This book, outstanding in its field, presents in a clear, impressively thorough way the philosophical problems concerned with relativity theory and the topology and metrics of space and time. Many of the author's points will be familiar to the readers of his earlier articles, some of which this work is meant to supersede. Unifying all the many discussions is a rigorous and thorough-going empiricism that relies heavily on the results of investigations of physicists and mathematicians and that masterfully clips the (...) wings of those who would take flight from these results into the airy realms of speculative cosmology.—A. E. F. (shrink)

Objectives To evaluate whether the requirement of “minimal risk and burden” for paediatric research without direct benefit to the subjects compromises the ability to obtain data necessary for improving paediatric care. To provide evidence-based reflections on the EU recommendation that allows for a higher level of risk. Design and setting Systematic analysis of the approval/rejection decisions made by the Dutch Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (CCMO). Review methods The analysis included 165 proposals for paediatric research without direct benefit (...) that were reviewed by the CCMO between January, 2000, and July, 2007. A separate, in-depth analysis of all drug studies included 18 early phase drug studies and nine other drug studies without direct benefit. Results 11 out of 165 studies were definitively rejected because the CCMO did not regard the risk and/or burden to be minimal. In three of these 11 cases (including two early phase drug studies) the requirement of minimal risk and burden was cited as the only reason for rejection. Four other early phase drug studies also involved risks and/or burdens that were not regarded to be minimal but were nevertheless approved. Conclusions The requirement of minimal risk and burden, aiming to protect research subjects, occasionally leads to rejection of protocols. Early phase drug studies relatively often do not comply with the requirement. Committees may find ways to approve important studies that formally should be rejected, but that is not a desirable solution. The regulatory framework should be revised to make such occasional exceptions to the requirement legitimate and transparent. (shrink)

Tom Andersen’s reflecting team process, which allowed families to witness and respond to the talk of professionals during therapy sessions, has been described as revolutionary in the field of family therapy. Reflecting teams are prominent in a number of family therapy approaches, more recently in narrative and dialogical therapies. This way of working is considered more a philosophy than a technique, and has been received positively by both therapists and service users. This paper describes how dialogical therapists conceptualise the reflective (...) process, how they work to engage families in reflective dialogues and how this supports change. We conducted semi-structured, reflective interviews with 12 dialogical therapists with between 2 and 20 years of experience. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis of transcribed interviews identified varying conceptualisations of the reflecting process and descriptions of therapist actions that support reflective talk among network members. We adopted a dialogical approach to interpretation of this data. In this sense, we did not aim to condense accounts into consensus but instead to describe variations and new ways of understanding dialogical reflecting team practices. Four themes were identified: Lived experience as expertise; Listening to the self and hearing others; Relational responsiveness and fostering connection; and Opening space for something new. We applied these themes to psychotherapy process literature both within family therapy literature and more broadly to understand more about how reflecting teams promote helpful and healing conversations in practice. (shrink)

Background: Patient autonomy has been promoted as the most important principle to guide difficult clinical decisions. To examine whether practising physicians indeed value patient autonomy above other considerations, physicians were asked to weight patient autonomy against three other criteria that often influence doctors’ decisions. Associations between physicians’ religious characteristics and their weighting of the criteria were also examined. Methods: Mailed survey in 2007 of a stratified random sample of 1000 US primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association masterfile. (...) Physicians were asked how much weight should be given to the following: (1) the patient’s expressed wishes and values, (2) the physician’s own judgment about what is in the patient’s best interest, (3) standards and recommendations from professional medical bodies and (4) moral guidelines from religious traditions. Results: Response rate 51% (446/879). Half of physicians (55%) gave the patient’s expressed wishes and values “the highest possible weight”. In comparative analysis, 40% gave patient wishes more weight than the other three factors, and 13% ranked patient wishes behind some other factor. Religious doctors tended to give less weight to the patient’s expressed wishes. For example, 47% of doctors with high intrinsic religious motivation gave patient wishes the “highest possible weight”, versus 67% of those with low (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). Conclusions: Doctors believe patient wishes and values are important, but other considerations are often equally or more important. This suggests that patient autonomy does not guide physicians’ decisions as much as is often recommended in the ethics literature. (shrink)

Hume's is/ought distinction has long limited the role of empirical research in ethics, saying that data about what something is cannot yield conclusions about the way things ought to be. However, interest in empirical research in ethics has been growing despite this countervailing principle. We attribute some of this increased interest to a conceptual breakdown of the is/ought distinction. MacIntyre, in reviewing the history of the is/ought distinction, argues that is and ought are not strictly separate realms but exist in (...) a close relationship that is clarified by adopting a teleological orientation. We propose that, instead of recovering a teleological orientation, society tends to generate its own goals via democratic methods like those described by Rousseau or adopt agnosticism about teleology such as described by Richard Rorty. In both latter scenarios, the distinction between is and ought is obscured, and the role for empirical research grows, but for controversial reasons. MacIntyre warns that the is/ought distinction should remain, but reminds ethicists to make careful arguments about when and why it is legitimate to move from is to ought. (shrink)

Composed of essays and transcripts of discussions, this is an informative survey of problems involving the concepts of part and whole. Well-known scholars in a wide range of fields, from physics to literature, are the contributors: E. Purcell, physics; S. Kuznets, economics; S. Ramo, systems engineering; the late C. Kluckhohn, anthropology; E. Nagel, philosophy; R. Jakobson, linguistics; and I. A. Richards, poetry.--A. E. F.

This book, outstanding in its field, presents in a clear, impressively thorough way the philosophical problems concerned with relativity theory and the topology and metrics of space and time. Many of the author's points will be familiar to the readers of his earlier articles, some of which this work is meant to supersede. Unifying all the many discussions is a rigorous and thorough-going empiricism that relies heavily on the results of investigations of physicists and mathematicians and that masterfully clips the (...) wings of those who would take flight from these results into the airy realms of speculative cosmology.—A. E. F. (shrink)

The reissuing of this classic on Hume, originally published in 1925 and long out of print, is a welcomed event. A supplement, four appendices and an introduction have been added to this edition, adding over one hundred and fifty pages. The fifth chapter of the original edition, "Space, Time and Reality," has been omitted, but the topic is treated in one of the new appendices.—A. E. F.

Includes the introductory sections of the Great Instauration and the essay "Preparative Toward a Natural and Experimental History," with a fine introduction covering Bacon's life, times, and work. -- A. E. F.

"What is not" is treated as specifically opposed to eternity and immutability rather than to any other sense of "is." "What is not" refers to Nature, the transient and the mutable. With this hypothesis, Loenen is able to throw light on many of the problematic aspects of Parmenides' poem and save him from the charge of being inconsistent. Melissus and Gorgias are treated together with Parmenides from a single viewpoint.--A. E. F.

This thorough investigation of the implications, both logical and philosophical, of Lesniewski's systems should do much to arouse interest in this neglected Polish philosopher. The author takes great pains to relate Lesniewski's ideas to those prevailing today in "orthodox" circles of logicians. There is an excellent bibliography.—A. E. F.

Each member of pragmatism's triumvirate is the subject of a separate study which sketches his intellectual biography, surveys his philosophical position, and takes account of the typical criticisms. The accounts are not subtle.--A. E. F.

Scheler gives a phenomenological account of problematic aspects of religion and theology. The essential nature of the divine, the different forms of revelation, and the act of religious faith are central themes. There are illuminating treatments of the notions of communal guilt, conversion, Christian love, and their relevance to the contemporary world. There is also a candid discussion of the "phenomenological dilemma" in this excellent translation of Scheler's classic in the philosophy of religions.--A. E. F.