R. C. Cross; XIII—Category Differences, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 59, Issue 1, 1 June 1959, Pages 255–270, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristot.

The acceptance or rejection of computer aids to clinical reasoning is determined not only by the preferences and prejudices of potential users, but also by whether the output generated by the computer aid represents sound clinical judgment. This paper deals with the issue of the appropriate criteria for evaluating the clinical ‘reasoning’ of computer aids. Evaluation of a computer aid should include an assessment of the accuracy or appropriateness of its conclusions and an assessment of the scope of its considerations. (...) In order to use a conclusion generated by a computer aid as a basis for clinical action, information must be available on the alternative conclusions that might have been drawn, the degree of confidence in each conclusion, and the consequences that may result from acting upon the wrong conclusion. If this information is not generated as part of the output of a computer aid, it may be obtained through the use of its explanation and display capabilities, if the aid has such capabilities. Explanation and display capabilities permit the examination of the operations of the computer aid. Examination of a computer's operations is also the most feasible means to evaluate the soundness of its ‘reasoning’. (shrink)

In the beginning of 1906 Professor S. A. Naber devoted a long paper in Mnemosyne to emendations and remarks upon Apollonius Rhodius. The Professor, following Buttmann, is of opinion that Apollonius was an ignorant imitator of Homer and rebukes him for the introduction of many ‘barbarous forms.’ This opinion, however, though it may contain some truth, is the result of much exaggeration, for Apollonius imitated Homer as a rival rather than as a servile flatterer, and naturally and deliberately introduced many (...) late forms into his Epic poem. I have no wish to deny that the Professor's paper contains acute and learned remarks, but certainly it does not show that familiarity with his author which might have been expected from so eminent a scholar. For instance, where a particular form is objected to for any reason, it is of no use to propose an emendation for one passage only in which it occurs and to leave other passages unnoticed. (shrink)

‘Mysticism means to isolate the eternal from the originated.’ This is not my definition of the word ‘mysticism’ but that of the founder of the ‘orthodox’ school of Muslim mysticism, Al-Junayd of Baghdad who flourished in the ninth century a.d . In actual fact it is not a definition of mysticism at all but of the Arabic word tawḥīd which means primarily ‘the affirmation of unity’; and that surely is an essential ingredient of any form of mysticism: it is the (...) affirmation through personal experience of unity either absolutely or in some qualified sense. (shrink)

The case for God -- Possibilities -- The illusion of Descartes -- Self-creation, part 1 -- Self-creation, part 2 -- Self-existence -- Necessary being -- The God of the Bible vs. the God of philosophy -- Kant's moral argument -- Vanity of vanities -- The psychology of atheism.