DOCSLIB.ORG

Truth, Reality, Belief, Faith: Science Public Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Truth, Reality, Belief, Faith: Science Public Debate Editorial Truth, Reality, Belief, Faith: Science In• Public Debate remember debating the values and importance TRUTH, reality, belief and faith are some of of tree hollows. Debate continued for many the tools we take with us into any negotiation meetings before consensus was met to preserve process even those involving science. For me a hollow bearing trees. But despite the many truth is something we can all agree on, whether pamphlets handed out, landholders misunder­ it is something undeniable or not; reality is stood and thought a hollow bearing tree was a something that is undeniable and has presence hollow tree, that is, it no longer had heart wood despite our definition; belief is something that from bottom to top. If they were aware that we individually have evidence for, but which we hollows only needed to be entrances at the end have not established as a truth; and faith is of branches or cracks in stems, it would have something for which we have no evidence, but significantly changed the nature of the debate. we feel is right. Although these tools of thought With even common ecological terms such as are used equally, most scientists would find it diversity and richness often misunderstood by hard to admit how often we are unsure which practicing ecologists, it is no wonder non­ one we are using. Unfortunately science and its scientists get confused. methods are not easily understood by the uninitiated. Despite OUf insistence on scientific Definitions should be as clear, distinct and as rigour, too few of us are willing to acknowledge close to reality as possible. Yet, boundaries are that many of the methods we use to condense often unclear in agreed definitions and easily and express OUf ideas still revert to intuition, manipulated by sectional interests. For example, feelings, personal biases and misinformation. rainforests are usually defined by ecologists as This is no more so than when we attempt to communities containing rainforest species. develop policy, act as members of committees Or Rainforest species are of course those that occur are called upon to consult on environmental in rainforests (ditto for wetlands), but rainforests issues. often contain residual eucalypts from an earlier successional stage. An ecologist might still Science as a culture consider this a rainforest, but others, seeing the eucalypts, consider them to be eucalypt forests. Scientific knowledge is to many a different The distinction might not matter except when culture with a difficult language, and sometimes there is a policy to protect "rainforest" from a remarkably different set of beliefs and guiding logging, but allow logging in "eucalypt forest". principles. Even when we use common terms, It was a semantic argument over the meaning they can mean vastly different things to us than of "rainforest" which led to the infamous Terania to our partners in decision making. We should Creek debate in northern New South Wales and treat initial contact as if we were from a vastly ultimately to the reservation of most of that different culture. Like all such encounters one State's northern rainforests as World Heritage. of the worst things we can do is to preach the An analogous debate concerns "old growth" undeniable truth and superiority of our way of forest and its conservation. Early definitions for life (like believing we have a more powerful the purpose of conserving forest classed as "old god). We need to tread carefully; otherwize we growth" required that there had been no post­ may find that whatever we say is dismissed out colonial anthropomorphic disturbance. However of hand. It is important to remember that policy allows minimal farming or logging activities opposing opinions about the environment have within old growth, which subsequently makes the relevance as much as do alternative viewpoints forest no longer "old growth" by definition. of religion. Showing our ideas are compatible In the context of existing policy, the definition and mutually beneficial on at least some level adopted was unworkable for the purposes of often helps. conservation. Are we on the same page? Limits of our knowledge and data Do we all have the same concept of the object We are often forced to use models when data or idea being discussed? Most often the answer are deficient. No matter how complex the is no. Although Socrates assailed this problem algorithms, if you are not aware of the nearly 2 500 years ago, it is still one of the limitations of the information that goes in, you greatest issues in our modern day world. I are using faith and belief if you try and force -----------------------------""""--""""~""~"~"-"~~"-" 2 PACIFIC CONSERVATION BIOLOGY its outcomes on others. When modelling, the Do not lose sight of the whole picture universe stops where data stops, whereas in real life there are no limits. I remember trying to It is easy to be caught up with a single issue reconcile modelled forest corridor placement to and to forget that information about systems is real forest patches. Many significant forest often inadequate. If we end a landscape patches did not have corridors linking them in management practice, that does not mean that the modelled system because these patches lay systems will either return to what they were or just outside the boundary of the model and did remain stable. For example, in northeastern not "exist". Similarly in vegetation mapping, forests of New South Wales, past logging and where ground based surveys have been sparse, grazing practices were associated with high models are often highly suspect, with accuracy frequency (every 2-5 years), but low intensity falling away logarithmically from ground based fires. However, the natural fire regime may have sites. So often models are discarded despite the been anything (depending on the assemblage) effort that has gone into them because of the from between 15 to 300+ years with a mix of insistence that they present the truth (they are high and low intensity fires. Many of these lands doctrine), yet they are eventually shown to be have been taken under the National Parks flawed in some way. This is no truer than in reserve system after regional forest agreements, debates about vegetation mapping. To the but although the overstorey may be what it has uninitiated and even to many practitioners, always been, the recruiting eucalypts may only maps and boundaries become reality. be a small selection of species that were able to survive a high fire frequency. Weeds that were Ecologists try and limit the applicability of not a problem under previous grazing and their work to the system under investigation. burning regimes now present management Despite our training, when faced with limited problems. Yet, is the best management policy an information and limited time, we are forced attempt to return to pre-European conditions to provide management guidelines based on (assuming these are even known) or is it better information from entirely different systems. to allow natural successional processes to As scientists we believe that what we are proceed unimpeded? Biological systems are seeking is truth and reality, but forget that these often driven by large scale temporal process in (especially when involved in emotional issues climate. Despite the seeming persistence of like forest logging) are just models which are many dominant floristic elements over short based on the amount and quality of current time spans, natural turnover in dominance may information. We should acknowledge the limits occur over decades or even centuries particularly of our data and understanding; otherwise our in semi-arid and arid areas. Management on products and thoughts become doctrine and these time scales is difficult, if not impossible. dogma. The strength of the scientific method is that knowledge increases with time and effort. Communicating We should not criticize others for revising their It would be good if we could all be trained in ideas or attitudes to issues with new knowledge expressing our knowledge to the public. as this is something we should all be doing. Unfortunately, our universities do not value this Scientists should provide public comment, but skill and in my own training, it was discouraged need to remember the limits of their knowledge by some as an unworthy task. Thus, too many and not feel that providing caveats or of us learn on the job and make mistakes as we precautionary comment is a weakness. go. For many, the process is so disheartening that they never attempt to speak to the public, Maximization is not the onIy answer often for fear of criticism from their colleagues. Our culture is driven by the paradigm that The failure of our education system should not more is better. More is not always better, yet we be a reason to dissuade us from taking part in strive to produce benchmarks and management decision making processes and to provide good decisions that maximize increases within a information and opinion where necessary. We locale. This is very similar to a farmer practicing should always remain true to what it is to be a greater returns per unit area, or greater stock scientist and enable logic and the scientific numbers per paddock. I think most ecologists method to be upheld. Remember however, that would think such farming decisions are njave for we are not all-knowing and there is a need to believing that there will not be negative distinguish between faith, belief, truth and consequences associated with such actions. Yet as reality. We are only human and that holistically, ecologists we often fall into the same trap: for science and scientists are just one ingredient. example, that greater richness per site (species density) or greater vegetation cover is the Dr John T.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Polarization of Reality †
    AEA Papers and Proceedings 2020, 110: 324–328 https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201072 The Polarization of Reality † By Alberto Alesina, Armando Miano, and Stefanie Stantcheva* Evidence is growing that Americans are voters have been illustrated in the political sci- polarized not only in their views on policy issues ence literature. Bartels 2002 shows that party and attitudes toward government and society identification shapes (perception) of economic but also in their perceptions of the same factual indicators that can be seen as the government’s reality. In this paper, we conceptualize how to “performance indicators” e.g., unemployment think about the polarization of reality and review or inflation , with Republicans( being more opti- recent papers that show that Republicans and mistic than) Democrats on economic variables Democrats as well as Trump and non-Trump during the Reagan presidency.1 Similar results voters since (2016 view the same reality through about the importance of partisan assessment a different lens. Perhaps) as a result, they hold of the government’s performance in shaping different views about policies and what should perceptions of economic indicators is found in be done to address different economic and social Conover, Feldman, and Knight 1987 . More issues. recently, Jerit and Barabas 2012( shows) that The direction of causality is unclear. On the people perceive the same reality( in a) way consis- one hand, individuals could select into political tent with their political views and that learning affiliations on the basis of their perceptions of is selective: partisans have higher knowledge reality. On the other hand, political affiliation for facts that corroborate their world views and affects the information one receives, the groups lower knowledge of facts that challenge them.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(S): Cleo H
    Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(s): Cleo H. Cherryholmes Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, No. 6, (Aug. - Sep., 1992), pp. 13-17 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176502 Accessed: 02/05/2008 14:02 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Notes on Pragmatismand Scientific Realism CLEOH. CHERRYHOLMES Ernest R. House's article "Realism in plicit declarationof pragmatism. Here is his 1905 statement ProfessorResearch" (1991) is informative for the overview it of it: of scientificrealism.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Reality : an Introduction to the Philosophy of Science / Peter Godfrey-Smith
    2 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Logic Plus Empiricism 2.1 The Empiricist Tradition The first approach to science that we will examine is a revolutionary form of empiricism that appeared in the early part of the twentieth century, flourished for a time, was transformed and moderated under the pressure of objections, and then slowly became extinct. The earlier version of the view is called “logical positivism,” and the later, moderate form is more usually called “logical empiricism.” There is variation in terminology here; “logical empiricism” is sometimes used for the whole movement, early and late. Although we will be looking at fossils in this chapter, these remnants of the past are of great importance in understanding where we are now. Before discussing logical positivism, it will be helpful to go even further back and say something about the empiricist tradition in general. In the first chapter I said that empiricism is often summarized with the claim that the only source of knowledge is experience. This idea goes back a long way, but the most famous stage of empiricist thought was in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with the work of John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. These “classical” forms of empiricism were based upon the- ories about the mind and how it works. Their view of the mind is often called “sensationalist.” Sensations, like patches of color and sounds, ap- pear in the mind and are all the mind has access to. The role of thought is to track and respond to patterns in these sensations. This view of the mind is not implied by the more basic empiricist idea that experience is the source of knowledge, but for many years such a view was common within empiricism.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic Realism†
    Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso Año 4 / 2016 / 2do semestre / N° 8 Págs. 107 - 122 ISSN 0719-4234 / eISSN 0719-4242 Pragmatic Realism† Hasok Chang* Abstract In this paper I seek to articulate and develop Roberto Torretti’s advocacy of pragmatic realism. At the core of Torrietti’s view is a rejection of the notion that the truth of scientific theories consists in their correspondence to the world. I propose to understand correspondence in that sense as a metaphorical notion. I articulate a notion of pragmatist coherence, on the basis of which I make new coherence theories of truth and reality. Then it becomes possible to say that pragmatic realism consists in the pursuit of true knowledge of reality, in a way that is also consonant with Torretti’s pluralism. Keywords: pragmatism, realism, pluralism, coherence, truth, reality Realismo Pragmático Resumen En este trabajo intento articular y desarrollar la defensa que Roberto Torretti hace del realismo pragmático. En el núcleo de la visión de Torretti existe un rechazo a la idea de que la verdad de las teorías científicas consista en su correspondencia con el mundo. Propongo entonces entender la correspondencia como una noción metafórica. Articularé una noción de coherencia pragmática sobre la cual establezco una nueva teoría de la coherencia entre verdad y realidad. __________________En consecuencia, resultará posible afirmar que el realismo pragmático † Recibido: octubre 2016. This paper is partly based on a presentation entitled “Pragmatist Coherence as the Source of Truth and Reality,” given at the sixth biennial conference of the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice (SPSP) on 17 June 2016 at Rowan University.
    [Show full text]
  • Musings on the Theory of Everything and Reality (PDF)
    Lecture Notes 7: Musings on the Theory of Everything and Reality 1 Is a \Theory of Everything" Even Possible? In Lecture Notes 6, I described the ongoing quest of theoretical physicists to­ day in uncovering the “theory of everything” that describes Nature. Nobody knows yet what that theory is — it would have to somehow reconcile the conflict between quantum theory and general relativity, i.e., it would have to be a theory of “quantum gravity” — but people are certainly trying, and many optimistic people even feel that we’re “almost there.” I personally have no idea if we’re close at all, because I am definitely not an expert on any candidate theory of quantum gravity. However, I do feel that we’ve come a long way in the past 100 years. And, when I marvel at the progress we’ve made, it makes me feel that, some day, we will finally have the correct theory of quantum gravity. Whether that day is 50 years from now or 500 years I won’t try to guess. But it seems like we can understand the Universe. In­ deed, as Einstein once mused: “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.” But is the Universe really comprehensible? We can certainly understand aspects of the Universe today, but could we someday understand everything about it? The prospect of understanding everything — not only the laws of physics, but also the state of every single object in the (possibly infinite) Universe — probably seems rather bleak. After all, we humans are only only small, finite systems in an incredibly vast (possibly infinite) Universe, so maybe complete knowledge of every system in the Universe is impossible to attain.
    [Show full text]
  • Immanuel Kant's Theory of Knowledge: Exploring the Relation Between
    Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: Exploring the Relation between Sensibility and Understanding Wendell Allan Marinay Kant’s critique of reason does not provide an ultimate justification of knowledge, is not the last word in philosophy but is an initial thesis aimed at successfully solving the challenge posed by two warring schools of thought during Kant’s time: empiricism and rationalism.1 Following the ancient-Greek’s nothing-in-the-mind-without-passing-through-the- senses (Aristotle), Immanuel Kant’s inquiry of knowledge starts with the things “seen” or “experienced.”2 Such inquiry entails the materials and a process by which there can (probably) be known. It probes into or upon the constitution of human reason – an epistemic investigation from within yet necessarily involving from without. This is so because “in the mind we have the pure forms of sensible intuition and the pure concepts of an object in general. Extraneous to the mind we have the unknown and unknowable source of the matter for these forms, the source of that out of which our contentful experience is made.”3 Kant mentions two faculties of the mind that are involved in the knowing process, namely, sensibility and understanding. “He distinguishes between the receptive faculty of sensibility, through which we have intuitions, and the active faculty of understanding, which is the source of concepts.”4 Through the former, the objects are “given” while 1 Otfried Höffe. Immanuel Kant trans. Marshall Farrier (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994), 55. 2 We should not be misled that by starting with things seen or experienced, knowledge would mean like a result of or is consequent to such experience.
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Fundamentalism: a Language of the Past Or a Reality of the Future?
    THE LANGUAGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM: A LANGUAGE OF THE PAST OR A REALITY OF THE FUTURE? The rise and growth of Fundamentalism is obvious to all. What is not obvious is how one should classify Fundamentalism. (When we use the term Fundamen- talism without any explanation we have in mind American Biblical Fundamen- talism. The reason for this designation becomes obvious in the course of the workshop.) In other words, whether one should see it as an anti-intellectual ab- erration or as a conservative religious movement with its own identity and per- spective of life? The works of Sandeen and Marsden make clear that Fundamentalism is not an aberration, but rather a conservative tradition that has deep roots in American soil. Through an examination of the language of Funda- mentalism we hope to disclose not only the broad foundation in which it is built, but also come to some understanding with regard to its future. Making use of Hal Lindsey's work we shall illustrate our point as well. In broad terms one may describe the language of Fundamentalism as a lan- guage of militant defense and separation. Falwell describes Fundamentalists as "militant defenders of the faith."1 Its militant defense is in favor of the five fun- damentals at the heart of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They are: (1) the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture; (2) the deity of Christ (including the Virgin birth); (3) the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death; (4) the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead; (5) the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent.
    [Show full text]
  • Reality, Information, and Information Observer †
    Proceedings Reality, Information, and Information Observer † Vladimir S. Lerner Independent researcher, 13603 marina pointe drive, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-310-8226279 † Conference Theoretical Information Studies (TIS), Berkeley, CA, USA, 2–6 June 2019. Published: 20 May 2020 Abstract: Up to now both information and its connection to reality do not have scientifically conclusive definitions, nor implicit origin. They emerge in observing multiple impulses’ interactive yes‒no actions modeling information bits. Each memorized bit of information binds a reversible microprocess with an irreversible information macroprocess along a multi-dimensional observing process. Interactive information dynamics assemble geometrical and information structures of observer cognition and intelligence in double spiral rotating code. Information Path Functional integrates multiple interactive dynamics in finite bits which observe and measure reality. The time and space of reality exists only as discrete units of information. The observed information process, creating its Observer, connects reality, information, and the Observer. Keywords: reality; interaction; impulse; interactive observation; logic; certainty; information process; micro‒macroprocess; Information Path Functional; triple structural unit; triplet code 1. Introduction Observers are everywhere, from communicating people, animals, and different species up to any interacting subjects, accepting, transforming, and exchanging information. What do the observers actually observe? Do they observe reality? What is the information they observe? And how is the observed information connected with the reality of observation? What is the scientific path to uncovering the fact of reality through its observed information? All these questions are still unanswered in known publications. In [1] the eminent scientists discussed various aspects of information and reality, from quantum information to biological and digital information, in order to understand how nature works.
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION– CONSCIOUSNESS– REALITY How a New Understanding of the Universe Can Help Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence the FRONTIERS COLLECTION
    THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION James B. Glattfelder INFORMATION– CONSCIOUSNESS– REALITY How a New Understanding of the Universe Can Help Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION Series editors Avshalom C. Elitzur, Iyar, Israel Institute of Advanced Research, Rehovot, Israel Zeeya Merali, Foundational Questions Institute, Decatur, GA, USA Thanu Padmanabhan, Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune, India Maximilian Schlosshauer, Department of Physics, University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA Mark P. Silverman, Department of Physics, Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA Jack A. Tuszynski, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Rüdiger Vaas, Redaktion Astronomie, Physik, bild der wissenschaft, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany THE FRONTIERS COLLECTION The books in this collection are devoted to challenging and open problems at the forefront of modern science and scholarship, including related philosophical debates. In contrast to typical research monographs, however, they strive to present their topics in a manner accessible also to scientifically literate non-specialists wishing to gain insight into the deeper implications and fascinating questions involved. Taken as a whole, the series reflects the need for a fundamental and interdisciplinary approach to modern science and research. Furthermore, it is intended to encourage active academics in all fields to ponder over important and perhaps controversial issues beyond their own speciality. Extending from quantum physics and relativity to entropy, conscious- ness, language and complex systems—the Frontiers Collection will inspire readers to push back the frontiers of their own knowledge. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5342 For a full list of published titles, please see back of book or springer.com/series/5342 James B.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Age Movement (1994)
    THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT (1994) CONTENTS Introduction Part 1 Characteristics and Origins of the New Age Movement I Characteristics II Origins Part 2 New Age Perceptions of Creation: A Christian Response Part 3 Humankind, Salvation and the Person of Christ: A Christian Response I Humankind and Salvation II The Person and Work of Christ Part 4 Missiological and Pastoral Questions Raised by the New Age Movement Part 5 Concluding Reflections Resolution Recommended Reading INTRODUCTION 1 The Conference of 1990 referred to the Faith and Order Committee the following Memorial (M.8) for consideration and report not later than the Conference of 1992: The Pickering (29/22) Circuit Meeting (Present 32. Vote: unanimous) request that Conference examine the New Age Movement with respect to its theological content and socio-political ambitions, in order that the Methodist people may receive guidelines as to its compatibility with the Christian faith and Methodist doctrines. 2 In 1992 the Faith and Order Committee expressed its regret that, for a number of reasons, it was not in a position to present a recommended reply to the Memorial, and requested that it be allowed a further two years in which to prepare its report. The Conference directed the Faith and Order Committee to bring a reply to Memorial M.8 to the Conference of 1994. 592 PART 1: CHARACTERISTICS AND ORIGINS OF THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT I Characteristics 3 New Age ideas are all around us on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines. We meet them in the shopping place, possibly – depending on the work we do – during training.
    [Show full text]
  • Symbol and Reality
    CARL H. HAMBURG SYMBOL AND REALITY Studies in the philosophy of Ernst Cassirer • MARTINUS NIjHOFF / THE HAGUE / 1956 ISBN 978-94-011-8667-4 ISBN 978-94-011-9461-7 (eBook) DOl 10.1 007/978-94-011-9461-7 Copyright I956 by Martinus Nijhoff. The Hague. Netherlands All rights reserved. including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form SYMBOL AND REALITY PREFACE Since prefaces, for the most part, are written after a book is done, yet face the reader before he gets to it, it is perhaps not surprising that we usually find ourselves addressed by a more chastened and qualifying author than we eventually encounter in the ensuing pages. It is, after all, not only some readers, but the writer of a book himself who reads what he has done and failed to do. If the above is the rule, I am no exception to it. The discerning reader need not be told that the following studies differ, not only in the approaches they make to their unifying subject-matter, but also in their precision and thus adequacy of presentation. In addition to the usual reasons for this rather common shortcoming, there is an another one in the case of the present book. In spite of its comparative brevity, the time-span between its inception and termination covers some twenty years. As a result, some (historical and epistemological) sections reflect my preoccupation with CASSI­ RER'S eady works during student days in Germany and France. When, some ten years later, CASSIRER in a letter expressed "great joy" and anticipation for a more closely supervised con­ tinuation of my efforts (which, because of his untimely death, never came to pass), he gave me all the encouragement needed to go to work on a critical exposition of his "symbolic form" con­ cept.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Reality
    BOOK REVIEWS LANGUAGE AND REALITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE inevitably, from such lack of neutrality (even antholo- PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE gies do, in the editor's choice of what to include and what to exclude), although the less neutral such a book Michael Devitt and Kim Sterelny is, the less it can be considered an introductory text. (Department of Traditional and Modern Philosophy, Before examining the substance of this book's per- University of Sydney, Australia; and Department spective, I should make some observations on its style: of Philosophy, Australian National University, Each chapter ends with a detailed and helpful biblio- Canberra) graphical/historical essay called "Suggested Reading". Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987, xii + 274 pp. There is also a brief glossary and an index. The writing ISBN 0-262-04089-1, $27.50 (hb); ISBN 0-262-54046-0, style is conversational and somewhat colorful, even $12.50 (sb) sarcastic at times. For example: Much of this work [on modal logic] is complex, difficult and technical. All of it depends to some extent on modern THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE logic. We shall, therefore, spare you an exposition of Robert M. Martin these results. (p. 23.) (Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, We are as enthusiastic for conquest as any causal theorist Halifax, Canada) could be, but the wise imperialist knows his limitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1987, ix We think that Putnam goes way too far. (p. 75.) The text is aimed at a wide variety of students from + 230 pp. ISBN 0-262-13224-9, $19.95 (hb); ISBN 0-262-63108-3, various disciplines, with harder passages--from as short as a part of a sentence to as long as an entire $9.95 (sb) chapter---delimited by the mark **.
    [Show full text]