Mandelbaum believes that views regarding history and man and reason pose problems for philosophy, and he offers critical discussions of some of those problems at the conclusions of parts 2, 3, and 4.

Children and adults from a remote Zafimaniry village in eastern Madagascar were probed for their intuitive understanding of the biological inheritance of bodily features. They were told a story about a baby adopted at birth, and were asked whether, when grown, he would be more likely to resemble his birth parents or his adoptive parents in bodily traits, beliefs, preferences, temperaments, and skills. In spite of the fact that the Zafimaniry, like other Southeast Asian and Malagasy peoples, profess explicit beliefs (...) concerning the fixation of individuals' properties that are at variance with Western folkbiology, Zafimaniry adults responded as do American adults on the task. Zafimaniry children, however, did not repond as did the adults, nor did they respond as did the majority of American children. Rather, they responded in the manner most consistent with what would be predicted, for children as well as for adults, from the ethnographic literature. That is, they tended to judge that an adopted boy would resemble his adoptive rather than his birth parents on virtually all traits, including bodily traits. The implications of these findings for current debates within cognitive science and anthropology are discussed. (shrink)

He focuses on Hegel and Nietzche, perhaps to give Mallarme and Kafka a breathing spell. Paper edition (unseen), $10.95. No index or bibliography. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

Investing tips from Maurice and David Schoenwald of the New Alternatives Fund.

Investing tips from Maurice and David Schoenwald of the New Alternatives Fund.

In this paper we propose a new approach to address the ramification problem in common-sense reasoning about action and change. We contrast the methods of McCain and Turner, Thielscher and Sandewall and, based on some of the limitations they encounter, we introduce a trajectory-based approach which keeps a history of the states through which a system evolves to characterise its dynamical state. We furnish an underlying state-transition semantics and a logic that admits an expressive, dynamical account of some typical scenarios (...) which encounter modelling difficulties in the other approaches mentioned. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:CONVERSION AND CONVERGENCE: PERSONAL TRANSF0l{l'11ATION AND THE GROWING ACCORD OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES HAT IS IT that keeps theology and religious studicc1 apart? And what, on the other hand, will bring them together? It will be immediately observul that these questions are put in such a way as to imply that theology and religious studies were things, like rockets in orbit, " already out there now real," that (...) continue in motion according to the principles of their own momentum, and are brought together through forces applied from the outside through human intervention. Obviously this is not exactly the case with the matter in hand. Rather it is that both theology and religious studies are in human subjects in the first place. Some human subjects identify themselves as theologi ::rns: others call themselves scholars devoted to the study of religion. So the question might be put, what keeps them apart, i.e., what separates the theologian from the practitioner of religious studies? Cculd it be that the progressive transformai :ion of human subjects devoted to the study of religion, from one or another viewpoint, brings about the gradual unification of the disciplines in which the meaning of religion is brcmght under control? And if that is the case, what kind of subjective transformation would promote the unification of their objective concern? In the pages that follow these are the questions that will be pursued. The: proximate occasion for my setting out to write something on the topic of the relation between religious studies and theology is the fact of being engaged in teaching in the Department of Religion at l,a Salle University. At the moment 658 CONVERSION AND CONVERGENCE' G50 of writing the curriculum of the department is divided into four sections. They are labeled as follows: (1) biblical studies; (2) theological studies; (3) historical studies; (4) religious studies. In the first sector the focus is obviously the sacred scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Theological studies have to do exclusively with the Christian tradition, the community, its doctrine and its ritual. Historical dudies deal with that same tradition, now not in terms of the entities by which it is constituted, but rather from the point of view of the development of the tradition as a whole in this or that period, both from within and in relation to cultural conditions that have made a major impact on the tradition. Hence, for example, " Religion in America ". Heligious studies, finally, focus on the great religions oi the world other than Christianity, taking in alrn the int2r(faciplinary topic oi "Heligious.Attitudes in Modem Literature". Significantly, under this last rubric no mention or history is made in the section title. In reference to this menu, moreover, it has been said that the department is aci:uaHy doing two quite distinct things. The question that occurs, of course, is what these two distinct things are and hov;r they are related. Even the layperson will discern readily that the distinction has something to do with the difference between inatters that concern the Christian community and the religious beliefs and practice of "others". Therefore, under the banner of the inquiry already outlined, and taking La Salle's setup as somewhat typical, at least of collegiate study of religion in the context 0£ North American Catholic institutions of higher learning, I intend a critical assessment of this menu and its presuppositions. This makes for a twofold purpose: (l) to make a modest contribution to the ongoing discussion of the religious studies/theology problematic ; (Q) to engage in the sort of critique just now suggested. At the outset it should be stated too that the quite substantial contribution of Bernard Lonergan, " The Ongoing Genesis of Methods" (recently published as part of the vol- 660 MAURICE SCHEPERS, O.P. ume, A Third Collection; see works consulted, in fine) is seminal to what follows. The problem is one of method, to be sure; but that fact does not place it in the realm of abstractions. The questions are after all rather concrete. Is there, for example, any dynamic relationship between the study of Buddhist spirituality and the interpretation of Pauline literature? What might be the connection... (shrink)

Two major problems in understanding Joseph Priestley are that he wrote so much and over such a wide area. The nineteenth-century edition of his collected works fills 25 volumes—and that leaves out the science! In discussing a man like Priestley, therefore, one cannot hope in a single lecture to do justice to the wide range of his interests or even to summarise adequately his many contributions to science. Fortunately much of the scientific work is fairly well known, for example his (...) discovery of many new gases or ‘airs’, as he preferred to call them. It might be appropriate, therefore, to try to put Priestley's pneumatic chemistry in a wider context and in particular to relate it to his career. Priestley was not only an important man of science. He was also an outspoken theologian, a literary figure and a family man, and all of these roles will have to be taken into consideration when the definitive biography is written. (shrink)

The history of science can be approached in several different ways. It may be studied, as in the classification once favoured in the long-established Department of History and Philosophy of Science at University College London, by considering separately the history of individual sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.—Partington's monumental History of chemistry is a good example of the cross-section of history of science obtained by considering a single discipline. This approach is understandable when history of science is the work of retired (...) specialists in a particular science. On the other hand, many of those who have approached the history of science from a training in general history have tended to favour a study of a particular period as an alternative to an orientation by subject. This is particularly valuable before the nineteenth century, when subject boundaries were not so tightly drawn as some of the old science historians tended to assume. A third possibility is area studies, usually the history of science within a particular country. Sometimes this is done unconsciously, as when historians claim that they are dealing with a general theme, such as science and religion or scientific institutions, but do so with special reference to their own country. French historians of ‘the Enlightenment’ often study French authors exclusively. Language as much as country is a limiting factor here. (shrink)

Ces deux essais tournent autour des deux thèmes de prédilection de Maurice Clavelin. Le premier, Galilée ou la naissance de la science moderne, interroge l'un des tournants les plus importants de l'histoire des sciences : le " moment Galilée ". L'auteur montre que ce n'est pas une simple critique des idées traditionnelles ou une meilleure attention portée aux données de l'observation qui caractérise la science de ce génie. Rallié aux théories de Copernic, Galilée crée une vraie science mathématisée du (...) mouvement, véritable révolution conceptuelle qui ouvre une ère nouvelle à la spéculation sur la Nature, et signe ainsi l'acte de naissance de la science moderne. Le second aborde sous un angle inédit le rapport entre science et philosophie. Il montre qu'au début du XXe siècle, et après une longue stagnation, la théorie empiriste de la connaissance reprend forme et rigueur sous l'influence combinée de la logique symbolique et de l'interprétation logiciste des mathématiques. Le rôle de Russell est ici décisif, comme ses réinterprétations par Wittgenstein, Quine, et le cercle de Vienne. Un livre qui clôt l'oeuvre d'un grand philosophe des sciences. (shrink)

Whereas Pasteur patented the biotechnological processes that he invented between 1857 and 1873 in the agro-food domain, he did not file any patents on the artificial vaccine preparation processes that he subsequently developed. This absence of patents can probably be explained by the 1844 patent law in France that established the non-patentable status of pharmaceutical preparations and remedies, including those for use in veterinary medicine. Despite the absence of patents, the commercial exploitation of the anthrax vaccine in the 1880s and (...) 1890s led to a technical and commercial monopoly by Pasteur’s laboratory as well as the founding of a commercial company to diffuse the vaccine abroad. Pasteur repeatedly refused to transfer his know-how and anthrax vaccine production methods to foreign laboratories, on the grounds that he wished to control the quality of the vaccines produced. Indeed, it was relatively difficult to transfer a method that was not yet perfectly stabilized in the early 1880s. Pasteur also wanted to maintain the monopoly of his commercial company and to increase the profits from vaccine sales so that the Institut Pasteur could be financially independent. The ‘Pasteur anthrax vaccine’ operating licences are described and analysed in detail in this article. (shrink)