Despite its basically syllogistic character, Richard Whately's Elements of logic presents the subject in a modern theoretical setting. Whately, for instance, regarded logic as an abstract science, and defined the syllogism as a purely formal device to be used as a means of determining the validity of all arguments. In this paper, I argue that such instances of abstractive ascent place Whately's theory in closer proximity to later 19th-century developments than to the work of his 17th-century predecessors. In addition to (...) discussing the theory itself, other sections deal with its historical setting, and various reactions to it. (shrink)

Rolf Gruner's article on the role of understanding in the social sciences casts rational understanding as the aim of the social sciences. Even though he opts for a non?controversial methodology for the social sciences, his view still commits the social sciences to seeking the reproduction of reality rather than the explanation of it.

The work of W.V.O. Quine is often held to folIow the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle in broad outline, but to diverge from it in crucial particulars. On the basis of recent reevaluations of the latter, I argue that the philosophical distance between Quine and the Vienna Circle is less than ordinarily thought, or, most importantly, than Quine himself admits.

The work of W.V.O. Quine is often held to folIow the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle in broad outline, but to diverge from it in crucial particulars. On the basis of recent reevaluations of the latter, I argue that the philosophical distance between Quine and the Vienna Circle is less than ordinarily thought, or, most importantly, than Quine himself admits.

The high quality of the 20 papers in this collection is evidence that even in an area which has been repeatedly mined, there is always room for interesting, well presented thought.The authors represented include both philosophers and working scientists. Some are well known contributors to philosophical discussion, while the work of others will be less familiar to North American journal audiences.

This chapter contains sections titled: The Dark Ages of Logic Kant and Whately Bernard Bolzano John Stuart Mill Boole, De Morgan, and Peirce Gottlob Frege The Austrian School Bertrand Russell.

One major part of Representing and Intervening is completely without blemish. In it we find Ian Hacking busy puncturing received opinions about science in his usual lucid and engaging style. If you think, for instance, that scientists decide what exists by passively observing the passing show, Hacking has news for you. Similarly, if you think that experiments exist just to test theories, or that science begins and ends with theories, or that within science as practised there is even any univocal (...) rendering of the term “theory”, you are equally on the verge of surprise. (shrink)

Hirsch here takes up the semantically ascended descendant of an old metaphysical problem. In its earlier guise the problem was whether the world falls neatly into parts, so that science need only find the "joints," and carve away. As science became more sophisticated, however, it became more difficult to sustain the question in the purely substantival sense. Whether that question can even be meaningfully asked, however, does not matter, for one way or the other we at least have a language (...) whose words divide the world in what seems to be an inherently rational manner. (shrink)

This volume represents an important contribution to Peirce’s work in mathematics and formal logic. An internationally recognized group of scholars explores and extends understandings of Peirce’s most advanced work. The stimulating depth and originality of Peirce’s thought and the continuing relevance of his ideas are brought out by this major book.

This volume represents an important contribution to Peirce’s work in mathematics and formal logic. An internationally recognized group of scholars explores and extends understandings of Peirce’s most advanced work. The stimulating depth and originality of Peirce’s thought and the continuing relevance of his ideas are brought out by this major book.

One way to determine the quality and pace of change in a science as it undergoes a major transition is to follow some feature of it which remains relatively stable throughout the process. Following the chosen item as it goes through reinterpretation permits conclusions to be drawn about the nature and scope of the broader change in question. In what follows, this device is applied to the change which took place in logic in the mid-nineteenth century. The feature chosen as (...) the focal point is the categorical syllogism. (shrink)

In this time of increasingly critical scrutiny of the very point of the social sciences, those negatively inclined on the issue will find an unwitting ally in Brian Fay—unless, that is, one thinks that social science is best regarded as part of a postmodern wonderland in which science, now relativized to social and political setting, is regarded as being just one means among many of gaining knowledge. If that is how science should be regarded, Fay is on the cutting edge.

The core of Livingston’s book consists of a series of four critical studies of how twentieth-century analytic philosophy dealt with what many believe to be a hard case: consciousness. What makes it hard, the thinking goes, is a perceived dissonance that arises when analytic philosophy, with its emphasis on representing the world against a background of linguistic structure, comes face to face with pure subjective content. How can the latter be accommodated within the former without ignoring some of its fundamental (...) properties? The root problem is endlessly old and much larger than the scope of Livingston’s immediate concern. While we have pure experiences — being whacked by a golf ball or swept up by a tornado — the instant we reflect on our situation, immediacy is lost and knowledge becomes unavoidably perspectival, restricted, partial — a world structured by predication. Can the former be accommodated within the latter without doing injustice to the very qualities that distinguish it? Each philosophical generation has dealt with some version of the problem, from Plato’s insistence that real knowledge demands that the mind kick the traces of earthly existence, to more recent attempts to isolate a “given” element in experience, and thereby relate phenomenal immediacy to structured propositional knowledge. (shrink)

There is a classic problem which confronts any attempt to assign death a value. On the assumption that death is personal annihilation, death deprives evil of a requisite subject, for no misfortune can befall something which does not exist. Recent efforts to provide a reasonable basis for counting death as a bad thing have centered on an analysis of the loss of life's goods which it brings. So long as the analysis assumes that death is a simple state, loss can (...) be explained only by reference to a realm of possible things which exist after death. An alternative analysis of death is offered in which death is defined as a limit on life. That analysis provides a basis for evaluative judgements about death, while avoiding any commitment to post-mortem existence. (shrink)