Contains fourteen essays and an introduction addressing the main areas of scholarly interest for Richard W. Davis, Professor Emeritus, Washington University, St Louis Questions how individuals envision the public good in modern Britain and how, through religious and moral beliefs, coupled with wisdom and political savvy, they can improve the public good through the ever-changing nineteenth century political institutions Essays range from studies of local electoral politics and parliamentary reform campaign to national political party organization, high politics and (...) the role religion and empire played in the creation of national policy Examines the influence of individuals on the political process through their professional work in historical and philosophical writing, journalism and missionary work at home and abroad Provides new original research in the area of modern British political history together in Parliamentary History. (shrink)
Although it might go without mention, editor Bret Davis nevertheless reminds us on the first page of his introduction to Key Concepts that “Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is widely considered to be the most famous, influential, and controversial philosopher of the twentieth century.” This really fine new companion put together by Davis promises to elucidate the main lines of Heidegger’s thought at a moment when Heidegger is perhaps receiving more scholarly attention and, indeed, more diverse scholarly attention, than at (...) any previous time. Alongside the vast and ever-growing body of literature on Heidegger, not only has a new edition of Joan Stambaugh’s English translation of Being and Time, revised by Dennis Schmidt, now appeared (State University of New York Press, 2010) but also previously untranslated writings are being put into English at an impressive clip. The purpose of Key Concepts, as Davis indicates in the “Acknowledgements,” is to facilitate readers’ access to Heidegger’s thought with a companion that strikes a mean between more advanced scholarly treatments of Heidegger’s ideas and more introductory surveys. (shrink)
Abstract MacFarlane distinguishes “context sensitivity” from “indexicality,” and argues that “nonindexical contextualism” has significant advantages over the standard indexical form. MacFarlane’s substantive thesis is that the extension of an expression may depend on an epistemic standard variable even though its content does not. Focusing on ‘knows,’ I will argue against the possibility of extension dependence without content dependence when factors such as meaning, time, and world are held constant, and show that MacFarlane’s nonindexical contextualism provides no advantages over indexical contextualism. (...) The discussion will shed light on the definition of indexicals as well as the meaning of ‘knows,’ and highlight important constraints on the way meaning can be represented in semantics. Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-14 DOI 10.1007/s11098-011-9831-1 Authors Wayne A. Davis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA Journal Philosophical Studies Online ISSN 1573-0883 Print ISSN 0031-8116. (shrink)
Trygve Haavelmo's 1944 article ‘The Probability Approach in Econometrics’ is considered by most to have provided the foundations for present day econometrics (Morgan, 1990, Chapters 8 and 9). Since Haavelmo (1944), extraordinary advances have been made in econometrics. However, over the last two decades the efficacy and scientific status of econometrics has become questionable. Not surprisingly, the growing discontent with econometrics has been accompanied by a growing interest in econometric methodology.
In a recent article, Cook conducted a Kuhnian analysis of the difference between the Textbook and LSE econometric approaches. This paper uses a semantic conception of theories (Suppe 1989) and a finer gradation of the theory of reduction process to clarify the apparent puzzle that exist between the Textbook and LSE approaches to econometrics. The paper demonstrates that a Kuhnian analysis in isolation can be more misleading than realized.
Inflammatory mediators have an established role in inducing insulin resistance and promoting hyperglycemia. In turn, hyperglycemia has been argued to drive immune cell dysfunction as a result of mitochondrial dysfunction. Here, the authors review the evidence challenging this view. First, it is pointed out that inflammatory mediators are known to induce altered mitochondrial function. In this regard, critical care patients suffer both an elevated inflammatory tone as well as hyperglycemia, rendering it difficult to distinguish between the effects of inflammation and (...) hyperglycemia. Second, emerging evidence indicates that a decrease in mitochondrial respiration and an increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) production are not necessarily manifestations of pathology, but adaptations taking shape as the mitochondria is abdicating its adenosine triphosphate (ATP)‐producing function (which is taken over by glycolysis) and instead becomes “retooled” for an immunological role. Collectively, these observations challenge the commonly held belief that acute hyperglycemia induces mitochondrial damage leading to immune cell dysfunction. (shrink)
The reply by Cook and comment by Chao demonstrate Kuhn's thesis that different scientists place different values on different components of their common discipline. This fact is demonstrated by first succinctly summarizing Cook's and my original points within the framework of a simple choice model. I then respond to Cook and Chao. I close by offering some suggestions on how the Textbook/LSE debate could be moved forward.
This volume is a collection of essays by various contributors in honor of the late Laurence Berns, Richard Hammond Elliot Tutor Emeritus at St. John's College, Annapolis. The essays address the literary, political, theological, and philosophical themes of his life's work as a scholar, teacher, and constant companion of the "great books.".
In this interview, professor Davis discusses the evolution of his career and research interests as a philosopher-economist and gives his perspective on a number of important issues in the field. He argues that historians and methodologists of economics should be engaged in the practice of economics, and that historians should be more open to philosophical analysis of the content of economic ideas. He suggests that the history of recent economics is a particularly fruitful and important area for research exactly (...) because it is an open-ended story that is very relevant to understanding the underlying concerns and concepts of contemporary economics. He discusses his engagement with heterodox economics schools, and their engagement with a rapidly changing mainstream economics. He argues that the theory of the individual is “the central philosophical issue in economics” and discusses his extensive contributions to the issue. (shrink)
Theists typically believe the following two propositions: God is omniscient, and Human beings are free. Are they consistent? In order to decide, we must first ask what they mean. Roughly, let us say that a being is omniscient if for any proposition he knows whether it is true or false. Since I have no wish to deny that there are true and false propositions about future states of affairs , omniscience includes foreknowledge, which we can say is knowledge of the (...) truth value of propositions about future states of affairs. For example, I believe the proposition ‘Davis will wear shoes tomorrow’ is true today, and if it is true today, i.e. if I will wear shoes tomorrow, an omniscient being knows today that it is true – and, if this being is eternally omniscient, he knew it millions of years ago. (shrink)
In a recent examination of the origins of ordinal utility theory in neoclassical economics, Robert D. Cooter and Peter Rappoport argue that the ordinalist revolution of the 1930s, after which most economists abandoned interpersonal utility comparisons as normative and unscientific, constituted neither unambiguous progress in economic science nor the abandonment of normative theorizing, as many economists and historians of economic thought have generally believed. Rather, the widespread acceptance of ordinalism, with its focus on Pareto optimality, simply represented the emergence of (...) a new neoclassical research agenda that, on the one hand, defined economics differently than had the material welfare theorists of the cardinal utility school and, on the other, adopted a positivist methodology in contrast to the less restrictive empiricism of the cardinalists. (shrink)