Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument

This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for both claims, and possible objections to his analysis.     

The Need for a Revolution in the Philosophy of Science

There is a need to bring about a revolution in the philosophy of science, interpreted to be both the academic discipline, and the official view of the aims and methods of science upheld by the scientific community. At present both are dominated by the view that in science theories are chosen on the basis of empirical considerations alone, nothing being permanently accepted as a part of scientific knowledge independently of evidence. Biasing choice of theory in the direction of simplicity, unity or explanatory power does not permanently commit science to the thesis that nature is simple or unified. This current ‘paradigm’ is, I argue, untenable. We need a new paradigm, which acknowledges that science makes a hierarchy of metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe, theories being chosen partly on the basis of compatibility with these assumptions. Eleven arguments are given for favouring this new ‘paradigm’ over the current one. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A New Task for Philosophy of Science

This paper argues that we philosophers of science have before us an important new task that we urgently need to take up. It is to convince the scientific community to adopt and implement a new philosophy of science that does better justice to the deeply problematic basic intellectual aims of science than that which we have at present. Problematic aims evolve with evolving knowledge, that part of philosophy of science concerned with aims and methods thus becoming an integral part of science itself. The outcome of putting this new philosophy into scientific practice would be a new kind of science, both more intellectually rigorous and one that does better justice to the best interests of humanity.     

成于乐的圆成之境——论牟宗三的美学世界及其与康德美学的不同

牟宗三虽然不以美学家名世,但是却有丰富的美学思想。牟宗三的前期美学思想,为其后来的美学思想奠立了基调,这是解开与把握其美学思想的关键。他的美学世界是以本体论的逻辑构造为基础而建立的宇宙论的逻辑构造。他以中国儒家式的天心为建立美的判断的最后的超越原则,以取代康德以“自然之目的性”概念为建立美的判断的最后的超越原则,从而重建康德的美学;相对于康德的美学乃至于西方主流的美学来说,的确是提出了一条新的美学思路即道德的形上学的审美之路,拓宽了美学的领域,开阔了研究美学的视野,对人是不乏启发的。牟宗三与康德各自处于不同的文化背景与哲学传统之中,其所成就的哲学或美学以不同的面貌、风格与类型现世,原属自然。问题在于,如何在中西哲学、美学,乃至文化之间找到一块双方都承认的共同所有的空白地带,作为通约的基础,并在这一基础上来展开中西哲学相互对话与相互融通的工作,既有世界性人类性,又不失其民族性与个性,才是我们所企盼的前景。     

数字加工的脑功能成像研究进展及其皮层定位

数字加工是人类最重要的认知功能之一。当前的脑功能成像研究有助于对数字加工与皮层之间的联系进行更精确的定位。基于对上世纪80年代来有关数字加工脑功能成像研究的主要成果的回顾,尤其是一些重要区域,如双侧顶叶与前额叶等在数字加工中的地位与作用,以及不同脑区之间的关系进行了探讨,并对一个广泛运用的数字加工神经机制模型进行了简要评述。在此基础上,对数字加工的皮层定位问题进行了简要的总结。     

Curriculum, Critical Common-Sensism, Scholasticism, and the Growth of Democratic Character

My paper concentrates on Peirce’s late essay, “Issues of Pragmaticism,” which identifies “critical common-sensism” and Scotistic realism as the two primary products of pragmaticism. I argue that the doctrines of Peirce’s critical common-sensism provide a host of commendable curricular objectives for democratic Bildung. The second half of my paper explores Peirce’s Scotistic realism. I argue that Peirce eventually returned to Aristotelian intuitions that led him to a more robust realism. I focus on the development of signs from the vague and indeterminate to the determinate and universal. The primary example will be the evolution of the very idea of number. I believe we will never arrive at the end of number history because we can never fully contain creativity. I draw similar conclusions for the idea of curriculum. Whether or not there is an end to the evolution of signs in Peirce is a matter of debate. I incline toward the opinion there is not, though I am unsure. I conclude by arguing that rationality itself is but the form and structure of poetic creation and that we should embrace paradox and even contradiction rather that become caught in totalizing and totalitarian end of history stories.     

THE RELIGION‐SCIENCE DISCUSSION AT FORTY YEARS: “REPORTS OF MYDEATH ARE PREMATURE”

Abstract. The startling success of the religion‐science discussion in recent years calls for reflection. Have old walls been broken down, old antagonisms overcome? Have science and religion finally been reconciled? Or is all the activity just so much sound and fury signifying nothing? Postmodern equations of scientific and religious beliefs disregard a number of enduring differences that help make sense of the continuing tensions. Yet the skepticism of authors such as John Caiazza is also ungrounded. I describe five major types of approaches that are being employed in the recent literature. These methods have led to a deeper understanding of the commonalities between science and religion and have produced new productive partnerships between them.     

A JANUS FACE UPON RELIGION FROM SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM

Abstract. Bjørn Grinde's article is a Janus face from a scientific insider looking out toward religion and from a religious outsider looking in. His scientific story of the evolutionary and present advantages of religion is laudable but incomplete, as the logic of commitment strategies might provide a fuller account of what produces the value of religious faith. His scientific presuppositions nevertheless might be taken as exhibiting some hubris, particularly in the limits of his instrumental ethics. Finally, the variety and potential incommensurability of both theistic and nontheistic religious views render his distinction between “minimal” and “elaborated” views of God problematic as a route to finding a scientifically credible view by which science might move to optimize the value of religion. Nevertheless, the goal of doing so might be supported by several structural features of religious views, of individual transformation and of hopes for the future, which may be supported by the evolutionary logic of commitment strategies at both individual and group levels.     

Aristotle and Headless Clones

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics - Cloned organisms can be genetically altered so that they do not exhibit higher brain functioning. This form of therapeutic cloning allows for genetically...     

Beyond “Beyond A- and B-time”

This Article critically discusses Clifford Williams’ claim that the A-theory and B-theory of time are indistinguishable. I examine three considerations adduced by Williams to support his claim that the concept of time essentially includes transition as well as extension, and argue that, despite its prima facie plausibility, the claim has not been adequately justified. Williams therefore begs the question against the B-theorist, who denies that transition is essential. By Williams’ own lights, he ought to deny that the B-theory is a (realist) theory of time; and thus his claim that A-time and B-time do not differ significantly should be rejected.