Facing Heidegger s critique of modern technology, the author analyses the question of technology and ethical responsibility and the call for reflexivity towards technology. He examines Heidegger s thoughts about how science and technology conceal the enigmatic and distinctive presencing of Being and exhibits how modern technology has brought unintended consequences and risks. The author extends the deliberation among diverse epistemologies, interested parties and laypersons, a component of reflexive modernization. Such epistemic community opens the way for a new reflexive democratization (...) of technology, in which different actors should be involved in decision making about technology as it affects the society, the environment and individuals.". (shrink)

Classic studies of explanation, such as those of Hempel and Bromberger, took it for granted that an explanation-seeking question of the form "Why P?" should be understood as asking about the proposition P. This view has been recently challenged by Bas van Fraassen and Alan Garfinkel. They acknowledge that some questions have the surface form "Why P?", but they hold that a correct reading for why-questions should take the form "Why P (rather than Q)?", where Q is a contrasting alternative. (...) This contrast theory is discussed here. It is argued that, properly understood, the contrast theory and the propositional approach can and should give equivalent readings to why-questions. (shrink)

In this study the author makes a comparison between the two main types of existentialism: the Christian and the non-Christian. Dr. Kingston handles the issues in a fair and honest way, neither concealing his own position nor dealing unfairly with those of whom he is most critical.

This work contains the Gifford Lectures delivered in the University of Glasgow in the academic years 1932-1933 and 1933-1934.

Completely revised, updated and with two new chapters on sustainability and new technologies for improving animal welfare, the third edition of this highly successful textbook remains essential reading for students of ethology and animal science.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste and Lincoln Cathedral provides a much-needed and in-depth investigation of Grosseteste’s relationship to the medieval cathedral at Lincoln and the surrounding city. The architecture and topography of Lincoln Cathedral are examined in their cultural contexts, in relation to scholastic philosophy, science and cosmology, and medieval ideas about light and geometry, as highlighted in the writings of Robert Grosseteste - bishop of Lincoln Cathedral. At the same time the architecture of the cathedral is considered in relation to the (...) roles of the clergy and masons; the policies of the bishop; matters of governance, worship and education; ecclesiastical hierarchy, church liturgy, politics and processionals. Investigations include parallel studies of Salisbury Cathedral and Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel at Aachen, highlighting important connections in regard to ceremonial itineraries and political/religious hierarchies. Finally, the book explores Grosseteste’s ideas in the broader context of medieval and Renaissance cosmologies, optics/perspective, natural philosophy and experimental science. The contributors to this volume make an important contribution to our current understanding of the relation between architecture, theology, politics and society during the Middle Ages, and how religious spaces were conceived and experienced. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Using connectionist modelling, Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) claim that developmental disorders in children are characterised by atypical trajectories and an ultimate functional architecture that is fundamentally different from normal. We argue that there is no empirical evidence for these claims in any developmental disorder and that the available evidence provides support for Residual Normality in both developmental and acquired disorders. We also refute the claim that modular accounts cannot encompass developmental trajectories in children with developmental disorders.

Many of the earliest books, particularly those dating back to the 1900s and before, are now extremely scarce and increasingly expensive. We are republishing these classic works in affordable, high quality, modern editions, using the original text and artwork.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Do you like puzzles, coding, and taking things apart? Do you write stories, act in plays, slay at Wordle? The things you are good at are clues to how your brain works. Are you good at math? Working with your hands? Are you a neat freak or a big mess? With her knack for making science easy to understand, Temple Grandin explains different types of thinkers: verbal thinkers who are good with language, and visual thinkers who think in pictures and (...) patterns. You will discover all kinds of minds and how we need to work together to create solutions to help solve real-world problems. (shrink)

The relations between philosophy and religion.--Personality in theology and ethics.--Christian ethics in application to individuals and to groups.

Summary“There are some types of reasoning which are acceptable in a given situation but not justifiable according to the rules of formal logic. This sort of reasoning seems to depend on a judgment about what the speaker knows along with an Assumption of Maximum Information, that if the speaker is serious he is making the logically strongest statement he knows to be true. Because such reasoning can be informally correct, formal logic should be understood as establishing rules not for all (...) acts of inference but only for those which do not depend on contingent judgments about the context of an assertion.”RésuméIl y a des types de raisonnement qui sont acceptables dans une situation donnée, mais qui ne sont pas justifiables selon les règles de la logique formelle. Cette sorte de raisonnement semble dépendre d'un jugement sur ce que sait celui qui parle, ainsi que d'un Postulat d'Information Maximale selon lequel, si le locuteur est sérieux, il choisit l'énoncé le plus fort logiquement parmi ceux qu'il sait être vrais. Un tel raisonnement étant informellement correct, la logique formelle devrait être conçue comme édictant des règles non pas pour tous les actes d'inférence, mais seulement pour ceux qui ne dépendent pas de jugements contingents quant au contexte d'une assertion.Zusammenfassung〈Es gibt Argumentationsweisen, die in einer bestimmten Situation annehmbar sind, obschon sie sich auf Grund der Regeln der formalen Logik nicht rechtfertigen lassen. Sie hängen ab von einem Urteil über das, was der Redende weiss, wie auch von der Annahme maximaler Information, die besagt, dass er, wenn er im Ernst spricht, auch die starkste Aussage macht, von der er weiss, dass sie wahr ist. Weil es korrekte informelle Folgerungen dieser Art gibt, kann man sagen, dass die formate Logik nicht Regeln fiir aile Schlussfolgerungen liefert, sondern nur für solche, die nicht von kontingenten Urteilen über den Aeusserungskontext abhängen.〉. (shrink)

William Lane Craig has defended a modern First Cause argument based on 1) a principle of universal causality and 2) the claim that the universe must have had a beginning. But 1) is susceptible to counter examples from quantum theory. Moreover, Craig’s defense of 2) is open to serious question. He claims that an actual infinity (of time) is impossible; he also claims that 2) is in fact supported by big bang theory. I argue that both of these claims are (...) mistaken, and that in consequence we have no particular reason to suppose that 2) is true. I conclude that the First Cause argument fails, but I suggest that a weaker inductive argument might be worth a try. (shrink)