The health theories of Nordenfelt and Boorse are compared. Critical attention is focused on Nordenfelt's description of his theory as one of holistic welfare, contrasting with Boorse's analytical and statistical approach. Neither theory is found to give an entirely satisfactory account of ‘health’ in scientific medicine or common usage. Because Nordenfelt attenuates the ontological significance of organs and organ parts and simplifies the role of statistics, his theory is regarded as weakly holistic. Boorse underrates the importance of non-statistical evaluation. A (...) mediating position, termed ‘strong holism’ is suggested as a way of integrating normative and statistical elements in a more adequate health concept. (shrink)

Berkeley’s ‘esse is percipi’ has been criticized for implying epistemological solipsism, the main argument being that different minds cannot harbor numerically one and the same idea. Similarly, C. J. Boström, the dominating Swedish philosopher in the nineteenth century, was early scorned because his principle of esse est percipi allegedly contradicts the simultaneous claim that two spirits can perceive the same thing under qualitatively different appearances. Whereas the criticism against Berkeley is here regarded as valid, it is argued that Boström successfully (...) defended himself by employing a dual concept of meaning, resembling Frege’s Sinn and Bedeutung some thirty years later, and by postulating an ontology that permits human minds to share in the divine ideas that constitute reality. (shrink)

According to a U.S. court ruling, intelligent design (ID) theory is religious in nature, not scientific, and must not be taught in schools. In opposition, Fuller argues for a closer rapport between science and religion. Here it is emphasized that any allegedly scientific conclusion from design in nature to the existence of God is a hypothesis subject to the same quality norms as empirical hypotheses in general. By quotations from his Iter Lapponicum , Linnæus is summoned in support of a (...) strictly immanent conception of science, against Fuller’s suggestion that Linnæus’ personal piety could be a reason for considering ID scientific. (shrink)

According to Huemer, existence is evidence of immortality, provided past time is infinite. The argument is based on, inter alia, an alleged contradiction between the fact of one’s existence now and its improbability. I suggest that Huemer’s argument is flawed in equating the infinitesimally small with its limit value, and in assuming a philosophically significant difference between the a priori probability of the occurrence of a unique incarnation and that of anyone among an infinite number.