The problem of scientific ethics or experimental morality creates for the scientific methodologist a profound dilemma. To the extent that he makes his investigations scientific he fails at the essence of morality. Conversely, if he attempts to found himself securely in morality, his efforts to become scientific lead to mere utilitarian “moralizing.” In the older language of Kant, the imperatives of morality are categorical; those of science, hypothetical. “Is” and “ought” are incommensurable categories, as they are for logical positivism which simply accepts the dualism as irreducible and advises against what it views as the inevitable consequence of any attempted synthesis: confusion.

This paper attempts to outline some of the important concepts and ideas used in system analysis which is taken to be a general mode of analysis used in all sciences. Systems are seen from three perspectives: (1) that involving the relationship between system and environment, (2) that involving interaction between several systems, and (3) that involving one type of system composed of other types of systems. The writers also discuss the concepts “structure” and “equilibrium” as they apply to system analysis, the point being made that the use of these concepts in the social sciences has often been vague or even incorrect.

The issue of materialism has recently been raised again. Mr. Putnam argues against philosophical behaviorism [4]. Such a position holds, as he construes it, that statements like ‘Jones is angry’ can be analyzed in solely behavioral terms. When one argues against philosophical behaviorism, he might be expected to distinguish this metaphysical position from behavior science. Putnam, however, does not make the distinction. Consequently he argues against both. I shall first state the distinction between these two different things, namely, philosophical behaviorism and behavior science, as I see it. The behavior scientist adopts the thesis that in principle it is possible to predict future behavior on the basis of data concerning environmental, behavioral, and physiological variables. All three of these he considers in physical terms. The behavior scientist thus speaks about physical objects and properties of such. Talking in such terms, he believes that it is in principle possible to coordinate to statements asserting that person X has or is in state of mind Y another statement, employing only the above mentioned physical terms, such that either both are true or both are false. The reasons for the behavior scientist's program are the well known quandaries involved in the observation of other people's minds and the need for intersubjective verification in science. One can further distinguish between a narrower and a broader view of behavior science. The former restricts itself to environmental and behavioral variables at what some call the macro level; the latter includes, or even concentrates upon, physiological variables. As scientists neither the behaviorist nor the physiologist asks or answers philosophical questions, either epistemological or ontological, about minds, bodies, and mental contents.

This article is devoted to the question: does the Duhemian argument support the position taken by those contemporary philosophers who—like W. V. O. Quine and M. White—reject the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements? The term “Duhemian argument” is used to refer to the following statement: it is impossible to put to the test one isolated empirical statement; testing empirical statements involves testing a whole group of hypotheses. An analysis of the logical structure of reductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that the Duhemian argument is valid and that it entails the following statements: (1)—experience alone cannot compel us absolutely to the acceptance of any isolated empirical statement whatsoever, independently of our acceptance or rejection of some other statements, and (2)—no isolated empirical statement can be conclusively falsified by experience, independently of our acceptance or rejection of some other statements. The Duhemian argument seems then to establish conclusively the cogency of the claim that, in principle, it is possible to reject or to maintain any particular empirical statement, provided we make appropriate changes in the system of hypotheses which is put to test. The philosophers who reject the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements—in particular Quine—claim that the same line of reasoning supports their contention. It is alleged that: (1)—the Duhemian argument makes impossible a definition of statement synonymy and, consequently, a definition of analyticity in terms of synonymy, and (2)—that the unit of empirical significance is the whole of science or the total science, and (3)—that it is a folly to seek a boundary between synthetic and analytic statements, because all our statements are equally open to revision. The article tries to show that these conclusions do not follow from the Duhemian argument. In particular it is shown: (1)—that the Duhemian argument does not exclude the definition of statement synonymy, (2)—that this argument does not support the contention that the enigmatic entity called “the whole of science” or the “total science” is involved in each and every testing procedure, (3)—that the principle of fundamental revisability of every statement does not change the fact that in scientific practice the situation is never so hopeless as the Duhemian argument seems to imply, because even inconclusive arguments may differ in their adequacy, and (4)—that the term “revision” is ambiguous and only this ambiguity lends an air of plausibility to Quine's formulations. The conclusion is that the Duhemian line of reasoning does not support the contention of philosophers who reject the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements.

Professor Isaiah Berlin has written an extremely lively polemic against those metaphysical theories of history which by regarding all human actions as inevitable, make it morally improper to censure the actors. Such theories attempt to give a comprehensive explanation of historical change in terms of some abstraction such as The Masses, The Absolute Spirit, Tradition, etc. which is supposedly the real dynamism or determinant of human history. What he opposes in these theories is that they seem to entail that individuals are at the mercy of forces they are not aware of, much less understand; they have no choices or alternatives, for their actions are predetermined by the necessity of the fulfillment of some over-all Plan or Realization. Such a view if taken seriously would make it improper for the historian or anyone else to blame, say, Napoleon, or claim that he could have pursued a different policy.

Recession of the galaxies indicates a repulsive force and suggests that Newton's formulation of gravitation is not complete. A possible modification is proposed, and this Neo-Newtonian equation allows a quantitative treatment of Mach's principle. It also limits the velocity of matter to c and gives a correct prediction for the perihelion of Mercury.

Two ideal standard clocks, effectively isolated from interaction with other physical systems, and in a region of the universe free of gravitational fields, are assumed to move in any arbitrary manner so that they coincide on at least two occasions. In general, the reading of one of them will become retarded relative to the other in the interval between successive coincidences. This relative retardation is predicted by the restricted theory of relativity, taken together with the assumption that the ‘rate’ of a clock depends only on its velocity and not on its acceleration. The recognized procedure for calculating the retardation in terms of clock ‘rates’ is set out, and is illustrated by its application to a simple hypothetical experiment in which one clock remains at rest and the other travels away from and back to it with constant speed in a straight line.

There is nothing paradoxical in the predicted retardation as such. The so-called 'clock paradox' arises because an alternative, and apparently valid, calculation procedure, also based on clock 'rates', leads to a contradictory result. The term ‘paradox’ is something of a euphemism since the two predictions are contradictories.

It is shown that the paradox does not arise when direct use is made of the Lorentz transformation without introducing the additional, and non-essential, step in reasoning involved in utilizing the clock ‘rates’. It is then shown that the paradox arises only through using these clock ‘rates’ without due regard to the exact significance of the quantities so described; once this is recognized the paradox is resolved completely within the framework of the restricted theory, which then provides a unique and unambiguous prediction of the relative retardation.

Once the paradox is thus resolved, the general theory of relativity can add nothing significant to the analysis. It is shown that the application of the principle of equivalence is essentially trivial; in effect, Einstein and Tolman evaded the real logical issue raised by the contradictory predictions by denying the applicability of the restricted theory and then utilizing, by means of the principle of equivalence, results obtained from it. This tortuous procedure succeeded in evading the paradox rather than in resolving it; it would obviously be quite invalid were the restricted theory indeed inapplicable to the problem.

The twin paradox of relativity theory is reviewed. A distinction is made between physical clocks and biological ones. It is suggested that metabolic activity might be a better measure of aging than physical time. Further it is suggested that entropy changes representing metabolic activity would be a good way to describe aging. Using the above criterion it appears that a traveling twin will be older than his brother.