Among the subject matters which logicians like at times to investigate are the forms of postulation that other branches of inquiry employ. Rarely, however, do they examine the postulates under which they themselves proceed. It long contented them to offer something they called a “definition” for logic, and let it go at that. They might announce that logic dealt with the “laws of thought,” or with “judgment,” or that it was “the general science of order“; More recently they are apt to connect it in one or another obscure way with linguistic ordering.

In the current article and contrary to a widespread assumption, I argue that Humeanism and ontological emergence can peacefully coexist. Such a coexistence can be established by reviving elements of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of science, in which an idiosyncratic account of diachronic emergence is associated with extensions of the Humean mosaic and the correlative coming into being of new best system laws, which have the peculiarity of being temporally indexed. Incidentally, this reconciliation of Humeanism and emergence allows for conceiving the autonomy of the special sciences in an interesting way, consistently with the reductionist ideal of a unified science.

It has frequently been argued that there is a clear and irreducible difference between statements of fact and statements of value. To say “X is cobalt” and “X is good” is to make statements differing not merely in detail but in kind. To attempt to reduce the second type of statement to the first is to commit the “naturalistic” fallacy. To attempt to reduce the first type of statement to the second is to commit the “idealistic” fallacy. In this paper, I shall accept this position as correct but argue that, far from settling the question of value science, it is merely the elementary premise from which all discussion of this matter must begin.

Much of the Mill-Whewell dispute was purely verbal, but much was not. Mill did not understand Whewell; the true character of the non-verbal aspect of the controversy emerges only upon adequate analysis of Whewell's actual position. Such analysis shows that Mill's objections to Whewell were misdirected, although suggestive of other which might, if prosecuted, carry. Ultimately, the dispute has to do with the given; neither man gives an adequate account of it. For this reason, the controversy cannot be resolved definitively in favor of either of them.

In recent years American legislatures and other governing bodies, public and private, have been considering, probably more frequently than ever before, problems associated with the idea of overthrow of government by force and violence. The question usually takes the form of whether Communists believe in and advocate this doctrine; and, if they do, whether they should therefore be penalized in various ways. This issue is and has been central to a series of legal actions which, whatever their ultimate outcome, will constitute a landmark in the history of American jurisprudence.

This paper is intended to provide a rather brief, suggestive, though not very precise, analysis of the significance of “contextualism” for “meaning”, and more specifically of the significance of “systematic (contextual) simplicity” in relation to “meaningful operations” in the language of natural science. The notion of “equivalent theories” is examined in conjunction with the question of simplicity, and finally, these ideas are brought to bear upon “realism” and “semantic realism” in particular. The pragmatic-aesthetic question of the role of simplicity in scientific theories is of some concern to philosophers of science. Henry Margenau (7:96) has pointed out that, among the metaphysical (epistemological) requirements of scientific theories, the “most embarrassing … is one which is often called the postulate of simplicity….” When a topic is embarrassing, the best way to help remove such embarrassment is to indulge further in frank and open discussion of the topic. This I have tried to do in what follows.

The aim of this paper is to show that the argument put forth by Bell and Hallett against Putnam's thesis regarding the invariance of meaning for quantum logical connectives is insufficient to establish their conclusion. By using an example from the causal theory of time, the paper shows how the condition they specify as relevant in cases of meaning variance in fact fails. As a result, the conclusion that negation undergoes a change of meaning in the quantum logical case is left in doubt. The paper proceeds in three stages. First, a summary of Putnam's argument for the invariance of meaning in the case of quantum logical connectives is provided; this is followed by a review of the criticisms advanced against it by Bell and Hallett. Finally, it is shown how the main claim upon which their major criticism rests is unfounded.

In the works which constitute his distinguished contribution to philosophy, Emile Meyerson has advanced and defended the opinion that scientific explanation consists in transforming empirically discovered natural laws into statements of identity in time. This contention, which it is the purpose of the present paper to examine, is of great interest both on its own account and by reason of its intimate connection with Meyerson's central thesis that all thought consists essentially in similar processes of identification. Indeed so intimate is this connection that our present inquiry although it deals explicitly only with the nature of scientific explanation nevertheless constitutes by implication an examination of the more general thesis also, for if scientific explanation is not a process of identification then obviously not all thought is identificatory.

It is claimed that 'Do x!“ means 'Then you will do x'. Answering a “Why?” question concerning the former may take either of two forms, viz., 'Because ——' or 'If you wish to ——'. The second answer completes the truncated hypothetical. “Ought” sentences are treated as a species of imperatives involving universality in the “if” clause ('If anyone wished to ——'). Moral “ought” sentences involve a double universality, viz., the one mentioned above and universality connecting the action with social harmony (e.g., “If everyone were to do x, then there would be social harmony').

Stich and Nisbett offer an analysis of the concept of a justified inference rule, building upon the efforts of Goodman. They fault Goodman's view on the grounds that it is incompatible with some recent psychological research on reasoning. We criticize their proposal by arguing that it is subject to much the same objections as those they raise against other accounts.

This paper states two sets of axioms sufficient for extensive measurement. The first set, like previously published axioms, requires that each of the objects measured must be classifiable as either greater than, or less than, or indifferent to each other object. The second set, however, requires only that any two objects be classifiable as either indifferent or different, and does not need any information about which object is greater. Each set of axioms produces an extensive scale with the usual properties of additivity and uniqueness except for unit. Moreover, the axioms imply Weber's Law: whether two objects are indifferent depends only upon the ratio of their scale values.

The widespread publicity and the consequent furor created by Dr. J. B. Rhine's experiments on telepathy and clairvoyance, have been interpreted in some quarters as a call for a thorough-going revision of the entire field of psychological thought. This revision, it is held, must be in the direction of philosophic idealism, and away from previously accepted materialistic doctrines. The present paper points out the non-verifiable nature of the entities postulated by the believers in “supernormal” phenomena. Furthermore, the interpretations of contemporary science held by such individuals are not in themselves on a scientific plane. Specific errors in reasoning made by workers in the field of psychical research, are presented. In short, “psychical research … cannot turn the universe into a non-material, non-objective one, on either the basis of misinterpretations of current physical thought or on the basis of its own work.”

Common probabilistic fallacies and putative paradoxes are surveyed, including those arising from distribution repartitioning, from the reordering of expectation series, and from misconceptions regarding expected and almost certain gains in games of chance. Conditions are given for such games to be well-posed. By way of example, Bernoulli's “Petersburg Paradox” and Hacking's “Strange Expectations” are discussed and the latter are resolved. Feller's generalized “fair price, in the classical sense” is critically reviewed.

Carl G. Hempel has often stated that inductive-statistical explanations, as he conceives them, are inductive arguments. This discussion note raises the question of whether such arguments are to be understood as (1) arguments of the traditional sort, containing premises and conclusions, governed by some sort of inductive “acceptance rules,” or (2) something more closely akin to Carnap's degree of confirmation statements which occur in an inductive logic which entirely eschews inductive “acceptance rules.” Hempel's writings do not seem unequivocal on this issue. It is suggested that adoption of construal (2) would remove the need for Hempel's high probability requirement on I-S explanations.

Abner Shimony called it coherence; John Kemeny called it strict fairness; today many people speak of strict coherence. According to Shimony's definition, a set of betting rates on a series of propositions hi and ei is strictly incoherent, when “there exists a choice of stakes Si such that, if X accepts the series of bets at these stakes, then no matter what the actual truth values of hi, and ei may be, X can at best lose nothing, and in at least one possible eventuality he will suffer a positive loss” ([3], p. 9).

We now proceed to define certain terms which we shall apply to sets of axioms and derive a few properties. A great deal of what follows in this section is still based on a two-valued logic, while our criticism of the usual independence and consistency proofs is based on an n-valued logic. The necessary alterations are now being worked out by the author.