We discuss some recent work by Tim Maudlin concerning Black Hole Information Loss. We argue, contra Maudlin, that there is a paradox, in the straightforward sense that there are propositions that appear true, but which are incompatible with one another. We discuss the significance of the paradox and Maudlin's response to it.

This introduction to one of the liveliest and most popular fields in philosophy is written specifically for a beginning readership with no background in philosophy or science. Step-by-step analyses of the key arguments are provided and the philosophical heart of the issues is revealed without recourse to jargon, maths, or logical formulas. The book introduces Einstein's revolutionary ideas in a clear and simple way, along with the concepts and arguments of philosophers, both ancient and modern that have proved of lasting (...) value. Specifically, the theories of the ancient Greek philosophers, Zeno, Euclid and Parmenides are considered alongside the ideas of Newton, Leibniz and Kant as well as the giants of twentieth-century physics, Einstein and Lorentz. The problems at the heart of the philosophy of space and time, such as change, motion, infinity, shape, and inflation, are examined and the seismic impact made by relativity theory and quantum theory is assessed in the light of the latest research. The writing is lucid and entertaining, allowing a beginning readership to grasp some difficult concepts while offering the more experienced reader a succinct and illuminating presentation of the state of the debate. "Space, Time and Einstein" shows the reader the excitement of scientific discovery and the beauty of theory in the search for answers to these fundamental questions. (shrink)

Woodger's substitution of the "allegedly more precise term 'an environmentally insensitive set of lives'" for the term 'an inborn character' is discussed by haldane. He proposes that "woodger's definitions do not appear to have reached precision." (staff).

Biologists have as yet taken but little cognizance of the revolution in human thought which has been inaugurated by physicists in the last five years, and philosophers have stressed its negative rather than its positive side.

What obligations do global actors have to prevent terrorism? Is consent required to create an international obligation, or does the correctness of its goals ground its legitimacy? In this paper, I consider these questions with respect to a subset of international law often overlooked: anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism . AML/CFT comprises peaceful response to violence and terrorism, making it a significant component of international justice and diplomacy. First, I present the current legal framework for AML/CFT institutions (...) and identify two conflicting sources of justification: objective value and consent. The fix for this problem, I argue, does not come from either component alone. Objective value cannot provide the sole source of justification because it cannot settle the choice between multiple competing norms that would achieve the same objective goods were we to follow them . Consent cannot provide the sole source of justification (‘the const.. (shrink)

Politicians, employers, courts, and health insurance companies are often discussed as problematically preventing access to birth control. However, doctors have more direct control over women's health and quietly have been much more effective at preventing patients' access to contraception. Obstetrician/Gynecologists routinely deny their patients access to contraception ostensibly in the name of health by withholding birth control until patients undergo yearly pap smears. I argue that those in the medical field are motivated by similarly sexist concerns as those in other (...) major institutions in the United States, but that they are often overlooked in discussions of biomedical ethics. After providing background, I argue that using birth control as a bargaining chip to control patients is morally impermissible, is paternalistic, and is contrary to consent. I next argue that sexism explains, though does not justify, this practice. I discuss the medical harms of routine pap smears and withholding birth control. These claims make medical malpractice likely. Withholding birth control to coerce individuals seeking medical care is medical malpractice, paternalistic, violates autonomy, and is contrary to consent. (shrink)