Recent breakthroughs in the history and sociology of science have begun to help us to appreciate the vast complexity and intricate character of empirical endeavours in the sciences. The days when philosophers could blandly gesture towards “observation statements” or “falsification,” as if they were some readily understood phenomena or set of procedures, are gone, happily. This does not mean we can merely use the Duhem-Quine thesis as a shibboleth, however: we are now much more sensitive to immense difficulties in establishing viable claims to replication (Chen 1994) or establishing the absence of selectivity bias, or convincing others of adequacy of experimental controls. Yet, even so, I would still assert that modern science studies, with only a very few exceptions, have ignored the problem of the constitution of error in the context of precision quantitative measurement. While rather broad claims have been made concerning measurement by Hacking, Cartwright, Franklin and others, none goes so far as to examine the actual manipulation of the numerical data. More distressingly, in the areas of economics and economic methodology, we have not even got so far as have the researchers in science studies. This fact alone should provide grounds for scepticism about the claim in Cartwright (1989) that philosophy of scientific inference has something to learn from the history of econometrics.

Gregory Kavka has recently highlighted, and attempted resolution of, a possible problem with Hobbes's views on state-of-nature co-operation. The problem, having to do with whether it is rational to abide by one's agreements in what appear to be prisoner's dilemma (PD) or PD-like situations, can provisionally be summarized in this way: A covenant of mutual trust is an agreement in which both parties are required to discharge their covenantal obligation, in sequence, at some time after the contract is made (WM,3,14,120–121,124). Hobbes seems to affirm that it is not rational in the state of nature for covenant-parties who have to perform first—first-parties—to keep their agreements, although it is rational for second-parties to do so if first-parties have already performed. These views on the rationality of contract-keeping generate the symmetry enigma: precisely what is the asymmetry between the situations of first-parties and second-parties in the state of nature that makes it irrational for first-parties to do the cooperative thing but rational for second-parties to do so?

The goal of this article is to reveal the primal role played by “use” in Spinoza's Ethics. Contrary to appearances, the concept is not linked only to passivity; it is an essential feature of the reinforcement of virtue toward wisdom. Considering that Laurent Bove's analyses of habit within the realm of imagination leave aside the links with adequate knowledge, this article offers an extension of his interpretation in a completely new direction. The new elements are, above all, a demonstration of the place of “use” in the texts where the shift from passivity to activity is concerned, and a new interpretation of intuition in the example of the discovery of the fourth proportional number. In this example, it is argued that intuition is simply a mechanical habituation to truth, thanks to the repetition of acts of reasoning.

These words were written by a preacher-theologian of grey hairs and very great learning: “‘In the fullness of time’ God sent forth his Son, a pre-existent divine Being, who appears on earth as a man. He dies the death of a sinner on the cross and makes atonement for the sins of men… What a primitive mythology it is, that a divine Being should become incarnate, and atone for the sins of men through his own blood” Since 1941, when those wartime words were written, Dr. Bultmann has checked his inclination to apply the term “myth” in wholesale fashion, but his demythologizing works continue to be widely quoted, and their claims can still produce annoyance in the reader and plain uncertainty over what to make of the term “myth”, with its unmistakable smell of something not wanted. In this paper I want first to look into Bultmann's use of that word, and then, by remembering some things from the history of philosophy, to replace that uncertainty if possible with a smile of recognition.

John Locke is famous for, among other things, his attack on innate ideas. At one time it was felt that Locke had attacked a straw man. But John Yolton has shown that many of Locke's contemporaries held strange views about innate ideas. Appealing to innate ideas was apparently a popular method of establishing principles that might otherwise be difficult to defend. Locke's attack is in good measure directed at those who preferred not to provide arguments. However, when one tries to sort out Locke's own arguments and to reconstruct what the more articulate defenders of innate ideas were interpreted to hold, matters become complicated.

The disagreement between André Gombay and Storrs McCall can be summed up in terms of the distinction between liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. This distinction is actually used by Professor McCall in his paper. Thus, it would seem that both speakers agree that a person acting under duress cannot exercise liberty of spontaneity—he (or she) does not act according to his (or her) wishes. However, Gombay also claims, at least according to McCall, that liberty of indifference is also lacking in cases of duress—persons under duress have no other choice than to obey when threatened. McCall takes an opposite view. He thinks that the only genuine cases of compulsion belong either to various types of physical coercion or to a certain number of pathologies of the mind.

Dans la seconde partie de son Prologue au Commentaire du premier livre des Éléments d'Euclide, Proclus, un néo-platonicien du Ve siècle après J.-C., a donné sur Platon un jugement qui semble avoir été accepté d'une façon assez unanime par les anciens, lorsqu'il écrit: «Après eux [Hippocrate de Chios et Théodore de Cyrène] vécut Platon qui fit prendre aux Mathématiques en général, à la Géométrie en particulier, un essor immense, grâce au zèle qu'il déploya pour elles, et dont témoignent assez ses écrits tout remplis de discours mathématiques, et qui, à chaque instant, éveillent l'ardeur pour ces sciences chez ceux qui s'adonnent à la philosophie». Les historiens modernes de la géométrie grecque ont dû nuancer ce jugement de Proclus, allant même jusqu'à parler de légende à propos des prétendues découvertes géométriques de Platonz. De fait, il semble que l'essor des mathématiques et de la géométrie au IVe siècle av.

Patricia Kitcher has argued that there is an anomaly in our thought about ourselves. Her thesis turns on a claim concerning our attitude toward an imagined case, and on an argument that the attitude is irrational.

The example, E, is as follows. Suppose you are told today that tomorrow you will lose those capacities, whatever they may be, in virtue of which you are a person. After this happens, the body which is now yours will be tortured. Pain will be felt.

Anyone who has worked at proving theorems of intuitionistic logic in a natural deduction system must have been struck by the way in which many logical theorems “prove themselves.” That is, proofs of many formulas can be read off from the syntactical structure of the formulas themselves. This observation suggests that perhaps a strong structural identity may underly this relation between formulas and their proofs. A formula can be considered as a tree structure composed of its subformulas (Frege 1879) and by the normal form theorem (Gentzen 1934) every formula has a normalized proof consisting of its subformulas. Might we not identify an intuitionistic theorem with (one of) its proof(s) in normal form?

Canadian philosopher Rupert C. Lodge (1886–1961) developed a pluralistic or “comparative philosophy” in which he adopted what I shall call the polycentric perspective. The polycentric perspective recognizes that since philosophical discourse, indeed all discourse, is necessarily linear, “of only one dimension”, it follows that no one metaphysical system, no one philosophical perspective, can ever be considered adequate on its own. In this paper I argue that the philosophy of pluralism, the adoption of the polycentric perspective by Lodge and other early Canadian philosophers, can and does serve as an adequate answer and intriguing alternative to Richard Rorty's challenge to Speculative Philosophy in The Consequences of Pragmatism and Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.