This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and (...) made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

It is unclear how children learn labels for multiple overlapping categories such as “Labrador,” “dog,” and “animal.” Xu and Tenenbaum suggested that learners infer correct meanings with the help of Bayesian inference. They instantiated these claims in a Bayesian model, which they tested with preschoolers and adults. Here, we report data testing a developmental prediction of the Bayesian model—that more knowledge should lead to narrower category inferences when presented with multiple subordinate exemplars. Two experiments did not support this prediction. Children (...) with more category knowledge showed broader generalization when presented with multiple subordinate exemplars, compared to less knowledgeable children and adults. This implies a U-shaped developmental trend. The Bayesian model was not able to account for these data, even with inputs that reflected the similarity judgments of children. We discuss implications for the Bayesian model, including a combined Bayesian/morphological knowledge account that could explain the demonstrated U-shaped trend. (shrink)

Professor Randall is already well known to students of Greek philosophy through his lively book on Aristotle published in 1960. If his treatment of the Stagirite had more of Aristotle than of Randall, the same can hardly be said of the present work, which is decidedly more Randall than Plato. Indeed it might fairly be described as a dramatic reverie on Plato. None the worse for that of course, since the touch of Socrates was meant to stimulate, but the reader (...) should be warned in advance not to expect the measured treatment of a Taylor or a Friedländer. (shrink)

The generation of American idealist philosophers came to an end effectively with the first World War. Idealism was superseded by a variety of philosophical schools: pragmatists, empiricists, positivists and latterly existentialists. Now there are signs of a return to idealism. The rising tide of social anomy, which the recent schools can do nothing to prevent, has directed men’s minds once more to the roots of community life. The writings of the idealists, hitherto dismissed as scarcely intelligible abstractions, are now being (...) read in chastened spirit with a new awareness of their purport. (shrink)

In recent years there has been an immense upsurge of writings on the philosophy of science. It is noticeable, however, that much of this writing is ‘philosophical’ in only a rather remote sense of the word. The Reader in the History and Philosophy of Science in the University of Cambridge has set out to recall philosophers of science to ‘the general nature of philosophical thinking and of the philosophical tradition that has accumulated over the centuries’. A complementary aim of the (...) work is ‘to remind the students of general philosophy that their philosophical heritage is deeply grounded in, if not originating from, speculation about science, showing that the methods and results of scientific enquiry have had a profound direction on philosophical thought’. (shrink)

Professor Randall is already well known to students of Greek philosophy through his lively book on Aristotle published in 1960. If his treatment of the Stagirite had more of Aristotle than of Randall, the same can hardly be said of the present work, which is decidedly more Randall than Plato. Indeed it might fairly be described as a dramatic reverie on Plato. None the worse for that of course, since the touch of Socrates was meant to stimulate, but the reader (...) should be warned in advance not to expect the measured treatment of a Taylor or a Friedländer. (shrink)

Eclipses are proverbially fraught with forebodings. The solar eclipse of 1919 was no exception. Seen in retrospect, that eclipse marked the end of an old era and the beginning of a new in the philosophy of science. Not in science itself, be it noted, for the scientific life is a life of patience and sobriety and continuity, knowing little of what the world calls ‘sensation’. But for the onlookers, the philosophers of science, the event was drama. The reign of Newton, (...) long tottering, was finally broken; Einstein took up the vacant chair. Men were not slow to learn the lesson: if king-making can be done once it can be done again. Philosophy of science must needs hereafter be a philosophy of revolutions—whether continuous revolution or spasmodic revolutions is still a subject of debate. (shrink)

From the pen of Professor Geach we have learnt to expect the fastidious art of the microscopist. Not microscopy for its own sake, however, but microscopy as the vigilant servant, ensuring that large views, if and when they are built, shall be built only from sound materials. The present volume is a collection of nine papers—some previously published in journals, and some appearing for the first time. They exhibit the author’s painstaking skill in logical analysis, and his predilection for the (...) paths trodden by Aquinas and the later Wittgenstein. If they invite the charge of lengthy and sometimes tedious hair-splitting, the author has his answer ready: often hair-splitting is the only way to attain the truth. (shrink)

The generation of American idealist philosophers came to an end effectively with the first World War. Idealism was superseded by a variety of philosophical schools: pragmatists, empiricists, positivists and latterly existentialists. Now there are signs of a return to idealism. The rising tide of social anomy, which the recent schools can do nothing to prevent, has directed men’s minds once more to the roots of community life. The writings of the idealists, hitherto dismissed as scarcely intelligible abstractions, are now being (...) read in chastened spirit with a new awareness of their purport. (shrink)

This collection of papers arose out of an international conference on Newton held at the University of Western Ontario in 1967.

Plato, in the Phaedrus, expressed forebodings about the written word. And the history of hermeneutics does little to dispel Plato’s prophecy of ills to come. At the present time, observes Professor Hirsch, we are, as regards literary criticism, in the high tide of subjectivism and scepticism. The meaning of Scripture is a new revelation to each generation; the meaning of a literary text is what it means to us today, and whatever meaning the author may have intended is irrelevant. The (...) magisterium of the teacher, as the preserver of a heritage and the conveyor of knowledge, has gone: his reading is no more valid than that of a pupil. On the other hand, to shift the focus of discussion from the text to the author is equally unsatisfactory. This course leads us into a search for influences and an enquiry into authorial habits and experiences. Literary criticism degenerates into futility. We must endeavour to fix on a point between these two extremes, a point where an objectively valid interpretation emerges, an interpretation which links the mind of the reader with the mind of the author. We must presume that the author, when he wrote, meant something determinate by his text. Our task is to discover from the text what he meant. How best to perform this task is the theme of the present book. (shrink)

“The Will to Believe” defines the religious question as forced, living and momentous, but even in this article James asserts that more objective factors are involved. The competing religious hypotheses must both be equally coherent and correspond to experimental data to an equal degree. Otherwise the option is not a live one. “If I say to you ‘Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan’, it is probably a dead option, because for you neither hypothesis is likely to be alive.” James, (...) WB, p. 3. Analogously, in A Pluralistic Universe James is at pains to convince the reader that his own religious hypothesis is just as “objective,” makes just as much sense, etc. as alternative possibilities: the “only thing I emphatically insist upon is that it [pluralistic pantheism] is a fully coordinate hypothesis with monism. This world may, in the last resort, be a block universe; but on the other hand, it may be a universe only strung along, not rounded in and closed. Reality may exist distributively just as it sensibly seems to, after all. On that possibility I do insist.”William James, A Pluralistic Universe (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909) p. 328.Here, once again, before the will to believe can be employed, the objective factors of competing hypotheses, their equal coherence and correspondence, must be brought out.When reconstructed, James' overall outlook has a “qausi Kuhnian” taint to it- though obvious differences remain. Much of what goes on in evaluating competing scientific hypotheses is either not forced, or not living, or not momentous, but rather “typical,” “dead,” and “avoidable,” in short very “normal.” But there are moments in the history of science where the decision between hypotheses might well be forced, living and momentous, and sometimes James comes close to recognizing this.Analogously, a good deal of what goes on in religion is not forced, not living or not momentous - in short it is all too “normal”. In The Varieties of Religious Experience for example, James proposes to ignore the institutional branch of the religious domain and to concentrate on personal and psychological factors, his reason being that the institutional aspect concentrates on the routine, the normal. “Worship and sacrifice, procedures for working on the dispositions of the deity, theology and ceremony and ecclesiastical organization, are the essentials of religion in the institutional branch. Were we to limit our view to it, we should have to define religion as an external art, the art of winning the favor of the gods.” James, VRE, p. 29. and again “The word ‘religion,’ as ordinarily used, is equivocal. A survey of history shows us that, as a rule, religious geniuses attract disciples, and produce groups of sympathizers. When these groups get strong enough to ‘organize’ themselves, they become ecclesiastical institutions with corporate ambitions of their own. The spirit of politics and the lust of dogmatic rule are then apt to enter and to contaminate the originally innocent thing; so that when we hear the word ‘religion’ nowadays, we think inevitably of some ‘church’ or other.” Clearly here religion has a normal, i.e. trivial side, just as does science. On the other hand, there are revolutionary moments in religion, such as that of choosing between theism and materialism in Pragmatism, or choosing among theism, monistic pantheism and pluralistic pantheism in A Pluralistic Universe. Such moments involve the will to believe and are clearly more personal than their counterparts in the domain of normal institutionalized religion. Going further, there are no doubt differences of degree between the will to believe decisions in science and the will to believe decisions in religion. These have been explicated in more specific terms by Ian Barbour in his article, “Paradigms in Science and Religion.” ...each of the ‘subjective’ features of science... is more evident in the case of religion: (1) the influence of interpretation on data, (2) the resistance of comprehensive theories of falsification, and (3) the absence of rules for choice among paradigms. Each of the corresponding ‘objective’ features of science is less evident in the case of religion: (1) the presence of common data on which disputants can agree, (2) the cumulative effect of evidence for or against a theory, and (3) the existence of criteria which are not paradigm-dependent. It is clear that in all three respects religion is a more ‘subjective’ enterprise than science. But in each case there is a difference of degree - not an absolute contrast between an ‘objective’ science and a ‘subjective’ religion. Ian Barbour, “Paradigms in Science and Religion,” in Paradigms and Revolutions, edited by Gary Gutting (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980) pp. 242–43. Barbour correctly notes that the “...choice is not between religion and science, but between theism, pantheism, and naturalism, let us say, as each is expressed in a particular historical tradition. No basic beliefs are capable of demonstrable proof.”Ibid., p. 243. James sometimes comes close to recognizing this but his oscillation on the status of the everyday world of common sense, or the perceptual world, causes him not to see the issue clearly. When the animated world of the perceptual is taken as the all inclusive ‘really real,’ science is viewed as an abstract, second class citizen. But James offers what we would consider a more sophisticated and adequate perspective when he views the world of common sense, having become linguistified, as itself suspicious, and consequently views all three tiers - common sense, scholastic philosophy, and science - as “regional ontologies”, or “language games” in Wittgenstein's terminologySee Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), paragraph 7, paragraph 23. For the notion of “regional ontology” see Edmund Husserl, Ideas, translated by W.R. Boyce Gibson (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1962) p. 57ff; p. 158ff. - and opposes all three to a more primordial or prereflexive level. When James takes this second approach it is easier to see that the basic distinction he began to make in “The Will to Believe” was between the scientific and religious domain where the will to believe was to be employed, and the domain of “ordinary” religion and science. Finally this position anticipates his ultimate metaphysical outlook, viz. “pure experience” as approachable through language on a series of diverse regional levels, but nonetheless not completely describable within language. It is important to recall that in The Varieties of Religious Experience James distinguishes between the science of religions and what he calls living religion: [T] he science of religions may not be an equivalent for living religion; and if we turn to the inner difficulties of such a science, we see that a point comes when she must drop the purely theoretic attitude, and either let her knots remain uncut, or have them cut by active faith. James, VRE, p. 489. The study of religion, in short is not the activity of religion; the latter is animated, personal, and, we would argue, necessitates a commitment in terms of the will to believe. Once again, however, James hesitates over offering the same two-fold delineation in other areas of science. On the one hand he tells the reader that “science-has ended by utterly repudiating the personal point of view.”Ibid., p. 491. On the other hand, he offers the following comment a few pages later on in a footnote: ...the divorce between scientist facts and religious facts may not necessarily be as eternal as it at first sight seems, nor the personalism and romanticism of the world, as they appeared to primitive thinking, be matters so irrevocably outgrown. The final opinion may, in short, in some manner now impossible to forsee, revert to the more personal style, just as any path of progress may follow a spiral rather than a straight line. If this were so, the rigorously impersonal view of science might one day appear as having been a temporarily useful eccentricity rather than the definitely triumphant position which the sectarian scientist at present so confidently announces it to be.Ibid., p. 501, Footnote. The burden of this paper has been to indicate that when James' two-fold outlook on perception and/or common sense is properly reconstructed, the raproachment between science and religion is not so “impossible to forsee.”. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:TAKING OTHER RELIGIONS SERIOUSLY: SOME IRONIES IN THE CURRENT DEBATE ON A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGJ:ONS * 1GAvIN D'CosTA West London Institute of Higher E'ducation Isleworth, Middlese111 HE QUESTION oi Christian attitudes to the world eligions is becoming increasingly important. An lnterpretatwn of Religion is emblematic of a growing trend, which runs across 1denominational lines, that attempts fo take other,religions seriously. John Hick.argues that for most of its ihistory (...) Christianity has hrud a rpolitioaUy and theologicrully imperialist attitude towards the ireligions of the world. Superiority :and uninformed arrogance have generally prev:ailed with the accompanying attitude that the religions of the world 1aire 1 generally sinful and incapable of being 1 salvific. The 1 time has come foT a change of a;ttitude: the wol"ld reHgions must be taken seriously :and this means ·affil"ming them as alternative paths to salvation, possibly neither worse nor better than·Christianity. This Hick cru1ls a "pluralistic" outlook. The agenda is irrudical and Hick's Vioice is not solitary. Hick'1 s hook!is a ma;gisteri:al 4rn paiges and is ibrused on his Giffol'ld Lectmes of 1986-87. It contains cons!i.derruble indological, philosophicail and theological material, hut in what follows I shall,be dea1ing with one aspect oll!ly, his argument for p1uiialism. Hick is acknowledged :as a leading irepresentative of this pluralistic approach. Initially he began as a conservative,and exclusivist Christian,and has over the years enoompassed a wide!l.'ange of thoofogica1 positions now,culminating *John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 519 520 GAVIN D'COSTA in this p11esent rbook.1 In :this review discussion I propose that many o[ the most mdical strategies in the theology of re1ligions in 'Spite 0£ their wish to take other rreligions seriously have an il'!Onic tendency to do just the opposite! In attempting to be genuinely accommodating to the 11eligions 0£ the world, Hick, I will argue, unwittingly ends up in danger of accommodating none, including Christianity. This tendency, which iI believe to 1be clearly illustrated in Hick's rrecent rbook, is shared in various degrees hy numerous theologians pursuing a, pluralist p111oject similar to that of Hick's.2 It would he foolish to assume they are " all the 'Saime," hut they certainly share common theological and philosophical tendencies which I wish to isolate and comment on. I should 1state dearly that iby such a critique I do not intend to discount the possibility that 1 a:ll religions ma,y lead fo God, but that the stmtegies often employed to a111g111e.for this are deepJy problematic. ~o put Hiok"s new rbook into :perspective it will he helpful to wace its genesis 1briefly. In 1973, using an astronomical analogy, Hick suggested a Copernican revolution in the Christian theoology of rreligions whereby Christians should "shift from the 1 He began, in his own words, as a "strongly evangelical and indeed fundamentalist " Christian: see God Has Many Names (London: Macmillan, 1980), p. 2. See also my analysis of his entire pilgrimage in John Hick's Theology of Religions (London/New York: University Press of America, 1987). 2 For some of those on Hick's trajectory, see A. Race, Olllristians and Religious Pluralism (London: SCM, 1983); Paul Knitter, No Other Name'! (New York: Orbis, 1985); Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1978); R. Ruether, Pluralism and Ohristology; the latter three and other influential co-contributors (including Hick) are to be found in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a Pluralistio Theology of Religions, ed. J. Hick and P. Knitter (New York: Orbis, 1987). More recently, we can see the extremely thin line between pluralists and essentialist "inclusivists" in E. Hillman, Many Paths·: A Oatholic Approach to Religious Pluralism (New York: Orbis, 1989), who marries K. Rahner and W. C. Smith, divorces faith from history and tradition, and thereby provides an essentialist analysis. See the pertinent comments of K. Surin on Smith's essentialist project in "An Examination of the Discourse of John Hick and Wilfred Cantwell Smith", in Religious Pluralism and Unbelief, ed. I. Hamnett (London, Routledge... (shrink)

The work of Galileo has been strangely neglected in the English-speaking world. His trial by the Roman Inquisition has always had notoriety, but has hitherto been seriously known only through the English translation from the German of Karl von Gebler’s brilliant study, Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia. Although Galileo is, above all men, the founder of the modern scientific age, his chef d’oeuvre, the Dialogues on the Two Great Systems of the World, has been practically unknown to English readers; (...) the English translation of 1661 by Thomas Salusbury being exceedingly rare. (shrink)

WHATEVER one may think of the merits and demerits of the Cartesian system one must acknowledge the great vitality of the Cartesian principles. They were launched with a passion, a sincerity, an engagement rarely equalled. The principles in some way met a deeply-felt need stirring in many breasts in the 17th century; a half-unconscious aspiration which many struggled to articulate and expressed in a variety of ways. Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, each in his own way helped to formulate and create the (...) new order, and in doing so stimulated the general appetite for it so that it grew apace. Descartes prepared the ground, Galileo planted the tree, Bacon looked after the ‘public relations’. The scientific age is the outcome of their work. These men were themselves too close to things to see clearly the consequences of what they were doing; some of these consequences would have greatly surprised them. Could Descartes, for instance, personally the most ‘existentialist’ of philosophers, have foreseen that his principles would give rise to a diametrically opposite regime: that forcing the radical separation and disengagement of man and the material world would lead to a state of brittle ‘facts’ and shallow ‘emotions’, and would provoke the contemporary ‘existentialist’ reaction? (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to propose a miming interpretation of the marriage arrangements of Republic, Book v. On this reading, Plato’s marital communism is not one of his more startling eccentricities. It is, on the contrary, an ambitious but light-hearted parable or fable, designed to throw further light on the proper relations between the public and the private in human affairs.

In recent years, due largely to the efforts of Karl Popper, the principle of falsification has come to the fore in discussions on the logic of the sciences and metaphysics. In its narrow form the principle may be put thus: a scientific theory can never be proved true, it can only be proved false. But it is commonly expanded into a wider form. This is done on the supposition that scientific knowledge is common–sense knowledge writ large. The principle now becomes: (...) an assertion has a meaning and is significant only in so far as it is susceptible to empirical testing and so to being possibly shown false. In this general form the principle is proposed as a criterion for all genuine knowledge. (shrink)

In recent years, due largely to the efforts of Karl Popper, the principle of falsification has come to the fore in discussions on the logic of the sciences and metaphysics. In its narrow form the principle may be put thus: a scientific theory can never be proved true, it can only be proved false. But it is commonly expanded into a wider form. This is done on the supposition that scientific knowledge is common–sense knowledge writ large. The principle now becomes: (...) an assertion has a meaning and is significant only in so far as it is susceptible to empirical testing and so to being possibly shown false. In this general form the principle is proposed as a criterion for all genuine knowledge. (shrink)

1.—Some years ago we were indebted to Mr Kuhn for a refreshing work on the philosophical interpretation of Copernican astronomy. Now he has launched into a more ambitious programme: he has sketched the ground-work for a veritable aggiornamento in our appraisal of the physico-mathematical sciences. The author works in historical depth but on a very narrow front. This latter contraction is responsible for much of the force and clarity of the thesis. But the reader should be sensible from the start (...) of this restriction in the field of acute attention. Although the author tends to use the term ‘science’ without qualification, in truth what he has to say is of only minor relevance to the descriptive or classificatory sciences. The persuasive power of his thesis is virtually confined to the exact operations of the physicist, the astronomer, and the chemist. Kuhn and Canon Raven, in his biologically oriented Gifford Lectures, are both concerned with the appraisal of the history of the natural sciences. Yet their treatments are bewilderingly different, until we understand how each has restricted his canvas. (shrink)

According to Jones & Love (J&L), Bayesian theories are too often isolated from other theories and behavioral processes. Here, we highlight examples of two types of isolation from the field of word learning. Specifically, Bayesian theories ignore emergence, critical to development theory, and have not probed the behavioral details of several key phenomena, such as the effect.

In this year of bicentennial celebration, there will no doubt take place several cultural analyses of the American tradition. This is only as it should be, for without an extensive, broad-based inquiry into where we have come from, we shall surely not foresee where we might go. Nonetheless, most cultural analyses of the American context suffer from a common fault - the lack of a different context to use for purposes of comparison. True, American values and ideals were partly inherited (...) from the European tradition. But that tradition is in many ways an inadequate mode of comparison. Without going too far afield, let us note two points: first, European culture was the proud inheritor of the Renaissance tradition, and, going back still further, of classical culture; second, the European countries are compact. Their land masses are such that the notion of "frontier" simply would not have arisen in the same way as it did in America. On the other side of the globe, however, there does exist a country capable of serving as a suitable mirror. We speak, of course, of Russia. That country also came relatively late onto the cultural horizon, and was not privy to the Renaissance tradition. Furthermore, her land mass is such as to be "experi mentally infmite" in character - not unlike the American frontier. It is hoped that much can be leamed about the present cultural context by com paring the two countries in their youthful stages. (shrink)