The seminal book on graph theory by Dénes Kőnig, published in the year 1936, collected notions and results from precursory works from the mid to late nineteenth century by Hamilton, Cayley, Sylvester and others. More importantly, Kőnig himself contributed many of his own results that he had obtained in the more than twenty years that he had been working on this subject matter. What is noteworthy is the fact that the fundamentals of what he calls directed graphs are taken (...) almost exhaustively from Paul Hertz' 1922 article on structural reasoning about sentences of the form a→b. This is not a fact that is well known in logical circles, even though Kőnig fully acknowledges this in his book. In view of the numerous trends in the recent decades to describe and explicate logical matters by means of graphs, the fact that it was Hertz' foundation of structural reasoning that informed basic notions of graph theory in the first place is highly significant. The main goal of this paper is to summarize Hertz' article and demonstrate how Kőnig integrates the notions and results presented therein in his book. This is followed by an exposition of how and when Hertz' results were reinvented in terms of graph theory. A critical discussion of the opinion expressed by both Hertz and Kőnig that the more general sentences of the form (a1,…,an)→b, introduced by Hertz in a companion article in 1923, cannot be interpreted by graphs concludes this paper. (shrink)

Is schedule theory necessary? Or is Killeen (1994a) explaining clever laboratory contrivances that have no necessary relevance to understanding the role of behavior in life? We still await a psychological correspondence principle that can establish a sound basis for this elegant and essentially biological theory of reinforcement schedules.

Michael Peters, Sonja Arndt & Marek TesarThis is a collective writing experiment of PESA members, including its Executive Committee, asking questions of the Philosophy of Education in a New Key. Co...

In this provocatively compelling new book, Michael Luntley offers a revolutionary reading of the opening section of Wittgenstein’s _Philosophical Investigations _ Critically engages with the most recent exegetical literature on Wittgenstein and other state-of-the-art philosophical work Encourages the re-incorporation of Wittgenstein studies into the mainstream philosophical conversation Has profound consequences for how we go on to read the rest of Wittgenstein’s major work Makes a significant contribution not only to the literature on Wittgenstein, but also to studies in philosophy (...) of language. (shrink)

After outlining why the notion of conscious control of action matters to us and after distinguishing different challenges to that notion, the contribution focuses on the challenge posed by the literature on unconscious goal pursuit. Based on a conceptual clarification of the notion of consciousness, I argue that the understanding of consciousness in that literature is too restricted. The hypothesis that the behaviors reported can be accounted for by nonconceptual forms of consciousness, such as emotions and motor experiences, rather than (...) by—conscious or unconscious—conceptual level intentions tends to be disregarded, even though it promises to be empirically fruitful. (shrink)

This book addresses such key ethical issues as euthanasia, the environment, biotechnology, abortion, the family, sexual ethics, and the distribution of health care resources. Michael Banner argues that the task of Christian ethics is to understand the world and humankind in the light of the credal affirmations of the Christian faith, and to explicate this understanding in its significance for human action through a critical engagement with the concerns, claims and problems of other ethics. He illustrates both the distinctiveness (...) of Christian convictions in relation to the above issues and also the critical dialogue with practices based on other convictions which this sense of distinctiveness motivates but does not prevent. The book's importance lies in its attempt to show the crucial difference which Christian belief makes to an understanding of these issues, whilst at the same time demonstrating some of the weaknesses and confusions of certain popular approaches to them. (shrink)

In his engaging essay, “Deconstructing the Mind” (1996: 3-90), Stephen Stich raises some very good questions and gives some pretty good answers. My aim in this paper is to give some answers of my own, drawing on earlier work, and to compare these answers with Stich’s.

Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy begins by presenting Plantingas essay, and the chapters that follow address issues in three traditional areas of interest to philosophers: epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.

A highly original reading of the history of phenomenology that offers a new systematic concept of critique.

INTRODUCTION The doctrines and values of the 'new' archaeology are in the process of being broken down; for many they were never acceptable. ...

Many Sides is the first full-length study of Protagorean antilogic, an argumentative practice with deep roots in rhetorical history and renewed relevance for contemporary culture. Founded on the philosophical relativism of Protagoras, antilogic is a dynamic rather than a formal approach to argument, focused principally on the dialogical interaction of opposing positions (anti-logoi) in controversy. In ancient Athens, antilogic was the cardinal feature of Sophistic rhetoric. In Rome, Cicero redefined Sophistic argument in a concrete set of dialogical procedures. In turn, (...) Quintilian inherited this dialogical tradition and made it the centrepiece of his own rhetorical practice and pedagogy. Many Sides explores the history, theory, and pedagogy of this neglected rhetorical tradition and, by appeal to recent rhetorical and philosophical theory, reconceives the enduring features of antilogical practice in a dialogical approach to argumentation especially suited to the pluralism of our own age and the diversity of modern classrooms. (shrink)

Draws on history, science, and philosophy to examine the development of evolutionary thought through the past two and a half centuries. Focuses on the great debates, including the 19th century clash over the nature of classification and debates about the fossil record, genetics, and human nature.

Creating focal lesions in primary visual cortex (V1) provides an opportunity to study the role of extra-geniculo-striate pathways for activating extrastriate visual cortex. Previous studies have shown that more than 95% of neurons in macaque area V2 and V3 stop firing after reversibly cooling V1 [1,2,3]. However, no studies on long term recovery in areas V2, V3 following permanent V1 lesions have been reported in the macaque. Here we use macaque fMRI to study area V2, V3 activity patterns from 1 (...) to 22 months after lesioning area V1. We find that visually driven BOLD responses persist inside the V1-lesion projection zones (LPZ) of areas V2 and V3, but are reduced in strength by ,70%, on average, compared to prelesion levels. Monitoring the LPZ activity over time starting one month following the V1 lesion did not reveal systematic changes in BOLD signal amplitude. Surprisingly, the retinotopic organization inside the LPZ of areas V2, V3 remained similar to that of the non-lesioned hemisphere, suggesting that LPZ activation in V2, V3 is not the result of input arising from nearby (non-lesioned) V1 cortex. Electrophysiology recordings of multi-unit activity corroborated the BOLD observations: visually driven multi-unit responses could be elicited inside the V2 LPZ, even when the visual stimulus was entirely contained within the scotoma induced by the V1 lesion. Restricting the stimulus to the intact visual hemi-field produced no significant BOLD modulation inside the V2, V3 LPZs. We conclude that the observed activity patterns are largely mediated by parallel, V1-bypassing, subcortical pathways that can activate areas V2 and V3 in the absence of V1 input. Such pathways may contribute to the behavioral phenomenon of blindsight. (shrink)

First published in 1976, the _Dictionary of Philosophy_ has established itself as the best available text of its kind, explaining often unfamiliar, complicated and diverse terminology. Thoroughly revised and expanded, this fourth edition provides authoritative and rigorous definitions of a broad range of philosophical concepts. Concentrating on the Western philosophical tradition,_ The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy_ offers an illuminating and informed introduction to the central issues, ideas and perspectives in core fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, and logic. It includes concise (...) biographical entries for more than one hundred major philosophers, from Plato and Aristotle through to contemporary figures such as Dummett, McDowell, Parfit and Singer. All major entries are followed by helpful suggestions for further reading, including web links, and contain extensive cross-referencing to aid access and comprehension. This edition also features a brand new guide to the most useful philosophy sites on the internet. _The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy_ is an invaluable and up-to-date resource for all students of philosophy. (shrink)

Ever since I abandoned the philosophy of Kant and Hegel, I have sought solutions of philosophical problems by means of analysis, and I remain firmly persuaded, in spite of some modern tendencies to the contrary, that only by analysing is progress possible. (Russell, My Philosophical Development, ch. 1).

IN SECTION X OF "AN INQUIRY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING", DAVID HUME RAISES TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT MIRACLES AND THEIR RELATION TO TESTIMONY. FIRST, HE ASKS WHETHER IT COULD EVER BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF TESTIMONY THAT NATURE DOES NOT FIT THE IMAGE OF OUR SCIENCE, AND, SECOND, HE ASKS WHETHER IT COULD EVER BE REASONABLE TO BELIEVE ON THE BASIS OF TESTIMONY THAT NATURE IS NOT UNIFORM. HUME’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS ’YES’ AND HIS ANSWER TO (...) THE SECOND IS ’NO’. HUME THINKS THAT A ’NO’ TO THE SECOND QUESTION SHOWS THAT BELIEF IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS LESS REASONABLE THAN A BELIEF IN MODERN SCIENCE. HOWEVER, HUME’S ’NO’ SEEMS TO OPPOSE HIS EMPIRICISM AND HIS BELIEF THAT THERE ARE NO NECESSARY TRUTHS ABOUT ANY MATTER OF FACT OR EXPERIENCE. THE POINT OF THIS PAPER IS TO SHOW THAT HUME CAN PROVE THAT THERE CAN BE NO TESTIMONY OF SUCH A QUANTITY OR QUALITY TO MAKE IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT NATURE IS NOT UNIFORM AND, AS RESULT, NO TESTIMONY TO MAKE IT REASONABLE TO. (shrink)

In this article the following criticisms of the essentialist conception of general term rigidity presented in the previous papers are considered and responded: the identity of designation conception of rigidity can provide us with a better alternative account for general term rigidity, and the essentialist conception fails to meet the condition of extensional adequacy, both because it over -and undergeneralizes. Against, it is claimed that the proposed definition of general term rigidity cannot feature in lost rigidity arguments against description theories (...) because it is circular, and then fails to do the primary work that rigidity is supposed to do, namely, distinguishing terms that are covered by a description theory from those that are not. As regards, after insisting that the essentialist view need not be commited to the condition of extensional adequacy, both charges of over- and undergeneralization are addressed: while the argumentation aimed at showing that some examples are cases of overgeneralization is rejected, the cases of undergeneralization are admitted to be still in need of a better explanation than the one given in Devitt. En este artículo se analizan y responden las siguientes objeciones a la concepción esencialista de la rigidez para términos generales contenidas en los artículos precedentes: la concepción de la rigidez como identidad de designación puede proporcionarnos una definición más adecuada del carácter rígido de los términos generales, y la concepción esencialista no puede cumplir con la condición de adecuación extensional, tanto debido a que sobregeneraliza como a que subgeneraliza. Contra, se sostiene que la definición alternativa propuesta no puede ser utilizada en argumentos basados en la pérdida de rigidez contra las teorías descriptivistas porque es circular; por consiguiente, fracasa en alcanzar el objetivo principal que se adscribe a la noción de rigidez, a saber, distinguir las expresiones que pueden ser explicadas en términos descriptivos de aquéllas para las cuales ello no es posible. En lo que concierne a, tras insistir en que la concepción esencialista no tiene por qué comprometerse con el requisito de adecuación extensional, se consideran las dos acusaciones mencionadas: mientras que se rechaza la argumentación tendiente a mostrar que ciertos ejemplos son casos de sobregeneralización, se acepta que algunos casos de subgeneralización requerirían de una explicación más adecuada que la presentada en Devitt. (shrink)