Book reviewed in this article:F.H. Bradley, Collected Works Volumes 1–5.

Descartes, Boyle and Hooke shared, with many other seventeenth-century figures, the view that mechanical explanations were the only intellectually satisfactory ones. They also all accepted the view that we have incorporeal souls. This generated a problem for them when they wrote about perception. In this area, indeed, Descartes seems to be almost a reluctant Cartesian. When we read his scientific writings, the incorporeal soul is not stressed, and Descartes happily speaks of physical, or of corporeal, ideas in discussing sensation, memory (...) and imagination. (shrink)

It is easy to have about the temporal present, the time that is now, thoughts that seem both true and impossible. E.g., ‘Now is the time that matters'. We may reflect that this is not just true but that ‘it is always like that', that is: now is always the time that matters. Yet here we seem to be generalizing the ascription to the temporal present of a property that claims uniqueness, viz., being the time that matters. The present paper (...) explores, in the case of the temporal present, the meaning and implications of this kind of impossible generalisation. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est d'examiner à fonds les relations qu'il y a entre les données de la science sur la matière et l'énergie, et les notions philosophiques de substance et d'accident. Il s'agit ici spécialement des deux questions suivantes : d'abord, doit-ön appeler vraiment exacte l'expression : « la matière se transforme en énergie » et ensuite : peut-on vraiment dire qu'il n'y ait pas de matière dans l'espace vide d'air ? C'est de propos délibéré que nous avons (...) choisi pour l'étude de ces questions la méthode qui consiste à interroger, autant que possible, les données mêmes de la science. Nous esquissons dès lors rapidement dans la première partie de l'article les théories physiques concernant notre sujet. Puis, dans la seconde partie, nous essayons d'en donner une interprétation. Cette interprétation met en lumière l'intuition plus profonde, qui se cache dans la connaissance du physicien, et qui ne saurait s'exprimer d'une manière achevée dans le cadre de la théorie physique comme telle. Il est nécessaire dès lors de donner une notion exacte de la substance. Tout physicien d'ailleurs tient implicitement compte de cette notion, dès qu'il ne se contente plus seulement des seules formules, mais qu'il y ajoute des explications. On doit toutefois circonscrire avec un soin particulier le sens attaché à la notion de « substance matérielle ». Il ne faudra pas par exemple trop insister sur l'occupation d'une certaine partie de l'espace bien tranchée. On doit aussi éviter une espèce d'anthropomorphisme dans laquelle on attribuerait à la substance matérielle une intériorité ou une indépendance trop grandes. Nous espérons être arrivé ainsi à des conclusions fondamentales sur la notion de la substance matérielle, ainsi que sur la nature de l'espace appelé vide. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Introduction Theism, Spirituality and Science The New Teleology and the Old Pantheism Fine Tuning and the Anthropic Cosmological Principle The Argument from the Appearance of Design God as an Ethical Principle The Argument from Contingency The Argument from Religious Experience Pascal's Wager Miracles Higher Criticism of the New Testament The Problem of Evil Historical Theism and Metaphysical Theism.

Abstract Boyle distinguished clearly between the areas which we would call scientific and theological. However, he felt that they overlapped seamlessly, and that the truths we discovered (or which were revealed to us) in one of these areas would be relevant to us in the other. In this paper I outline and discuss Boyle's views on the limitations of human knowing, Boyle's arguments in favour of accepting the revelations of the Christian faith, and his views on the kind of epistomological (...) standing that scientific knowledge claims have. Given this background I then consider the relation between hypotheses, theories and facts in Boyle's work, and consider a particular case, that of Boyle's Law, as an exemplification of the claims made in the rest of the paper. (shrink)

This paper and its subsequent parts (Part II and Part III) build on an earlier publication (McKenna 1986). They suggest that important clinical data on the relationship between infantile constitutional deficits and microenvironmental factors relevant to SIDS can be acquired by examining the physiological regulatory effects (well documented among nonhuman primates) that parents assert on their infants when they sleep together. I attempt to show why access to parental sensory cues (movement, touch, smell, sound) that induce arousals in infants while (...) they sleep could possibly help one of many different subclasses of infants either to override certain kinds of sleep-induced breathing control errors suspected to be involved in SIDS or to avoid them altogether. I do not suggest that solitary nocturnal sleep “causes” SIDS, that all parents should sleep with their infants, or that traditional SIDS research strategies should be abandoned. However, using evolutionary data, I do suggest that an adaptive fit exists between parent-infant sleep contact and the natural physiological vulnerabilities of the neurologically immature human infant, whose breathing system is more complex than that of other mammals owing to its speech-breathing abilities. This “fit” is best understood, it is argued, in terms of the 4–5 million years of human evolution in which parent-infant contact was almost certainly continuous during at least the first year of an infant’s life. Thus, to dismiss the idea that solitary sleep has no physiological consequences for infants does not accord with scientific facts. (shrink)