Study of the multiplicity of interactions between invertebrate hosts and their parasites helps to define the aspects of the host immune systems that have ecological and evolutionary significance. Such study, however, reveals how much is yet unknown. For instance, the costs of mounting an immune response, the nature of the long-lasting protection sometimes attained, and the high degree of specificity observed in certain hosts are phenomena that still await full explanation. An additional puzzle is the high degree of specificity achieved (...) in light of the apparent low degree of specificity in the recognition and effector mechanisms of insect immune systems. Furthermore, while protective immunity is typically associated with vertebrate adaptive immune systems, invertebrates may have analogous capacities, whose nature is still largely unknown. This review will illustrate how the traditional host-centred view of immune defence can be usefully extended by taking account of parasite immune evasion strategies and the variation that such strategies create in the observed outcomes of infection. BioEssays 27:1026–1034, 2005. © 2005 Wiley Peiodicals, Inc. (shrink)

To explain the phenomena in the world of our experience, to answer the question “why?” rather than only the question “what?”, is one of the foremost objectives of all rational inquiry; and especially, scientific research in its various branches strives to go beyond a mere description of its subject matter by providing an explanation of the phenomena it investigates. While there is rather general agreement about this chief objective of science, there exists considerable difference of opinion as to the function (...) and the essential characteristics of scientific explanation. In the present essay, an attempt will be made to shed some light on these issues by means of an elementary survey of the basic pattern of scientific explanation and a subsequent more rigorous analysis of the concept of law and of the logical structure of explanatory arguments. (shrink)

1. The problem. The concept of confirmation of an hypothesis by empirical evidence is of fundamental importance in the methodology of empirical science. For, first of all, a sentence cannot even be considered as expressing an empirical hypothesis at all unless it is theoretically capable of confirmation or disconfirmation, i.e. unless the kind of evidence can be characterized whose occurrence would confirm, or disconfirm, the sentence in question. And secondly, the acceptance or rejection of a sentence which does represent an (...) empirical hypothesis is determined, in scientific procedure, by the degree to which it is confirmed by relevant evidence. (shrink)

Like a number of other authors, Miller uses the term “emergent” interchangeably with “unpredictable” and employs it as a property term, i.e., in contexts of the form “Event E is emergent.” As we showed in our article, however, predictability and unpredictability as well as emergence are relations; they can be predicated of an event only relatively to some body of information. Thus, a lunar eclipse is predictable by means of information including data on the locations and speeds, at some particular (...) time, of the celestial bodies involved, and the laws of celestial mechanics plus certain principles of optics; it is unpredictable on the basis of, say, alone. Consequently, the phrase “Event E is unpredictable” is incomplete, and hence meaningless, in much the same sense as the expression “Straight line l is parallel.” Similar observations apply to the term “emergent,” which is frequently used to characterize events which, in a sense examined in detail in our article, are not explainable by a micro-structure theory. (shrink)

The eminent philosopher of science Carl G. Hempel, Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University and a Past President of the American Philosophical Association, has had a long and distinguished academic career in the course of which he has been professorial mentor to some of America's most distinguished philosophers. This volume gathers together twelve original papers by Hempel's students and associates into a volume intended to do homage to Hempel on the occasion of his 65th year in (...) 1970. The papers are grouped around the unifying topic of Hempel's own interests in logic and philosophy of science, the great majority dealing with issues on inductive logic and the theory of scientific explanatio- problems to which Hempel has devoted the bulk of his outstandingly fruitful efforts. With the approach of 'Peter' Hempel's 65th birthday, an editorial committee sprang into being by an uncannily spontaneous process to prepare to commemorate this event with an appropriate Festschrift. The editors were pleased to receive unfailingly prompt and efficient coopera tion on the part of all contributors. The responsibility of seeing the work through the press was assumed by Nicholas Rescher. The editors are grateful to all concerned for their collaboration. ALAN ROSS ANDERSON PAUL BENACERRAF ADOLF GRUNBAUM GERALD J. MASSEY NICHOLAS RESCHER RICHARD S. RUDNER TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE V PAUL OPPENHEIM: Reminiscences of Peter 1 w. v. QUINE: Natural Kinds 5 JAAKKO HINTIKKA: Inductive Independence and the Paradoxes of Confirmation 24 WESLEY c. (shrink)

Die Arbeit kritisiert den Versuch Imre Lakatos, durch eine Erweiterung und Veränderung eines falsifikationistischen methodologischen Programms einen funktionierenden Standard des Ausscheidens objektsprachlicher Theorien zu gewinnen. Dies leistet Lakatos auch nicht durch seine Wendung zur Historiographie, die eine Beurteilung konkurrierender methodologischer Programme ermöglichen soll. Immer bleibt seine Methodologie auf die Möglichkeit des Gehaltsvergleiches angewiesen, die nur in den restringiertesten Fällen vorliegen wird und fällt damit noch hinter die frühen Vorschläge Paul K. Feyerabends zurück. Lakatos kann in keiner Phase seiner methodologischen (...) Entwürfe ein rationales Entscheidungskriterium begründen und flüchtet sich am Ende in einer restaurativen Wende in das angebliche kompetente Urteil der jeweils inthronisierten Wissenschaftlergemeinde. Damit aber gibt Lakatos einen methodischen Anspruch auf und läßt methodologische Reflexion in eine Art der 'mob psychology' degenerieren, wie er es ursprünglich gegenüber den methodologischen Auffassungen von Th. Kuhn vorgeworfen hatte. (shrink)

Le philosophe mit le pied sur la première marche du futurotron. C'était la première fois qu'il utilisait cet appareil pour ses recherches. Bien qu'il vienne seulement d'être mis au point et qu'il ne soit encore qu'à l'état de prototype, ce futurotron pouvait décidément rendre de grands services. De nombreux chercheurs de différentes disciplines l'avaient d'ailleurs déjà utilisé de manière très fructueuse. Le philosophe prit place aux côtés du pilote sur le siège avant de la machine. - Quel est le principe (...) de fonctionnement de la machine? demanda-t-il. - Ce serait un peu long à vous expliquer. C'est basé sur la mécanique quantique. Le pilote demanda, pressé: - Quelle époque avez-vous choisie? - Je souhaite effectuer une investigation en l'an 2150. Le pilote plaça le sélecteur sur l'année 2150. - Bien. Nous allons commencer. Etes-vous prêt? - Oui. Le futurotron se mit à ronronner. Un flash lumineux intense s'ensuivit. Au bout de quelques minutes, une image floue apparut sur l'écran géant du prototype. Peu à peu, l'image devint plus nette, et puis finalement parfaitement précise. Le philosophe se mit à observer l'écran avec une extrême acuité. Il distinguait nettement des êtres, d'apparence humaine, qui étaient assis dans ce qui semblait être une salle de conférences. En les regardant attentivement, il constata que ceux-ci présentaient les caractéristiques de notre espèce actuelle. Leur physionomie était humaine, mais pourtant il y avait chez eux quelque chose de différent... Dans ce qui paraissait être une projection publique, le philosophe distinguait nettement un faisceau lumineux et coloré qui provenait du front de l'un des êtres placé au centre de la salle, et s'élargissait pour former ce qui constituait l'image projetée d'une véritable scène tridimensionnelle. Les autres individus, assis autour, regardaient attentivement la scène. La projection était d'une netteté parfaite, et d'un réalisme saisissant. On y distinguait nettement deux personnes qui déambulaient en conversant, dans un paysage représentant une plage superbe, battue par les vagues. Le pilote interrompit soudain: - Voilà, c'est fini.. (shrink)

English translation of a paper originally pupblished in French in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy under the title 'Comment l'urne de Carter et Leslie se déverse dans celle de Hempel'. In this paper, I present firstly a solution to Hempel's Problem. I recall secondly the solution to the Doomsday Argument described in my previous Une Solution pour l'Argument de l'Apocalypse (Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1998-2) and remark that both solutions are based on a similar line of reasoning. I (...) show thirdly that the Doomsday Argument can be reduced to the core of Hempel's Problem. (shrink)

Like the positivists, Fuller is concerned to demarcate and systematically evaluate scientific claims and practices. Fuller corrects and reforms the positivist enterprise in light of his sociological naturalism. What Fuller's analysis brings to the fore is how the naturalization of epistemology makes the power?knowledge relation into an epistemological issue. Yet, in his writings. Fuller is radically divided with respect to how to react to this fact. Specifically, Fuller vacillates between, on the one hand, a concern for democratizing norms and, on (...) the other hand, a Machiavellian impulse for the maximization of the norms of knowledge production. I argue that his commitment to being both a democratizer and a Machiavellian is inconsistent, and, moreover, that his argument for democratizing normative pursuits rules out, in fact, his more Machiavellian proclivities regarding how most efficiently to realize the norms of knowledge production. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn is viewed as one of the most influential philosophers of science, and this re-release of a classic examination of one of his seminal works reflects his continuing importance. In _World Changes,_ the contributors examine the work of Kuhn from a broad philosophical perspective, comparing earlier logical empiricism and logical positivism with the new philosophy of science inspired by Kuhn in the early 1960s. The nine chapters offer interpretations of his major work _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ and subsequent (...) writings. The introduction outlines the significant concepts of Kuhn's work that are examined and is followed by a brief appraisal of Kuhn by Carl Hempel. The chapters discuss topics that include: a systematic comparison of Kuhn and Carnap viewing similarities and differences; the disputation of absolute truth; rational theory evaluation and comparison; applying theory to observation and the relation of models in a new conceptualization of theory content; and interpreting Kuhn's plurality-of-worlds thesis. The volume also presents four historical papers that speak to Kuhn's views on lexical structures and concept-formation and their antecedents. The afterward, by Kuhn himself, reviews his own philosophical development, his thoughts on the dynamics of scientific growth, and his response to issues raised by the contributors and other interpreters of his work. (shrink)

Ein eben erschienenes Buch „Der Typenbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik“ (von C. Hempel und P. Oppenheim) wird zum Anlass genommen, methodologische Probleme der Verwendung von Typenbegriffen zu diskutieren. Drei verschiedene Arten von Attributen werden unterschieden : klassifizierende Merkmale, abstufbare Merkmale und Massgrössen. Abstuf- bare Begriffe können standardisiert werden. So entstandene Standards werden als Quasi-Typen bezeichnet. Echte Typen entstehen aus Merkmalkombinationen. Diese Kombinationen werden in einem Merkmalsraum vorgenommen mit Hilfe sogenannter Reduktionen. Drei Arten von Reduktionen werden unterschieden. Die für (...) die empirische Sozialforschung wichtigste Reduktion ist die pragmatische : sie fasst Klassen von Merkmalkombinationen so zusammen, wie es ein vorliegendes Erhebungsproblem erfordert. Im allgemeinen werden Typen intuitiv gebildet, und erst nachher wird die ihnen entsprechende Merkmalskombination aufgedeckt. Dieses Verfahren heisst Substruktion. An Beispielen wird seine Bedeutung für die Praxis dargestellt. Es wird betont, dass die typologischen Operationen (Reduktion, Substruktion und Transformationen) nichts darüber aussagen, was ein Typus ist und wie er gefunden wird. Sie weisen nur gewisse formale Eigenschaften auf, die allen typologischen Systemen gemeinsam sind.Un livre récemment paru „Le concept de type à la lumière de la nouvelle logique“ (de C. Hempel et P. Oppenheim : „Der Typenbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik“ ) fournit Toccasion de discuter quelques-uns des problèmes que pose l'emploi des concepts de type. On distingue trois catégories de caractères : caractères classificatoires, caractères gradués et mesures de grandeur. Les concepts gradués peuvent être standardisés de telle manière que naissent des standards que l'on peut qualifier de quasi-types. Les types authentiques naissent par combinaison de caractères. Ces combinaisons s'opèrent dans un „lieu de caractères“ (Merkmalsraum) à l'aide d'un procédé nommé réduction. On distingue trois sortes de réduction. La réduction la plus importante pour la recherche sociale est la réduction pragmatique : elle embrasse des classes de caractères combinés en fonction des exigences d'une enquête donnée. En général, les types sont formés intuitivement, ensuite seulement on découvre la combinaison de caractères correspondante. Cette démarche s'appelle substruction. On en montre la signification pour la pratique dans une série d’exemples. On souligne que les opérations typologiques (réduction, substruction, transformations) ne nous permettent nullement de dire ce qu'est un type et comment il a été découvert. Elles indiquent seulement certains caractères formels qui sont communs à tous les systèmes typologiques. (shrink)

In philosophy, old theories never die, they just hibernate. For many years, no philosophical approach could have been more out of date than that of the British Hegelians: Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet. No theory has been “refuted” more often than their coherence account of truth, both as a definition of truth and as a criterion of truth. Coherence did enjoy a brief renaissance during the early days of logical positivism. Neurath put forth such an account. Carnap, during one of his (...) many periods, came under the influence of Neurath’s brand of physicalism and Carl Hempel defended the coherence view against the criticisms of Schlick, among others. (shrink)

Nach vielen gegenwärtigen Wissenschaftstheoretikern ist die Wissenschaftstheorie des Logischen Empirismus, wie sie in den Schriften von Carnap, Russell, Reichenbach und Hempel vertreten wird, durch die neue Wissenschaftstheorie wesentlich verbessert worden, wie sie von Hanson, Polanyi, Toulmin und Kuhn entwickelt worden ist. Aber keiner der letzteren Gegner des Logischen Empirismus hat im Detail die Erkenntnistheorie herausgearbeitet, welche der neuen Wissenschaftstheorie zugrundeliegt. Kürzlich jedoch hat Harold I. Brown, in Perception, Theory and Commitment · The New Philosophy of Science , eine klare (...) Formulierung dieser neuen, consensualen Erkenntnistheorie vorgelegt. In dem vorliegenden Artikel entwickele und bewerte ich die Ansichten von Brown und Kuhn als Repräsentanten der neuen Erkenntnistheorie. Alles in allem begründe ich, daß die neue Erkenntnistheorie bestenfalls eine äußerst unvollständige Alternative zur logisch-empiristischen Erkenntnistheorie liefert. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: The Logic of Historical Explanation by Clayton Roberts.

The question ‘Are there inherent differences among the phenomena studied by different sciences which require inherently different methodologies?’ has received considerable attention during the last century. Much of the debate has been fueled by logical positivism and logical empiricism, both of which embrace a commitment to the reduction of theories and the ultimate unity of science. This commitment presupposes that there are no inherent fundamental differences since any inherent differences would undermine the connected goals of reduction and unification. Hence, logical (...) positivists and logical empiricists have attempted to show that the supposed differences are illusory. For example, Hempel and Nagel both argued vigorously that there are no inherent differences. Their strategy was to analyze a purported difference and argue either that the feature responsible for the difference was not really present in the non-physical science or that it was after all present in the physical sciences as well. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.1 (2002) 121-122 [Access article in PDF] Book Review Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy Jill Kraye and M. W. F. Stone, editors. Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. xii + 270. Cloth, $75.00 Early-modern philosophy begins in the seventeenth century. This book, based on a colloquium at the Warburg Institute, London in 1997, strives at extending the limits of (...) this period into the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries. Thus "the long-standing exclusion of the Renaissance from the standard philosophical curriculum" (xii) should come to an end by acknowledging its being an integral part of early modern philosophy and its relevance for an understanding of modern thought. The distinctive element of the Renaissance was, according to the editors, humanism, understood as the revival of ancient sources from the fourteenth century on, and its impact on the shaping of modern thought by these sources.One can identify the following types of argument offered in the twelve contributions to this book: (1) Renaissance humanists mediated classical sources into the seventeenth and following centuries either by translating Greek texts into Latin (Lohr on Aristotle commentaries) or by offering new interpretations that were to become standard (Hankins on Ficino and Galileo, and Mercer on the German Platonists). (2) Ancient modes of thought, mediated through the Renaissance, shaped modern philosophy (Stone on Aristotelian and Reformed ethics, Levi on Stoicism in Justus Lipsius, Kraye on Marcus Aurelius editions, and Osler on Gassendi and Aristotle). (3) Humanist literary forms and mentalities survived in modern thought (Bianchi on dialogue, Vickers on rhetoric in Bacon, and James on 'grandeur' and scientific argument).Two papers do not fit into this scheme: in "The Theology of Lorenzo Valla," the only paper dealing directly with a Renaissance humanist, Monfasani wants to prove that "Valla was no theologian." Monfasani does this on the basis of a very narrow concept of dogmatic correctness, blaming Valla continuously for being banal, to the effect that the paper does not contribute to the topic of the book. One could well connect Valla's theological issues (free will, summum bonum, trinity, etc.) with his provocative stirring up of philosophy in general and show his influence on Protestant theology and on modern ethics.The other paper is by J. R. Milton, which is enlightening because it summarizes the prejudices against humanism in modern philosophy ("'Delicate learning,' erudition and the enterprise of philosophy"). He endorses "one of the most familiar narratives in European philosophy" (161), namely that Descartes's breakthrough was due to his total rupture [End Page 121] with the philosophical tradition, especially with contemporary humanist and scholastic thought. Thus Descartes's triumph was that of the myth of the irrelevance of history to philosophy as evident in Galileo, Locke, and even Hume. If antecedents are acknowledged, e.g., in Berkeley, then accepting that they "provide us either with an irreplaceable source of wisdom or with equally irreplaceable models for imitation, or indeed both" (167), still fails to recognize that the history of a philosophical problem is a part of that problem rather than just some general "wisdom" or a model for imitation. Of course, Milton repeats the myth of Bacon's anti-humanism, masterly refuted in this very book by Brian Vickers, and Milton believes that Valla "enthroned" "custom and example" and therefore for him "it would be difficult if not impossible to state Hempel's Raven Paradox" (169). One might wonder whether the conclusion: "All ravens are black --all non-black things are non-ravens," is the paramount of modern philosophy. But a thorough reader of Valla's logic might discover similarities to pragmatism, which are fostered by his deep criticism of language with the tools of Renaissance humanism. However, Descartes's indebtedness to Renaissance method and rhetoric is handbook knowledge today.The audience for this collection of samples are specialists either in seventeenth- or eighteenth-century philosophy, or in Renaissance thought, or even philosophers in the narrow sense of the disciplines. The latter are difficult to convince of the usefulness of historic studies or "erudite activity" (Milton... (shrink)

In 1948 Hempel and Oppenheim proposed an explicatum for the concept of systematic power 1, pp. 164–167. Since that time some shortcomings have been found in this first attempt. It is the purpose of this paper to show that one can keep the basic approach of the ‘48 paper, and overcome the known disadvantages by means of changes in the details of the definition. In this improvement certain tools will be used that were not available in 1948.

Schlagel begins with the claim: "Ever since Galileo, our beliefs about the world have been influenced, in the main, by the results of scientific inquiry." This is still true, he says, in a sense: "Prominent contemporary philosophers such as Popper, Nagel, Hempel, Grünbaum, Toulmin, and Feyerabend have also taken scientific developments as their main focus of interest." But Schlagel thinks analytical philosophers, by contrast with philosophers of earlier periods, are peculiarly academic--out of touch with the general contemporary intellectual community. (...) Though writing for academic philosophers, Schlagel wants to reach a "wider audience comprised of scholars of diverse backgrounds." To achieve this aim, he says he will diverge from the current analytical paradigm in the following three respects: " [The book] does not focus on language as the primary datum for philosophical investigation, but the results of empirical inquiry...; it does not rely on logic as the tool for clarifying concepts and arguments; and it is systematic, in that it attempts to show that the various facets of the problem of knowledge... are interrelated and imply a new framework of interpretation". (shrink)

2. Because of the possibility of lies, or the misuse of language, I believe that Professor Hempel's formulation of the problem of empirical certainty must be interpreted as a convenient abbreviation, in linguistic terms, of a question about beliefs. A complete formulation of the question would have to make some reference to the speaker's beliefs as he utters an "experiential statement.".

Peter Abelard (1079–1142 ce) was the most wide‐ranging philosopher of the twelfth century. He quickly established himself as a leading teacher of logic in and near Paris shortly after 1100. After his affair with Heloise, and his subsequent castration, Abelard became a monk, but he returned to teaching in the Paris schools until 1140, when his work was condemned by a Church Council at Sens. His logical writings were based around discussion of the “Old Logic”: Porphyry's Isagoge, aristotle'S Categories and (...) On Interpretation and boethius'S textbook on topical inference. They comprise a freestanding Dialectica (“Logic”; probably c.1116), a set of commentaries (known as the Logica [Ingredientibus], c. 1119) and a later (c. 1125) commentary on the Isagoge (Logica Nostrorum Petititoni Sociorum or Glossulae). In a work Abelard called his Theologia, issued in three main versions (between 1120 and c.1134), he attempted a logical analysis of trinitarian relations and explored the philosophical problems surrounding God's claims to omnipotence and omniscience. The Collationes (“Debates,” also known as “Dialogue between a Christian, a Philosopher and a Jew”; probably c.1130) present a rational investigation into the nature of the highest good, in which the Christian and the Philosopher (who seems to be modeled on a philosopher of pagan antiquity) are remarkably in agreement. The unfinished Scito teipsum (“Know thyself,” also known as the “Ethics”; c.1138) analyses moral action. (shrink)