How can reasons explain actions? What is the force of “because” in “He did this because...” followed by a statement of the agent's intentions? The answer involves some concept of what can count as explanation, and the history of science indicates that the acceptability of explanations depends, in part, on a scientific community which has decided to pursue its inquiries in one direction rather than another. The first part of this paper examines this pragmatic aspect of explanations; the second part draws on this examination in the hope of elucidating the way reasons explain actions. The possibility of eliminating our ordinary, “purposive,” explanations of actions in favor of some “mechanistic,” neuro-physiological, account is then considered.

G. A. Cohen defends and Jon Elster criticizes Marxist use of functional explanation. But Elster's mechanical conception of explanation is, contrary to Elster's claims, a better basis for vindication of functional explanation than Cohen's nomological conception, which cannot provide an adequate account of functional explanation. Elster also objects that functional explanation commits us to metaphysically bizarre collective subjects, but his argument requires an implausible reading of methodological individualism which involves an unattractive eliminativism about social phenomena.

It is shown that the uncertainty principle has nothing directly to do with the non-localisability of position and momentum for an individual system on the quantum logical view. The product Δx·Δp for localisation of the ranges of position and momentum of an individual system → ∞, while the quantities ΔX and ΔP in the uncertainty principle ΔX·ΔP ≥ ħ/2, must be given a statistical interpretation on the quantum logical view.

Recently, Michael Redhead has argued that the grouping of particles into multiplets by grand unified gauge theories (GUT's) does not, by itself, imply an ontological reduction in the number of elementary particles. While sympathetic to Redhead's argument, in this note I argue that under certain conditions involving Kaluza-Klein theories, GUT's would provide such an ontological reduction.

Professor Grünbaum's much-discussed refutation of Zeno's metrical paradox turns out to be ad hoc upon close examination of the relevant portion of measure theory. Although the modern theory of measure is able to defuse Zeno's reasoning, it is not capable of refuting Zeno in the sense of showing his error. I explain why the paradox is not refutable and argue that it is consequently more than a mere sophism.

An axiomatization of the theory is presented based on an explication of the 1957 text. Twenty-five theorems are deduced from the seven postulates. An abstract test space for the theory is formulated and the operations for its practical testing discussed. Traditional experimentation with the theory seems generally concerned with few of its propositions and incapable of testing it.

D. H. Sharp has recently argued that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen failed to make good their claim that elementary quantum theory provides only an incomplete description of physical reality. Sharp expounds in detail three criticisms (a fourth is mentioned) which focus largely on formal features of the quantum theory. I argue, on grounds centered largely in our search for an adequate physical understanding of the micro domain, that each of these criticisms must be rejected. The original criticism of quantum theory reemerges as a still-important baseline in our search for an adequate understanding of quantum theory.

D. M. Armstrong, Michael Tooley, and Fred Dretske have recently proposed a new realist account of laws of nature, according to which laws of nature are objective relations between universals. After criticizing this account, I develop an alternative realist account, according to which (1) the nomic structure of a world is a relation between initial world-histories and world-histories, and (2) a law of nature is a fact that holds solely in virtue of nomic structure (and not, for example, in virtue of past history).

This article highlights the limitations of typicality accounts of thermodynamic behavior so as to promote an alternative line of research: understanding and accounting for the success of the techniques and equations physicists use to model the behavior of systems that begin away from equilibrium. This article also takes steps in this promising direction. It examines a technique commonly used to model the behavior of an important kind of system: a Brownian particle that has been introduced to an isolated fluid at equilibrium. It also accounts for the success of the model, by identifying and grounding the technique’s key assumptions.

In a recent paper, Belot argues that Bayesians are epistemologically flawed because they believe with probability 1 that they will learn the truth about observational propositions in the limit. While Belot’s considerations suggest that this result should be interpreted with some care, the concerns he raises can largely be defused by putting convergence to the truth in the context of learning from an arbitrarily large but finite number of observations.

When a body is turned through 180°, reversal occurs in two dimensions. If it is turned about the vertical axis, then left and right sides change places, and also front and back. If it is turned about the horizontal axis which runs from side to side, then top and bottom change places, and also front and back. If, finally, it is turned about the horizontal axis which runs from front to back, then left and right change places as well as top and bottom. All this appears to follow from the properties of three-dimensional space and of rigid bodies. If XOX' is the axis of rotation of a three-dimensional structure, then there are two axes YOY' and ZOZ' at right angles to XOX', and if one of these moves round 180°, then so must the other. It follows that a body is always reversed in two dimensions whenever it is turned about an axis in the third. It follows also that there are always two ways of turning a body in space so as to reverse it in a given dimension: namely by turning it about either of two axes perpendicular to the given dimension.

1. Introduction. The germ of the clock paradox was contained in Einstein's fundamental paper on the special theory of relativity, where he declares that the retardation of a moving clock “still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide.” This remark soon gave rise to a criticism which was to play a prominent role in the discussions of the consistency of the theory of relativity. It was charged that this theory allows the paradoxical conclusion that at the instant of the return of a moving clock U1 to its point of departure A, the time shown by Ul is both earlier and later than the corresponding reading of a clock U2 which has remained stationary at A during U1's journey. Critics based this contention on the following assumptions, for which they claimed the sanction of relativity: (i) The relative motion of U1 and U2 is such that the kinematic process seen by an observer on one of these clocks is of the same character as that seen by an observer on the other, and this symmetry allows each of these two clocks to be used as a reference frame from which to describe the motion of the other, and (ii) there is reciprocity between these two reference frames such that in each of them, the moving clock must be slow upon returning to the stationary one.

The following analysis has been undertaken mainly for the purpose of presenting a sample of a method which, as the writer holds, would, if widely and consistently applied, tend considerably to reduce the number and the significance of epistemological problems. The presuppositions characteristic of this method might be summarized in these five statements:

1. 1) You cannot make discoveries by changing the meaning of terms.

2. 2) There is wisdom in common sense since it represents the accumulated experience of the race.

3. 3) It cannot be impossible to work out common sense into a consistent terminology.

4. 4) It is when we lack the patience to do this that epistemological problems seem to arise.

5. 5) But when such a terminology is worked out, it will prove rather disappointing since it will just express, in a somewhat clarified form, what all the world has always been aware of.

In the survey and criticism of science and philosophy we are considering systems of knowledge and thought rationally developed from coherent human experience. These rational systems are in a definite sense intellectually organized. Where intellectual and social problems are real and urgent the relevant knowledge and thought should be organized socially and purposively to achieve tentative, if not adequate or definitive solutions.

On the basis of an analysis of a single paper on plate tectonics, a paper whose actual content is nowhere in evidence, Frederick Suppe concludes that no standard model of confirmation—hypothetico-deductive, Bayesian-inductive, or inference to the best explanation—can account for the structure of a scientific paper that reports an experimental result. He further argues on the basis of a survey of scientific papers, a survey whose data and results are also absent, that papers which have a rather stringent length limit, such as the one on plate tectonics, are typical of science. Thus, he concludes that no standard confirmation scheme is capable of dealing with scientific practice. Suppe also requires that an adequate model of philosophical testing should be able to account for everything in such scientific papers, in which space is at a premium.