula: see text]) in non-uniform p-time in the length of a shortest [Formula: see text]-proof of a closely related but different formula (expressing an average-case subexponential-size circuit lower bound for the same function [Formula: see text]). If there is a function [Formula: see text] which is hard on average for circuits of size [Formula: see text], for each sufficiently big [Formula: see text], then there is an explicit propositional proof system [Formula: see text] satisfying properties I.-III., i.e. the equivalence of Items 1 and 2 holds for [Formula: see text]. (shrink)

In the context of theories of the connection between mind and brain, physicalism is the demand that all is basically purely physical. But the conception of “physical” embodied in this demand is characterized essentially by the properties of the physical that hold in classical physical theories. Certain of those properties contradict the character of the physical in quantum mechanics, which provides a better, more comprehensive, and more fundamental account of phenomena. It is argued that the difficulties that have plagued physicalists (...) for half a century, and that continue to do so, dissolve when the classical idea of the physical is replaced by its quantum successor. The argument is concretized in way that makes it accessible to non-physicists by exploiting the recent evidence connecting our conscious experiences to macroscopic measurable synchronous oscillations occurring in wellseparated parts of the brain. A specific new model of the mind-brain connection that is fundamentally quantum mechanical but that ties conscious experiences to these macroscopic synchronous oscillations is used to illustrate the essential disparities between the classical and quantum notions of the physical, and in particular to demonstrate the failure in the quantum world of the principle of the causal closure of the physical, a failure that goes beyond what is entailed by the randomness in the outcomes of observations, and that accommodates the efficacy in the brain of conscious intention. (shrink)

This book collects new studies of the work of F. H. Bradley, a leading British philosopher of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and one of the key figures in the emergence of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Well-known contributors from Britain, North America, and Australia focus on Bradley's views on truth, knowledge, and reality. These essays contribute to the current re-evaluation of Bradley, showing that his work not only was crucial to the development of twentieth-century philosophy, but illuminates contemporary debates (...) in metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. (shrink)

This paper proposes a reflexion on why did scholars continue to traslate Greek into Latin all the sixteenth century long, and how they justifed their works. For example in 1540, J. Perion began a new translation of Aristotle to answer to the needs of a readership who certainly knew Latin better than Greek. Founded on Bruni’s ideas on translation, he used Cicero's style because he thought it was the most appropriate to Greek philosophy, as Cicero already translated it into Latin. (...) So did Denis Lambin thirty years later, when he proposed a new translation of his own, without calling into question the choice of the language, that it to say without questionning what language, either latin or vernacular, would be more efficient. He justified his project by the difficulty of the exercise of translation itself, and by the fact that he was the only scholar able to perfectly achieve it. (shrink)

Gareth Evans produced a powerfulline of argument against Quine's well-known Thesis of the Inscrutability of Reference. In one part of his attack, Evans argued that, under certain conditions, structural simplicity may become truth-conducive for semantic theories. Being structurally more complex than the standard semantic theory, perverse semantic theories a la Quine are an easy prey for Evans' considerations. The bulk of the paper will be devoted to addressing Evans' criticism. By reviewing the classical/connectionist debate in cognitive science between a hypothetical (...) sympathizer of “cognitive orthodoxy" and the friend ofconnectionism, I shall contend that the Quinean has nothing to fear from a classical reading of Evans' considerations. (shrink)

Manuel Herrera Gómez es Profesor Titular de Sociología de la Universidad de Granada (1998). Sus publicaciones más recientes son Las políticas sociales en las sociedades complejas (2003), Sociedades complejas (2004), Metateoría de las Ciencias Sociales (2005), La cultura de la sociedad en Talcott Parsons (2005) y Teorías y métodos de planificación social (2005). También ha coordinado las obras Administración Pública y Estado de Bienestar (2004) y Teorías sociológicas de la acción (2005). En las últimas décadas se ha desarrollado un intenso (...) debate que contrapone a los defensores de un modelo liberal de sociedad y a los que apuestan por un modelo comunitario. Bajo el manto liberal se engloban todas aquellas teorías políticas cuyo objetivo es buscar procedimientos, universalmente compartidos, de agregación de los intereses individuales. Por su parte, en el bando comunitarista, nos encontramos aquellos planteamientos -cuyo denominador común es una crítica a toda visión puramente procedimentalista de la filosofía pública-, que consideran que sólo se posee una comunidad política cuando se recurre a un patrimonio común de contenidos, valores y tradiciones, en el que todos los miembros de la comunidad se sienten radicados. En esta obra se presenta un análisis detallado de los protagonistas y de las etapas de este debate, proponiendo como conclusión un modelo de sociedad que pretende dar respuesta tanto a las instancias radicadas en el modelo procedimental como a las presentes en el modelo comunitario. (shrink)