For most of the two and a half centuries since Thomas Hearne first printed the poem now known as The Battle of Maldon, scholars have read it as a factual contemporary account by a well-informed observer of a historical event. The date and circumstances of the death of Byrhtnoth, ealdorman of Essex, are attested in surviving records independent of the poem; and his fame and deeds can be traced through the charters and wills of the reigns of kings Eadwig, Eadgar, (...) Eadweard, and Aethelred. Moreover, the identities of several of the members of Byrhtnoth's heorþwerod who died with him according to the poem can be surmised if not proved by existing documents, and their relationships to their fallen leader established. In 1926 E. D. Laborde put the final piece of reality into the puzzle by showing that the Northey Island causeway just south of Maldon on the Backwater fits exactly the complicated combination of geography and tide required by the scenes and events of the poem. Today the battle site on high ground on South House Farm opposite Northey Island is marked with crossed swords on Ordnance Survey maps, and the peculiarities of the tide at the causeway are used to explain the meaning of an otherwise obscure verse of the poem. jQuery.click { event.preventDefault(); }). (shrink)

A refutation of the doomsday argument is offered. Through a simple thought experiment analysed in Bayesian terms the fallacy is shown to be the assumption that a currently living person represents a random sample from the population of all persons who will ever have existed. A more general version of the counter argument is then given. Previous arguments that purport to answer this concern are also addressed. One result is determining criteria for the applicability of time sampling arguments, i.e., under (...) what conditions can a specific instant in time be regarded as a random sample from a time span. Given this new understanding, the incredible consequences of the doomsday and related arguments evaporate. (shrink)

The twenty‐six‐year‐old patient requested a prophylactic bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction because of an extensive family history of cancer. She reported that she had developed melanoma at twenty‐five; that her mother, sister, aunts, and a cousin all had breast cancer; that a cousin had ovarian cancer at nineteen; and that a brother was treated for esophageal cancer at fifteen. The treating team was skeptical about this history, and they could find no documentation of the patient's reported melanoma. The surgeon wrote the (...) patient's primary care physician, explaining that he had seen the patient and planned to proceed with the bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction. The primary care physician responded that he was unable to substantiate several of the patient's claims; some of his colleagues believed the family history to be fabricated. Trying to make sense of the discrepancies, the genetic counselor called a counselor colleague who had met with this patient. The colleague suggested that the in‐house genetic counselor “google” the patient. The search revealed two Facebook pages linked to the patient. In one, apparently a personal profile, the patient stated that in addition to battling stage four melanoma, she had recently been diagnosed with breast cancer. She provided a link to a site where she solicited donations to attend a summit for young cancer patients. The other Facebook page featured numerous pictures of her with a bald head, as though she has been through chemotherapy. The genetic counselor showed the Facebook pages to the surgeon, who then decided not to operate. Should health care professionals “google” their patients? (shrink)

(2014). Ethics and Cyber Conflict: A Response to JME 12:1 (2013) Journal of Military Ethics: Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 20-31. doi: 10.1080/15027570.2014.908012.

Presents a history of ethnographic fieldwork in British anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski.

A refutation of the doomsday argument is offered. Through a simple thought experiment analysed in Bayesian terms the fallacy is shown to be the assumption that a currently living person represents a random sample from the population of all persons who will ever have existed. A more general version of the counter argument is then given. Previous arguments that purport to answer this concern are also addressed. One result is determining criteria for the applicability of time sampling arguments, i.e., under (...) what conditions can a specific instant in time be regarded as a random sample from a time span. Given this new understanding, the incredible consequences of the doomsday and related arguments evaporate. (shrink)

This work examines the complex relationship between two influential modern thinkers, G.W.F. Hegel and Ernst Troeltsch, one of Hegel's interpreters and a figure who has not received the attention he deserves.