Keller & Miller's (K&M's) conclusion appears to be correct; namely, that common, harmful, heritable mental disorders are largely maintained at present frequencies by mutation-selection balance at many different loci. However, their “paradox” is questionable. (Published Online November 9 2006).

In his paper ``What is Structural Realism?'' James Ladyman drew a distinction between epistemological structural realism and metaphysical (or ontic) structural realism. He also drew a suggestive analogy between the perennial debate between substantivalist and relationalist interpretations of spacetime on the one hand, and the debate about whether quantum mechanics treats identical particles as individuals or as `non-individuals' on the other. In both cases, Ladyman's suggestion is that an ontic structural realist interpretation of the physics might be just what is (...) needed to overcome the stalemate. The main thesis of this paper is that, whatever the interpretative difficulties of generally covariant spacetime physics are, they do not support or suggest structural realism. In particular, I hope to show that there is in fact no analogy that supports a similar interpretation of the metaphysics of spacetime points and of quantum particles. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper a relational account of incongruent counterparts is defended against an argument due to Kant. I then consider a more recent attack on such an account, due to John Earman, which alleges that the relationalist cannot account for the lawlike left--right asymmetry manifested in parity-violating phenomena. I review Hoefer's, Huggett's and Saunders' responses to Earman's argument and argue that, while a relationalist account of parity-violating laws is possible, it comes at the cost of non-locality.

Current scientific research almost always requires collaboration among several (if not several hundred) specialized researchers. When scientists co-author a journal article, who deserves credit for discoveries or blame for errors? How should scientific institutions promote fruitful collaborations among scientists? In this book, leading philosophers of science address these critical questions.

Although the biological bases of forgetting remain obscure, the consensus among cognitive psychologists emphasizes interference processes, rejecting decay in accounting for memory loss. In contrast to this view, recent advances in understanding the neurobiology of long-term memory maintenance lead us to propose that a brain-wide well-regulated decay process, occurring mostly during sleep, systematically removes selected memories. Down-regulation of this decay process can increase the life expectancy of a memory and may eventually prevent its loss. Memory interference usually occurs during certain (...) active processing phases, such as encoding and retrieval, and will be stronger in brain areas with minimal sensory integration and less pattern separation. In areas with efficient pattern separation, such as the hippocampus, interference-driven forgetting will be minimal, and, consequently, decay will cause most forgetting. (shrink)

Urban street trees (USTs) have a range of values – some of which are easier to quantify than others. Focusing specifically on the UK context and using the Sheffield Tree Protests (2012–) as a case study, whilst confirming existing research as to the variety of values associated with their specifically ‘cultural’ services, the article argues that USTs have an additional potential form – what I call ‘civic-transformative value’. This form of value has at least three key characteristics. Firstly, it is (...) place-based and communal; second, its form is ‘relational’; and finally, as intrinsically contingent, it is pluralistic in the sense that its civic-transformative potential is dependent on successfully integrating a range of other values. The article emphasises both the possibility and necessity of ‘convergence’ – that is, a pluralistic and pragmatic alliance of values which might help protect not only USTs, but other embattled sites of nature. (shrink)

In medizinethischen Kontexten bezeichnet der Ausdruck „Odysseus-Verträge“ Selbstbindungen, die in der vorausschauenden Bitte von Patienten an ihre Ärzte bestehen, eigene spätere Behandlungspräferenzen nicht zu befolgen. Umstritten ist jedoch, ob eine vorhergehende Anweisung ein Handeln gegen den Patientenwillen in der aktualen Behandlungssituation rechtfertigt. In diesem Beitrag wird die Frage nach der Verbindlichkeit von Odysseus-Anweisungen erörtert. Zunächst wird gezeigt, dass die Befolgung einer Odysseus-Anweisung eine Form des paternalistischen Handelns darstellt und die Frage nach der Verbindlichkeit von Odysseus-Anweisungen daher in diejenige nach der (...) Rechtfertigung paternalistischen Handelns zu überführen ist . Im Folgenden wird als Rechtfertigungsmodell für paternalistisches Handeln ein Zustimmungsmodell verteidigt , dem zufolge eine paternalisierende Maßnahme durch die antizipierte spätere Zustimmung des Patienten zu dieser Maßnahme gerechtfertigt wird . Nach einer Erörterung des Einwandes, dass damit die besonderen normativen Probleme von Odysseus-Anweisungen aus dem Blick geraten , werden abschließend Fälle untersucht, in denen aufgrund eines irreversiblen Kompetenzverlustes keine spätere Zustimmung zur paternalisierenden Maßnahme mehr möglich ist. In diesen Fällen, so die These, ist ein paternalistisches Handeln gegen den aktualen Patientenwillen nicht gerechtfertigt; kommt es hier also zu einem Konflikt zwischen dem in der Vorausverfügung dokumentierten und dem aktualen Patientenwillen, ist letzterer zu respektieren .In the context of medical ethics, the term „Ulysses contract“ denotes an advance directive by means of which a patient binds himself for the future by instructing a doctor to act against his foreseen future preferences. There is some controversy, however, about whether a person’s prior decisions should be regarded as mandatory for the doctor even when they conflict with her present desires. In this contribution, I address the questions whether and under what circumstances Ulysses instructions should be regarded as binding. In Part , I attempt to show that observing a Ulysses instruction means acting paternalistically and that therefore the question whether Ulysses contracts ought to be respected should be transformed into the question how paternalistic action can be justified. Parts and are concerned with the justification of paternalistic action. On the basis of a conception of welfare as being tied to the person’s interests and preferences, I defend a consent-based model of justification . More specifically, I suggest that the patient’s anticipated later consent to a precedent paternalistic action should count as its justification . In what follows, I attempt to rebut the objection that this account does not do justice to the specific normative problems of Ulysses contracts . Finally, I examine cases in which, due to an irreversible loss of competence, a paternalistic action cannot be assented to by the patient. I argue that in these cases, acting against the patient’s present wishes cannot be justified. If in such a case a patient’s present request runs contrary to the past request expressed in the advance directive, the former should be respected. (shrink)

This book offers a critical Arabic edition, annotated English translation, introductory study, and two-way glossaries of a pharmacological masterpiece composed around the middle of the 12th century CE in Baghdad by the Nestorian physician Ibn at-Tilmīḏ.

This book offers an Arabic edition, English translation, study and glossaries of ʿUbaidallāh Ibn Buḫtīšūʿ’s important work on apparent death; an appendix moreover provides the Arabic and Hebrew recensions of ʿUbaidallāh’s lost Greek _Vorlage_.

In medicine and the social sciences, researchers often measure only a handful of variables simultaneously. The underlying assumption behind this methodology is that combining the results of dozens of smaller studies can, in principle, yield as much information as one large study, in which dozens of variables are measured simultaneously. Mayo-Wilson :864–874, 2011, Br J Philos Sci 65:213–249, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axs030) shows that assumption is false when causal theories are inferred from observational data. This paper extends Mayo-Wilson’s results to (...) cases in which experimental data is available. I prove several new theorems that show that, as the number of variables under investigation grows, experiments do not improve, in the worst-case, one’s ability to identify the true causal model if one can measure only a few variables at a time. However, stronger statistical assumptions significantly aid causal discovery in piecemeal inquiry, even if such assumptions are unhelpful when all variables can be measured simultaneously. (shrink)

Definition of the problem “Ulysses contracts” are advance directives by means of which a patient authorizes compulsory treatment for a phase of a temporary inhibition of competence. Ethical discussion of Ulysses contracts usually focuses on the question of the “moral authority” or the “binding force” of Ulysses contracts, i.e., of whether Ulysses contracts should be honored or whether the competent patient’s prospective wishes for compulsory treatment are overridden by the patient’s actual preferences in the situation of treatment. Arguments In this (...) contribution, I argue that, even if the Ulysses contract undoubtedly applies to the actual situation, there may be reasons for not acting upon it. The main argument is that acting in conformity to a Ulysses contract may be justified but nevertheless wrong. After some terminological clarifications, I argue that Ulysses contracts justify the use of compulsory treatment but do not necessarily make it the right course of action. They authorize physicians to act in accordance with the patient’s advance directive and, thereby, protect them from blame and sanctions in case they administer compulsory treatment. Whether compulsory treatment is right or wrong, however, hinges on whether the patient retrospectively consents to it. It may be the case that administering compulsory treatment in conformity to the Ulysses contract is justified but turns out to be wrong if the patient does not retrospectively consent to it. It may also be the case that not obeying the Ulysses contract turns out to be right if the patient retrospectively consents to not following it. Conclusion In view of this, I conclude that Ulysses contracts should not be seen as morally binding and that they should not be made legally binding. They are not normatively on par with other advance directives that relate to, for example, states of dementia. (shrink)

On 26 February 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany pronounced a judgement that the prohibition of assisted suicide services set out in § 217 of the Criminal Code is void. It thereby reestablished the legal state that had obtained before 2015. Furthermore, it defined the right to die as an autonomy-based right, thereby dissociating the right to take one???s life from states of extreme suffering caused by illness. The judgement implies that one can, in principle, resort to assistance for (...) suicide even in the absence of illness and suffering. In this contribution, I deal with the problems that arise as a consequence of dissociating legitimate assisted suicide from states of illness. I analyze Bettina Schöne-Seifert???s suggestion to regard an understandable (,,nachvollziehbar“) wish to die as a wish that is protected by the right to autonomy. It turns out that the criterion of understandability is deficient: it either commits us to regarding every wish to die as understable or it undermines the anti-paternalistic requirement of respecting the patient???s autonomy. (shrink)

A central question in the ethical debate on the practice of relinquishing in vitro fertilization surplus embryos for family building is whether we ought to think of it more in terms of donating these embryos or in terms of having them adopted. Deciding between these two alternatives is more than a matter of mere terminology. It has an impact on normative questions, e.g., on the question of what criteria for parent selection ought to be applied to the recipients of the (...) embryos, and on the moral evaluation of the act of ‘donating’ the embryo or ‘having it adopted’. In this article, I defend the view that we should conceptualize the relinquishment of spare embryos according to the adoption model, not as a donation. Section 2 sketches the outline of the argument by making clear how we may ground a defense of the adoption model in a theory of parental responsibility without implicitly elevating the moral status of the embryo. Section 3 contains a preliminary defense of the adoption model that draws on geneticism as what seems to me the most persuasive theory of parental responsibility. In section 4, I examine three objections to geneticism and either rebut them or, insofar as they are justified, try to accommodate them into my view. In section 5, I point out some features that distinguish embryo adoption from the adoption of (born) children. I contend, however, that these differences are compatible with the adoption model. Section 6 is concerned with the normative ramifications of this view. (shrink)

Sperm donation is an increasingly common method of assisted reproduction. In the debate on sperm donation, the right to privacy — construed as a right that refers to the limits of the realm of information to which others have access — plays a pivotal role with regard to two questions. The first question is whether the sperm donor’s right to privacy implies his right to retain his anonymity, the second is whether the gamete recipients’ right to privacy entitles them to (...) withhold information about the circumstances of their conception from their donor-conceived offspring. In this contribution, I tackle these two interrelated questions. In part, I defend the view that there is a prima facie right of sperm donors to remain anonymous. Part widens the perspective by taking into consideration the welfare of donor-conceived offspring. I argue that anonymity may harm the child only if the gametes’ recipients decide to disclose information about the circumstances of her birth to the child. Non-disclosure of these circumstances, however, is morally problematic because it may not necessarily harm, but wrong the child. In section, I attempt to rebut some arguments in defense of non-disclosure. In part, I defend the view that the best practice of sperm donation would be ‘direct donation’, i.e. that the identity of the donor is known from the time of conception. Part concludes. (shrink)

Excerpt from The Passing of Plato The stupendous changes that have been wrought in the material life of the civilized races in a short period of time by the progress of modern science have been generally recognized. We have to make only a casual investigation into the history of the production of the things that would come under our view at our first turn, to find complete revolution in production, manufacture, and distribution. We find further that it is not in (...) each a single change, but revolution on revolution the most radical. For example, in less than twenty-five years the immense and complicated business of transit in our cities has passed from omnibus to horse car, from horse car to cable system, from the cable system to the electric car system, with special variations in the way of elevated railroads and pneumatic railways. Methods of lighting, heating, production and transference of power for motors, have passed through equal strides of change and improvement. Everything connected with the immense business of transportation, from the great undertaking of building a bridge or a steamship down to the sealing of a freight car or the excavation of a yard of rock, has in a like period passed through radical revolutions that are bewildering in their rapidity and in the greatness of the interests involved. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:386 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY species of pragmatism, it could be said that there is indeed some justification for discovering analogies between the Heideggerian theory of truth and pragmatism. What is deplored by Vers6nyi is the loss of the concrete significance of tIeidegger's early theory of truth (as Vers~nyi characterizes it) and its replacement by a conception of truth which is paradoxical and ultimately fruitless for an understanding of the (...) world in which man finds himself. If Being is the groundless Ground, the Wholly Other, and if Being is truth, then truth is inaccesible to man. Truth, in Heidegger's later works, is beyond the finitude of self-reflective thought and can only be approached by means of a via negativa. This, however, is described as the "abandonment of reason." This critical analysis of Heidegger's thought is an interesting and challenging work which attempts a much needed appraisal of Heidegger's philosophical "voyage" from Being and Time to Gelassenheit. Some will be angered by the author's incisiveness; some will applaud his hostility to the dissolution of reason in mysticism; none can be indifferent to this valuable contribution to the study of Heidegger. GEORGEJ. STACK Long Island University A Short History o] Ethics. By Alasdair MacIntyre. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. Pp. viii + 280 $4.95.) Professor MacIntyre's Short History o] Ethics turned out, to my surprise and pleasure, to be a quite different book from what I had expected. I had assumed from its title that it would consist of an exposition, analysis, and perhaps criticism of the theories of the standard great figures from the history of Western moral philosophy, stitched together by a thin thread of historical narrative. It does contain this standard material and the quality of exposition and analysis is very high. But there is much more to the book than that. For in it MacIntyre devotes a great deal of space to political and social philosophy, with discussions of figures like Machiavelli, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Marx. Another subject that gets a good deal of attention is religion, including such writers as Luther, Calvin, and Kierkegaard. Even further afield, Professor MacIntyre surveys the beliefs and activities of certain social reformers---for example, the Diggers and Levellers in 17th century England--and the developments and changes in the moral attitudes and relationships of people in certain societies--for example, in ancient Greece. The result is a book that is very rich and varied in content, fascinating to read, and informative. Anyone, student or teacher, who is interested in technical ethics would be well advised to study it. Maclntyre has reasons for giving his book the wide scope it has. For he believes that ethics is a broad subject, concerned with the whole range of man's activities as a practical being. He rejects the notion currently popular that ethics should be a second-order undertaking, morally neutral in itself and limiting its activities to the logical analysis of first-order moral utterances (p. 3). The ethicist cannot, he believes, divorce himself from the social setting in which he lives, taking up a neutral position above the fray, because the very concepts he uses in his thinking and writing are "embodied in and are partially constitutive of forms of social life" (p. 1). The moral philosopher, in other words, is and must be articulating a set of beliefs and ideals that arise out of the general social and historical setting of which he is a part. To understand and appreciate his theories, therefore, we must be conversant with the social organization, political structure, and religious faith of his society. For it is only within this broad context that the concepts that any given ethicist employs become intelligible. MacIntyre's view seems to have one very controversial implication, on which I should like to comment. If the concepts employed by the ethicist are embodied in a given form of social life, then no ethical theory can transcend its historical setting, hence the question, Is a given ethical theory true or false? cannot legitimately be asked. The result is historical BOOK REVIEWS 387 relativism. MacIntyre recognizes this implication and has a good deal to... (shrink)

Brand Blanshard devotes a substantial part of his book Reason and Goodness to a discussion of ethical subjectivism. It need hardly be said that his discussion is critical; Blanshard is a thoroughgoing ethical objectivist. Nevertheless, although he rejects subjectivism as an ethical theory, he is fully appreciative of the importance of subjective elements—emotions, feelings, attitudes—in our ordinary, practical moral activities. He recognizes these, along with reason, to be essential parts of the good life for human beings.

As its title indicates, this book is concerned with two different fields of philosophy, ethics and epistemology. The bulk of the argument is devoted to epistemological questions, as these arise within the context of morality. Hence, the conclusions I reach could probably best be described as prolegomena to the elaboration of a theory of ethics. I have plans, which I hope will be realized in the next few years, of elaborating such a theory. I started work on Moral Knowledge in (...) the summer of 1958 with the help of a University Faculty Fellowship, for which I am most grateful. of the research for the book, as well as a good bit of its writing, Much was done in two libraries, The University Library, Berkeley, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Members of the staffs of both libraries, by their courtesy and helpfulness, lightened immeasurably the task of my research. lowe a special debt of gratitude to four people-to Mr. (shrink)

To know is to believe but to believe is not necessarily to know. The latter, unfortunate fact gives rise quite naturally to the question: How can we distinguish between those beliefs that qualify as items of knowledge and those that do not? The standard reply given to this question by philosophers is that knowledge is justified belief. Although the reply sounds eminently reasonable it does not really answer the question. Rather than settling the issue it succeeds instead in stirring up (...) a host of philosophical problems of the most thorny and baffling kind. So difficult do these problems become that they have driven many philosophers to the skeptical conclusion that it is impossible to provide any justification for our beliefs at all. My main object in this paper will be to pursue what seems to me to be the most important and difficult of these problems and to examine some of the recent solutions that philosophers have offered for it. Before beginning this task, however, it might be well to clarify the notion of knowledge a bit more fully. Just what qualifies a belief as a justified belief and thus as an item of knowledge? (shrink)