This paper attempts to argue for the theory-ladenness of evidence. It does so by employing and analysing an episode from the history of eighteenth century chemistry. It delineates attempts by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier to construct entirely different kinds of evidence for and against a particular hypothesis from a set of agreed upon observations or (raw) data. Based on an augmented version of a distinction, drawn by J. Bogen and J. Woodward, between data and phenomena it is shown that (...) the role of theoretical auxiliary assumptions is very important in constructing evidence for (or against) a theory from observation or (raw) data. In revolutionary situations, rival groups hold radically different theories and theoretical auxiliary assumptions. These are employed to construct very different evidence from the agreed upon set of observations or (raw) data. Hence, theory resolution becomes difficult. It is argued that evidence construction is a multi-layered exercise and can be disputed at any level. What counts as unproblematic observation or (raw) data at one level may become problematic at another level. The contingency of these constructions and the (un)problematic nature of evidence are shown to be partially dependent upon the scientific knowledge that the scientific community possesses. (shrink)

These ten essays by members of the Pennsylvania State University Philosophy Department are written in a sophisticated style, and range over problems in metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. They bear out the authors' claim to be "united by nothing more than a sense of the importance and mission of a philosophy which assumes its total responsibilities" and an interest in the classical traditions of Western philosophy.--P. K. J.

Basing his detailed exposition of Barth's understanding of our knowledge of the divine existence chiefly on volume II, part 1 of the Church Dogmatics, this American Catholic scholar exhibits the thorough-going consistency of Barth's exclusively a prioristic approach, while indicating some fundamental difficulties for it, and arguing the superiority of the Thomist position. One of the fundamental issues discussed is whether God discloses himself only through special, "vertical" acts of grace, or whether, as the Thomists affirm, the abstractive power of (...) the intellect, itself a gift of God, may not apprehend the radical dependence of all finite things on a first, unique, cause. The critical problem is whether or not the perfect certitude of faith demands a "sacrifice of the intellect," as Barth seems to contend.--P. K. J. (shrink)

As the title indicates, Sprague’s book is concerned with the "theoretical background" of Plato’s conception of the philosopher-king. This theoretical intention is explained in the preface to consist in focusing on the philosopher-king "as man of art or science, rather than as head of state". It is never quite clear in her account, however, how such a distinction between a theoretical and a political framework is justified. As Sprague’s own discussion in the later portions of the book testifies, the philosophical (...) statesman’s art cannot really be separated from his function as the head of a state. (shrink)

A text devoted to a study of the early Cartesian work, Regulae ad directionem ingenii. Very few authors deal exclusively with the Regulae, and even fewer try to read it as a unity. Marion aims at both. He contends that the Regulae is a crucial work in the corpus of Descartes. Departing from those critics who read it in terms of the Discours, and finding no texts prior to the Regulae that cast light on this difficult work, he proposes that (...) the Regulae carries its own clue as to how it is to be read. (shrink)

By studying afresh the "act of explanation," the author hopes to achieve a reconciliation of diverse methodologies. Man's own personal being is to be taken as the clue to the nature of our "ultimate explanatory forms."--P. K. J.