If the Category of the Ultimate requires every actual entity to be, as Whitehead says, both a processing subject and a superject existing objectively immortal, death of a personally ordered social nexus seems impossible since a personal nexus cannot die unless it has a last member. How that is possible is examined, concluding that actual entities of necessarily existing personal societies always have enough creative power to integrate their physical prehensions into new satisfaction/superjects, but others in contingently existing personal societies (...) inevitably do not. (shrink)

Alfred North Whitehead’s interpreters usually pay less attention to his later monographs and essays. Process and Reality is taken to be the definitive center of the Whiteheadian universe and the later works, thereby, appear to many only as applications or elaborations of themes already introduced earlier. Yet, is it also possible that the dominance of this perspective has obscured or even distorted further creative developments of Whitehead’s thought? This volume offers a sort of Copernican revolution in Whitehead interpretation, methodologically and (...) conceptually inviting its contributors to observe Whitehead’s work from the perspective of his later works. The aim of this preferencing is meant not to invalidate earlier approaches to Whitehead’s thought nor is the inference that the later works are more authoritative. Yet, just as the first space-based images of our planet forever changed humanity’s understanding of its place in the universe, shifting the alleged center of, or even decentering of the view on, Whitehead’s “philosophy of organism” to the later works, we might discover previously obscured ideas or new vistas of thought relevant not only to our current philosophical landscape, but also to the pressing issues of our fragile and endangered world. This volume invites its contributors and readers to consider whether one thereby also moves beyond metaphysics? (shrink)

In this essay, we will argue that acts of resistance within "attention economies" take the form of a wager isomorphic to the one delineated by Blaise Pascal in his Pensées. First, we examine the role of relevance in communication, interpretation, and understanding. Second, we turn to Cécile Malaspina's conception of noise, which allows us to grasp the intricate relation between judgment and uncertainty. Next, we exemplify our claim by analyzing David Foster Wallace's The Pale King and J.J. Voskuil's seven-volume (...) series Het Bureau. In both texts, noise as an epistemic and aesthetic technique operates on a diegetic and metatextual level. Rather than warranting efficiency and optimization through the filter model of attention, we will develop an ethics of noise that opens up the possibility to re-individuate the subject of "attention economies.". (shrink)

Tibetan translation of Darwin's On the origin of species.

Stibbard-Hawkes presents a much-needed case for distinguishing between different types of evidence for cognition in past cultures. However, he does not outline an applicable approach for moving forward in making claims about the cognition of past cultures. We present an initial model for calibrating both absolute and comparative claims about past cultures' cognition and other traits.

The paper explores a deductive-nomological account of metaphysical explanation: some truths metaphysically explain, or ground, another truth just in case the laws of metaphysics determine the latter truth on the basis of the former. I develop and motivate a specific conception of metaphysical laws, on which they are general rules that regulate the existence and features of derivative entities. I propose an analysis of the notion of ‘determination via the laws’, based on a restricted form of logical entailment. I argue (...) that the DN-account of ground can be defended against the well-known objections to the DN-approach to scientific explanation. The goal of the paper is to show that the DN-account of metaphysical explanation is a well-motivated and defensible theory. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The DN Model The SR Model The Causal Mechanical Model Unificationist Models Conclusion and Directions for Future Work.

Call an explanation in which a non-mathematical fact is explained—in part or in whole—by mathematical facts: an extra-mathematical explanation. Such explanations have attracted a great deal of interest recently in arguments over mathematical realism. In this article, a theory of extra-mathematical explanation is developed. The theory is modelled on a deductive-nomological theory of scientific explanation. A basic DN account of extra-mathematical explanation is proposed and then redeveloped in the light of two difficulties that the basic theory faces. The final view (...) appeals to relevance logic and uses resources in information theory to understand the explanatory relationship between mathematical and physical facts. 1Introduction2Anchoring3The Basic Deductive-Mathematical Account4The Genuineness Problem5Irrelevance6Relevance and Information7Objections and Replies 7.1Against relevance logic7.2Too epistemic7.3Informational containment8Conclusion. (shrink)

La théorie de la quaternalité, telle que Piaget et Gottschalk l'ont appliquée aux connectifs binaires du calcul bivalent, appelle quelques précisions et compléments.Les seize connectifs ne comportent que deux quaternes complets: celui des jonctions et celui des implications. Leurs similitudes formelles ne doivent pas dissimuler une différence dans leur mode de construction. Elle apparaît sur leurs diagrammes (inspirés du “carré logique” traditionnel) par la place de la cellule initiale et par celles des signes barrés du trait vertical de la négation:En (...) effet, la dualité qui se combine avec celle de la négation contradictoire (DN, flèche diagonale) est, pour les jonctions, la dualité “morganienne” (DM, flèche verticale) et pour les implications, la dualité des réciproques (DR, flèche horizontale). Car dans les jonctions, liaisons symétriques, il n'y a point de vraies réciproques; inversement, les implications ne comportent pas (pourvu, bien sûr, qu'on ne les traduise pas en termes de jonctions) de dualité morganienne. Le quatrième terme, obtenu par la combinaison des deux relations génératrices, sera donc, pour les jonctions, une contreduale (DM× DN) et, pour les implications, une contreréciproque (DR× DN). (shrink)

In Iemhoff we gave a countable basis for the admissible rules of . Here, we show that there is no proper superintuitionistic logic with the disjunction property for which all rules in are admissible. This shows that, relative to the disjunction property, is maximal with respect to its set of admissible rules. This characterization of is optimal in the sense that no finite subset of suffices. In fact, it is shown that for any finite subset X of , for one (...) of the proper superintuitionistic logics Dn constructed by De Jongh and Gabbay ), all the rules in X are admissible. Moreover, the logic Dn in question is even characterized by X: it is the maximal superintuitionistic logic containing Dn with the disjunction property for which all rules in X are admissible. Finally, the characterization of is proved to be effective by showing that it is effectively reducible to an effective characterization of in terms of the Kleene slash by De Jongh. (shrink)

The current antireductionist consensus rests in part on the indefensibility of the deductive-nomological model of explanation, on which classical reductionism depends. I argue that the DN model is inessential to the reductionist program and that mechanism provides a better framework for thinking about reductionism. This runs counter to the contemporary mechanists’ claim that mechanism is an alternative to reductionism. I demonstrate that mechanists are committed to reductionism, as evidenced by the historical roots of the contemporary mechanist program. This view shares (...) certain core commitments with reductionism. It is these shared commitments that constitute the essential elements of the reductionist program. (shrink)

Issues concerning scientific explanation have been a focus of philosophical attention from Pre- Socratic times through the modern period. However, recent discussion really begins with the development of the Deductive-Nomological (DN) model. This model has had many advocates (including Popper 1935, 1959, Braithwaite 1953, Gardiner, 1959, Nagel 1961) but unquestionably the most detailed and influential statement is due to Carl Hempel (Hempel 1942, 1965, and Hempel & Oppenheim 1948). These papers and the reaction to them have structured subsequent discussion concerning (...) scientific explanation to an extraordinary degree. After some general remarks by way of background and orientation (Section 1), this entry describes the DN model and its extensions, and then turns to some well-known objections (Section 2). It next describes a variety of subsequent attempts to develop alternative models of explanation, including Wesley Salmon's Statistical Relevance (Section 3) and Causal Mechanical (Section 4) models and the Unificationist models due to Michael Friedman and Philip Kitcher (Section 5). Section 6 provides a summary and discusses directions for future work. (shrink)

In the beginning, there was the DN (Deductive Nomological) model of explanation, articulated by Hempel and Oppenheim (1948). According to DN, scientific explanation is subsumption under natural law. Individual events are explained by deducing them from laws together with initial conditions (or boundary conditions), and laws are explained by deriving them from other more fundamental laws, as, for example, the simple pendulum law is derived from Newton's laws of motion.

In this paper we argue that quantum mechanics provides a genuine kind of structural explanations of quantum phenomena. Since structural explanations only rely on the formal properties of the theory, they have the advantage of being independent of interpretative questions. As such, they can be used to claim that, even in the current absence of one agreed-upon interpretation, quantum mechanics is capable of providing satisfactory explanations of physical phenomena. While our proposal clearly cannot be taken to solve all interpretive issues (...) raised by quantum theory, we will argue that it can be successfully applied to some of its most puzzling phenomena, such Heisenberg's uncertainty relations and quantum non-locality. The discussion of these two case studies will also serve to illustrate the main properties of structural explanations and compare them to the DN and the unificationist models. Finally, we briefly discuss how structural explanations might relate to structural realism. (shrink)

Are corporations morally defensible sorts of entities? How might we go about showing that they are? Thomas Donaldson offers us the most detailed contractarian justification for the moral defensibility of corporations. In this paper I show how we can significantly develop this sort of justification to yield a more compelling contractarian justification, though one that is importantly conditional. The primary points I take up in this paper are these:1. The question Donaldson poses to generate his contract is not quite as (...) simple as may appear. The sort of transformation we need to consider is more complex than the sort Donaldson describes.2. Partly because of considerations that arise in discussing the first point, the contract we are considering is a more conditionalagreement. The terms of the agreement will vary depending on the kind of state we are assuming prevails. The sort of contract we wantto draw up is at least a three-way contract: between society, productive organizations and the state. The sort of agreement we reach will have the following form: society a agrees to allow productive organizations of type b to exist if we assume state c will do various things (d1 to dn), productive organizations will do various things (e1 to en) and members of society will do various things (f1 to fn). Importantly, if state c is not doing d1 to dn, productive organizations may not be morally defensible.3. The terms of the contract that can be derived would benefit from the introduction of some of Rawls’s apparatus.4. When we consider the right questions, with more of the background institutions filled in, and when we include some more social contract apparatus, we get a better contract which fills in for us not only the obligations of business but, importantly, many obligationsfor government as well. (shrink)

Mostowski [11] shows that if a structure has a decidable theory, then its weak direct power has one as well; his proof however never produces decision procedures which are elementary recursive. Some very general results are obtained here about the nature of the weak direct power of a structure, which in most cases lead to elementary recursive decision procedures for weak direct powers of structures which themselves have elementary recursive procedures. In particular, it is shown that $\langle N^\ast, +\rangle$ , (...) the weak direct power of $\langle N, +\rangle$ , can be decided in space 2 2 2 cn for some constant c. As corollaries, the same upper bound is obtained for the theory of the structure $\langle N^+, \cdot\rangle$ of positive integers under multiplication, and for the theory of finite abelian groups. Fischer and Rabin [7] have shown that the theory of $\langle N^\ast, +\rangle$ requires time 2 2 2 dn even on nondeterministic Turing machines. (shrink)

We give a simple proof-theoretic argument showing that Glivenko’s theorem for propositional logic and its version for predicate logic follow as an easy consequence of the deduction theorem, which also proves some Glivenko type theorems relating intermediate predicate logics between intuitionistic and classical logic. We consider two schemata, the double negation shift (DNS) and the one consisting of instances of the principle of excluded middle for sentences (REM). We prove that both schemata combined derive classical logic, while each one of (...) them provides a strictly weaker intermediate logic, and neither of them is derivable from the other. We show that over every intermediate logic there exists a maximal intermediate logic for which Glivenko’s theorem holds. We deduce as well a characterization of DNS, as the weakest (with respect to derivability) scheme that added to REM derives classical logic. (shrink)

We show that the structure R of recursively enumerable degrees is not a Σ₁-elementary substructure of Dn, where Dn (n > 1) is the structure of n-r.e. degrees in the Ershov hierarchy.

Husserl’s early picture of explanation in the sciences has never been completely provided. This lack represents an oversight, which we here redress. In contrast to currently accepted interpretations, we demonstrate that Husserl does not adhere to the much maligned deductive-nomological (DN) model of scientific explanation. Instead, via a close reading of early Husserlian texts, we reveal that he presents a unificationist account of scientific explanation. By doing so, we disclose that Husserl’s philosophy of scientific explanation is no mere anachronism. It (...) is, instead, tenable and relevant. We discuss how Husserl and other contemporary thinkers draw theoretical inspiration from the same source—namely, Bernard Bolzano. Husserl’s theory of scientific explanation shares a common language and discusses the same themes as, for example, Phillip Kitcher and Kit Fine. To advance our novel reading, we discuss Husserl’s investigations of grounding, inter-lawful explanation, intra-mathematical explanation, and scientific unification. (shrink)

Theories of explanation seek to tell us what distinctively explanatory information is. The most ambitious ones, such as the DN-account, seek to tell us what an explanation is, tout court. Less ambitious ones, such as causal theories, restrict themselves to a particular domain of inquiry. The least ambitious theories constitute outright skepticism, holding that there is no reasonably unified phenomenon to give an account of. On these views, it is impossible to give any theories of explanation at all. I argue (...) that both the less ambitious and outright skeptical varieties are committed to a certain context-sensitivity of our explanatory discourse. And though this discourse is almost certainly context-sensitive in some respects, it does not exhibit the context-sensitivity less than fully ambitious theories are committed to. Therefore, all accounts that seek to restrict themselves in scope, including causal accounts of explanation, fail. (shrink)