It is suggested that there is a strong connection between intentions and plans, and these plans are then taken to be programs of the sort suggested by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram in Plans and the Structure of Behavior. There is then a hierarchy of programs connected with intentions stretching from the macroscopic level of ordinary discourse to the neurological level. It is argued that as we proceed downwards we arrive at a threshold below which we can still describe the phenomena but below which we can no longer speak of intentions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the criteria for the identity of intentions at various levels.

This essay discusses the problem of the two cultures. According to the author the problem arises because science is the source of a new way of conceiving reality and man, different from the mental conception entertained by nonscientific persons. The article suggests methodological guidelines for the philosopher interested in understanding the humanistic mentality of the scientists. The approach proposed is inductive-genetic. The aim is to help the philosopher explore science in its developmental becoming so that he may become aware of the reasons for the characteristic mentality of scientists as regards humanistic issues. The essay concludes with a discussion of the new perspectives disclosed to scientific-humanistic dialogue.

If the currently available theories of semantic information and utility-expectation are to be applied in a satisfactory way, they must be combined with a message-processing procedure. This paper presents a model of communication within which such a procedure can be defined. In this model the sender's messages arrive over a period of time, the receiver can reject some messages and retain others, the receiver can change his mind in various ways, and the receiver can apply various evaluation functions to a “usable message total”. As one example of message-evaluation, a system for evaluating news-value is presented.

The supposed communication of one mind with another at a distance, without any means known to physical or psychological science, is a generally accepted definition of telepathy. Thus when persons sensorially isolated from each other experience congruence and coincidence of thoughts, emotions or actions they are considered as being in telepathic communication. Clairvoyance surmises the apprehension of particular objects and stimuli also without the employment of any of the agencies of the five senses. Although telepathy and clairvoyance have been thus recognized as distinct conjectures, either or both comprise features of Extra Sensory Perception (ESP). Both are conceived of as transcending the anatomical structures and physiological functionings that comprise the five senses. They therefore constitute a mysterious, additional sense which as yet cannot be ascribed to material bases or causes. However, the operations, if not the exact natures, of these recondite abilities have been, it is claimed, experimentally and precisely ascertained.

Is metaphysics possible? From the beginning of our present sophisticated era we have continually been compelled to ask this question. For myself I confess to a growing impatience with this and like questions. I hold with Kant that metaphysics is a Naturanlage, that should all science pass away and should we revert to barbarism, there would still be metaphysics. I am also disposed to think that should mankind develop in the opposite direction, should we become the supermen or the angels which the perfectionists of all times have envisaged, metaphysics would not only remain, but metaphysical insight would be the very life of that perfection. As Dante said, “metaphysics is the bread of angels.”

In this paper Richard Jeffrey's ‘Logic of Decision’ is extended by examination of agents' attitudes to the sorts of possibilities identified by indicative conditional sentences. An expression for the desirability of conditionals is proposed and, along with Adams' thesis that the probability of a conditional equals the conditional probability of its antecedent given its consequent, is defended by informally deriving it from Jeffrey's notion of desirability and some weak constraints on rational preference for conditional possibilities. Finally a statement is given of a representation theorem establishing the conditions under which a rational agent's preferences for conditionals determines the existence of unique measures (up to choice of scale) of her degrees of belief and desire.

Science is based upon the supposition that planning is essential to and effective in the discovery of truth,—planning within and between the minds of individuals. If planning is so, then the cooperative planning of scientific research in the field of the science of religion would contribute to the discovery of truth. The symposia which the Philosophy of Science Association has authorized be published in its journal and the papers on E. S. P. and upon psychoanalytical theory which it secured for its recent national meeting reveal, it seems to the present writer, that the Association recognizes the value of cooperative planning in the discovery of truth, specifically in the field of the science of religion.

The theory of knowledge is justified only by its results. Each of its statements is essentially an hypothesis, valuable in so far as its practical purpose is fulfilled. Consequently, the same speculative characteristics common to all natural sciences, must be attributed also to the theory of knowledge.

Suppose my utilities are representable by a set of utility assignments, each defined for atomic sentences; suppose my beliefs are representable by a set of probability assignments. Then each of my utility assignments together with each of my probability assignments will determine a utility assignment to non-atomic sentences, in a familiar way. This paper is concerned with the question, whether I am committed to all the utility assignments so constructible. Richard Jeffrey (1984) says (in effect) “no”, Isaac Levi (1974) says “yes”. I argue for “no”, and raise in passing a problem for Levi.

I. The present state of philosophy contrasted with that of the sciences. Both philosophy and science seek not mere opinion but knowledge. The sciences, however, have by now won a vast body of knowledge, and daily make positive additions to it notwithstanding their theoretical controversies. In philosophy, on the contrary, the same great problems are discussed by generation after generation with rather meager results other than a multiplication of theories and schools of opinion. One is therefore moved to wonder whether philosophy is forever doomed to inconclusiveness, or whether on the contrary knowledge and definite progress are possible in its field in the same sense as in the sciences.

This rejoinder will be divided into two parts. The first part will be devoted to what appear to be serious disagreements between Professor Kyburg and me. I shall try to show that these disagreements are far more apparent than real. The second part will contain my criticism of Kyburg's constructive suggestion on the nature of explanation.