The primary purpose of this book "is to analyze and clarify certain fundamental concepts, principles, and procedures in both classical and relativistic mechanics." At the same time, it attempts to provide a grounding in the theory for the philosopher of science who must deal with the sometimes technical literature on the philosophical implications of relativistic mechanics. "This book, then, is an attempt at fundamental philosophic clarification embedded in the format of an introductory work." Its first six chapters deal with the (...) methodological foundations of classical mechanics and electrodynamics, as conceived prior to Einstein. Thus, the next six chapters introduce special relativity in such a way that it is connected with the tradition from which it arose. Although the book is not primarily a historical treatment of the theory, this added perspective is welcome because almost invariably philosophers of relativity portray the theory as if it arose without the intermediary of electrodynamics. (shrink)

This volume "contains eight articles dealing with the intellectual and institutional developments in physics from the mid-1840’s to the mid-1920’s. The primary focus is on the quantum and relativity theories and Einstein’s contributions to these theories. The secondary focus is on thermodynamics and its kinetic theory basis in the nineteenth century." Slightly more than one third of the book is devoted to various aspects of Einstein’s work: M. J. Klein analyzes his difference with Bohr in 1923-1925; R. McCormmach traces the (...) problem area which he extracted from Lorentz’ electron theory in about the first decade of this century; and S. Goldberg considers the British response to his special theory of relativity in 1905-1911. In the editor’s foreword, McCormmach illustrates from the current investigation of Einstein a general thesis about "the limitations of contemporary writing in the history of science." Thus, this anthology may well become a standard secondary source for Einstein scholarship. A fourth of the book has to do with thermodynamics: Y. Elkana follows Helmholtz’ formulation of its first law ; E. E. Daub looks at the evolution of concepts essential to its second law ; and E. W. Garber delineates Clausius’ contribution to its underpinnings. Just two articles are unrelated to these two foci: P. Forman, in the longest paper in the volume, considers Lande’s search for a theory of the anomalous Zooman effect in 1919-1921; and R. Sviedrys, in an exchange with A. Thackray, examines the rise of physical science at Cambridge University during the Victorian era. (shrink)

Taking the position that scientific hypotheses explain the world and do not merely classify data, the author describes the decline of the Newtonian world picture and the development of a new, "ether-theoretical" view. The nineteenth century founders of electromagnetism—Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz—all tendered theories of a medium, usually called the "ether," which filled the space between any two noncontiguous bodies and transported electromagnetic actions from one to the other. After Einstein profoundly reinterpreted the concept of medium, it came to be (...) called the "field." In giving this history, William Berkson explains what problems each scientist faced and how the process of solving them led to new discoveries. He also draws out the philosophical consequences of the history, especially for the positions of Popper, Meyerson, Agassi and Kuhn. (shrink)

Bertrand’s paradox ) can be considered as a cautionary memento, to practitioners and students of probability calculus alike, of the possible ambiguous meaning of the term ‘at random’ when the sample space of events is continuous. It deals with the existence of different possible answers to the following question: what is the probability that a chord, drawn at random in a circle of radius R, is longer than the side of an inscribed equilateral triangle? Physics can help to remove the (...) ambiguity by identifying an actual experiment, whose outcome is obviously unique and prescribes the physical variables to which the term ‘random’ can be correctly applied. In this paper, after briefly describing Bertrand’s paradox, we associate it with an experiment, which is basically a variation of the famous Buffon’s needle experiment for estimating the value of π. Its outcome is compared with the analytic predictions of probability calculus, that is with the probability distribution of variables whose uniform distribution can be considered a sound implementation of complete randomness. (shrink)

Aim: Patients with advanced cancer need information about end-of-life treatment options in order to make informed decisions. Clinicians vary in the frequency with which they initiate these discussions.Patients and methods: As part of a long-term longitudinal study, patients with an expected 2-year survival of less than 50% who had advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were interviewed. Each patient’s medical record was reviewed at enrollment and at 3 months for evidence of the discussion of patient wishes concerning (...) ventilator support, artificial nutrition and hydration , resuscitation and hospice care. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was also performed and 2-year survival calculated.Results: 60 cancer and 32 ALS patients were enrolled. ALS patients were more likely than cancer patients to have evidence of discussion about their wishes for ventilator support , ANH , DNR and hospice care . At 6 months, 91% of ALS patients were alive compared with 62% of cancer patients; at 2 years, 63% of ALS patients were alive compared with 23% of cancer patients .Conclusions: Cancer patients were less likely than ALS patients to have had documented advanced care planning discussions despite worse survival. This may reflect perceptions that ALS has a more predictable course, that advanced cancer has a greater number of treatment options, or differing views about hope. Nevertheless, cancer patients may be less adequately prepared for end-of-life decision-making. (shrink)

Immediately after the publication of Darwin's book on the origin of species, Engels, having familiarized himself with it, wrote to Marx on December 12, 1859: "All in all, Darwin, whom I am reading right now, is superb. Teleology had hitherto not yet been destroyed in one of its aspects, and now this has been done. Moreover, hitherto there has never been so sweeping an attempt to prove historical development in nature, especially with such success." Soon Marx enlarged upon the evaluation (...) of Darwinism. In his letter of December 19, 1860, he commented that this theory "provides a foundation in natural history for our views." It is therefore no accident that Engels, in developing the principles of dialectical materialism and problems of the dialectics of nature, interested himself so deeply and comprehensively in the theory of evolution. (shrink)

We characterize strict Mittag-Leffler modules in terms of free realizations of positive primitive formulas, and rings over which projectives are trivial in terms of various notions of separability of strict Mittag-Leffler modules. © 2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

Even though Plamondon's kinematic model fits the data well, we do not share the view that it explains movements other than ballistic ones. The model does not account for closed-loop control, which is the more common type of movement in everyday life, nor does it account for recent data indicating interference with ongoing processing.

Estudio sobre el alcance de la concepción del pensamiento hispanoamericano en José Gaos, en su obra de los años 40. A History of Latin American Philosophy (s. XVI- XIX): / José Gaos (1900-1969).

John B. Thompson's lucid and helpful introduction to this collection of essays includes a brief history of Ricoeur's career and the thematic focuses of his major works. This introduction is followed by "Notes on editing and translating" and by "A Response by Paul Ricoeur.".