Do the rich descriptions and narrative shapings of literature provide a valuable resource for readers, writers, philosophers, and everyday people to imagine and confront the ultimate questions of life? Do the human activities of storytelling and complex moral decision-making have a deep connection? What are the moral responsibilities of the artist, critic, and reader? What can religious perspectives—from Catholic to Protestant to Mormon—contribute to literary criticism? Thirty well known contributors reflect on these questions, including iterary theorists Marshall Gregory, James Phelan, (...) and Wayne Booth; philosophers Martha Nussbaum, Richard Hart, and Nina Rosenstand; and authors John Updike, Charles Johnson, Flannery O'Connor, and Bernard Malamud. Divided into four sections, with introductory matter and questions for discussion, this accessible anthology represents the most crucial work today exploring the interdisciplinary connections between literature, religion and philosophy. (shrink)

Recently, Rueger and Sharp (1996) and Koperski (1998) have been concerned to show that certain procedural accounts of model confirmation are compromised by non-linear dynamics. We suggest that the issues raised are better approached by considering whether chaotic data analysis methods allow for reliable inference from data. We provide a framework and an example of this approach.

Fodor and Lepore, in their recent book "Holism," maintain that if an inference from semantic anatomism to semantic holism is allowed, certain fairly deleterious consequences follow. In Section 1 Fodor and Lepore's terminology is construed and amended where necessary with the result that the aforementioned deleterious consequences are neither so apparent nor straightforward as they had suggested. In Section 2 their "Argument A" is considered in some detail. In Section 3 their "argument attributed to Quine" is examined at length and (...) a shorter and more perspicacious argument suggested which avoids their charge that the Quinean argument is guilty of an equivocation on the word 'statement'. (shrink)

In the Critique of Judgment, Kant claims that genius is a talent for art, but not for science. Despite his restriction of genius to the domain of fine art, several recent interpreters have suggested that genius has a role to play in Kant’s account of cognition in general and scientific practice in particular. In this paper, I explore Kant’s reasons for excluding genius from science as well as the reasons that one might nevertheless be tempted to think that his account (...) allows room for the scientific genius. I then argue that Kant’s concerns are not only epistemic, but also moral, and together, they give us good reason for resisting the veneration of genius. (shrink)

The Indiana Court of Appeals, in JKB, Sr. v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co. ), held that the state's Blood Shield Act does not protect pharmaceutical companies that produce blood-derived products from product liability suits based on injuries attributable to tainted blood supplies. Blood shield statutes help to guarantee adequate blood supplies by limiting the liability of blood banks. This holding limits the defenses available to pharmaceutical companies sued under product liability theory.The defendant, Armour Pharmaceutical, produces and sells clotting factor agents, which (...) are derived through plasmapheresis. Plasmapheresis is a costly and complex donation process through which the plasma and red blood cells of a donor's blood are separated. After separation, the process returns the red blood cells to the donor but retains the plasma. (shrink)

Au terme d'une longue recherche en quête du sens de l'art et de son mystère au coeur de nos vies, ce bref essai voudrait revenir sur le point central de jointure entre apparence et apparition qu'on peut désigner sous l'expression de manifestation esthétique. Interrogation ultime que soulève tout grand créateur d'une oeuvre d'art digne de ce nom, à savoir porteuse d'un contenu de vérité authentique. Ainsi du doute de Cézanne hanté au dire de Merleau-Ponty par le soupçon de l'échec de (...) la peinture à conjurer l'illusion des images - ou encore de l'angoisse de Schoenberg à la poursuite d'une musique qui soit espérance messianique (ce que J S Bach déjà avait poursuivi au sommet toute sa vie). Question éminemment philosophique méditée depuis toujours par les plus grands penseurs. Ainsi, au confluent du néo-platonisme et du christianisme, la lecture augustinienne de Plotin ; en plein âge baroque, l'analyse kantienne décisive du sublime au principe de l'imagination esthétique, et, à l'aurore de notre modernité du XXe siècle, l'invocation de Walter Benjamin à "l'aura, l'unique apparaître d'un lointain". (shrink)

On April 26, 1995, the United States Supreme Court limited the reach of the preemption provision of ERISA in New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Tavelers Insurance Co. ). In Travelers, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a New York statute requiring hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by commercial insurers and requiring health maintenance organizations to pay a surcharge to the state's general fund that varies depending on the number of Medicaid-eligible (...) HMO members enrolled. Neither patients insured by Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans nor the plans themselves are similarly charged under the statute. Several commercial insurers and HMOs claimed the surcharges should be preempted under ERISA because they are levied on patients whose insurance or HMO membership premiums are purchased by an ERISA plan.The ERISA preemption clause means that federal regulation, or lack thereof, supersedes state regulation that is related to employee pension and benefit plans. This preemption clause prevents states from changing health care and benefit law for a significant portion of state residents. (shrink)

By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.

In Barrett v. Danbury Hospital ), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the fear of contracting or transmitting HIV or any other blood-borne pathogens is not a compensable injury and does not give rise to a negligence or a medical malpractice claim. The court's decision affirmed the holding of a Connecticut trial court.In June 1990, Allen Barrett was admitted to Danbury Hospital complaining of abdominal pain. He had a history of gall bladder trouble. Barrett was placed on a stretcher (...) in the emergency room. The attending physician diagnosed Barrett's pain as a gallstone condition. During the course of his examination, the doctor noticed that Barrett was sitting in blood. The physician subsequently performed a rectal examination of Barrett to locate the source of the blood. The physician determined that the patient was not bleeding, but that the blood was in fact coming from two slits in the vinyl pad that covered the stretcher on which Barrett sat. (shrink)

Over the last two decades, Dutch courts have left room for euthanasia. Although a crime under the Penal Code, euthanasia will usually not result in prosecution and conviction if it is committed by a physician according to rules of careful medical practice ; if the patient's request is voluntary, well-considered, and enduring; and if there is unacceptable and hopeless suffering and there are no other solutions to the patient's situation.

Courts play a central role in legal and political processes in many countries in the common law world. Legal actors have a stake in making sure that legal processes and procedures are perceived as legitimate, both by the general population and professionals. Civil procedure, in both common law and civilian legal systems, has been historically known for its complexity. This article presents a body of empirical research about courts and procedural rules, and their role in different societies. It also analyzes (...) research and states how it has been used in policy debates and reforms. In addition, it discusses the question of the demand and supply for empirical research about rules of procedure and courts, and explores the difficulty of carrying out empirical research that goes beyond a focus on the institutional needs of the courts themselves and the reformers interested in their own court-reform agendas. (shrink)

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is America's strongest environmental law. Its citizen-suit provision—permitting “any person” whomsoever to sue on behalf of a threatened or endangered species—awards implicit intrinsic value, de facto standing, and operational legal rights to listed species. Accordingly, some cases had gone forward in the federal courts in the name of various listed species between 1979 and 2004, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that animals could not sue in their own name. Because the Supreme (...) Court has interpreted its habitat destruction as the “taking” of a listed species, some have argued that enforcement of the ESA's critical-habitat-protection provision is a “regulatory taking” of private property without just compensation, contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The courts have not agreed. The ESA citizen-suit provision appears to waive federal-court standing requirements devolved from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, creating much confusion and mutually contradictory rulings. A series of cases reconciles the ESA's citizen-suit provision with the particularized and concrete “injury-in-fact” standing requirements devolved from Article III. (shrink)

The origins and nature of the judicial role of the senate in cases which under the republic were the business of the permanent quaestiones have been the subject of long debate, and a satisfactory explanation has yet to be found for the change that had undoubtedly taken place by the reign of Tiberius. The discovery and publication of the senatorial decree which concluded the investigation into the charge brought in A.D. 20 against Cn. Piso following the murder of Germanicus,2 in (...) addition to the wealth of new material it provides for the political history of the period and the understanding of the methods of the historian Tacitus, allows an insight into the relation of the senate to the quaestio maiestatis which may prove useful in unravelling some of the puzzles which have troubled scholars hitherto. (shrink)

The origins and nature of the judicial role of the senate in cases which under the republic were the business of the permanent quaestiones have been the subject of long debate, and a satisfactory explanation has yet to be found for the change that had undoubtedly taken place by the reign of Tiberius. The discovery and publication of the senatorial decree which concluded the investigation into the charge brought in A.D. 20 against Cn. Piso following the murder of Germanicus,2 in (...) addition to the wealth of new material it provides for the political history of the period and the understanding of the methods of the historian Tacitus, allows an insight into the relation of the senate to the quaestio maiestatis which may prove useful in unravelling some of the puzzles which have troubled scholars hitherto. (shrink)

In The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion, Valerie Hoekstra looks at reactions to Supreme Court decisions in the local communities where the controversies began. She finds considerable media coverage of these cases and a highly informed local populace. While the rulings did not have a significant impact on how citizens felt about the issues in these cases, the rulings did have an important effect on how citizens felt about the Court. The evidence Hoekstra uses comes from a series of (...) two-wave panel studies conducted prior to and following the Supreme Court's decisions. This book provides important insights into how the public learns about Supreme Court decisions and how support for the Court is incrementally gained and lost as it announces its decisions. (shrink)