Behavior, language, development, identity, and science—all of these phenomena are commonly characterized as 'social' in nature. But what does it mean to be 'social'? Is there any intrinsic 'mark' of the social shared by these phenomena? In the first book to shed light on this foundational question, twelve distinguished philosophers and social scientists from several disciplines debate the mark of the social. Their varied answers will be of interest to sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists, and anyone interested in the theoretical foundations (...) of the social sciences. (shrink)

This volume critically and constructively discusses philosophical questions which have particular bearing on the formulation of educational aims. The book is divided into three major parts: the first deals with the nature of education, and discusses the various general aims, such as 'mental health', 'socialization' and 'creativity' which have been thought to characterize it; the second section is concerned with the nature of reason and its relationship to feeling, will and action; finally the development of different aspects of reason in (...) an educational context is considered. (shrink)

This compact and somewhat dense study seeks to probe several root ideas in Tillich’s thought, in the conviction that Tillich "is pre-eminent as ‘healer’ of rankling modern wounds—mental, moral, spiritual." In pursuing his aim, Professor Anderson views Tillich ironically, though not uncritically, from the standpoint of existential Thomism. Five pairs of ideas in Tillich’s thought provide the outline of the book. Symbol and faith as ultimate concern: "Tillichian symbols are objectively grounded analogies, revalatory of aspects of reality otherwise opaque to (...) us." Faith, a total act "wherein all the elements of one’s personality are ’synthesized’ and ‘transcended'," is expressible only in terms of revelatory analogies. The philosophy-theology duality: Both philosophy and theology are concerned with the meaning of Being, but they differ in three ways: philosophy probes the meaning of Being in itself, while theology considers its meaning for us; the attitude of the philosopher is intellectually detached, whereas that of the theologian is "personally committed in virtue of loving concern"; the content expressed by philosophy is "intelligible structure," whereas that of theology is "spiritual significance." Tillich’s conception of the philosophy of religion is dealt with in this context. Reason and Revelation: Ontological reason is a faculty for apprehending actual existence; technical reason is concerned with discovering means for ends. The divorce of these two functions of reason during the last one hundred years has been disastrous. By giving a truth which is both certain and of ultimate concern, revelation can reconcile the conflicts which reason experiences. Revelation is the unveiling of man’s personal ultimate concern in terms of symbols and myths. Anything can be the conveyor of revelation, since every being participates in Being-itself. Being and God: Being-itself is the Ground of Being, the Power of Being, the ineffable God. Though no thinker can avoid making God an object of knowledge, God transcends the subject-object structure. Being and Love: For Tillich, life is "being in actuality," and "love is the moving power of life," "the drive towards the unity of the separated." The highest form of love is agape, love of persons, and above all of God, for their own sake. All of this is well-trodden ground. However, Professor Anderson’s synthesis is careful, and his critical remarks are often helpful. His emphasis on the pervasiveness of love in Tillich’s understanding of being, reason, and faith, adds a dimension to which other commentators have paid less attention.—H. F. (shrink)

In this scholarly study, the author, a professor of theology at the University of Iowa, argues that Tillich's thought sought an answer to the problem posed by the questions: "What certainty is left for thought after men have become conscious that thinking itself is historical? If thinking is historically conditioned, can ontological thought ever achieve objective certainty and can theological thought ever achieve religious certainty?" Scharlemann endeavors to show that Tillich constructed his answer to these questions "with two basic ideas, (...) that of 'correlation' and that of a 'paradoxical reality and presence'." In the introduction the author establishes the critical terms which he will use to carry out his "constructive analysis." The first chapter sketches the historical development leading up to the question Tillich faced. The subsequent chapters present various contexts and aspects of Tillich's answer. In the final chapter the author indicates certain aspects of Tillich's thought which seem to be unclear or incomplete, certain contradictory motifs, an entirely new systematic structure which would retrace the same ground as did Tillich, but on a different and, the author believes, a more adequate analytic basis. This study will be of interest primarily to those who are already familiar with Tillich's thought. It is particularly thorough in its analysis of Tillich's early works. The author is quite conversant with the literature by and about Tillich and provides a useful bibliography.--H. F. (shrink)

This volume critically and constructively discusses philosophical questions which have particular bearing on the formulation of educational aims. The book is divided into three major parts: the first deals with the nature of education, and discusses the various general aims, such as 'mental health', 'socialization' and 'creativity' which have been thought to characterize it; the second section is concerned with the nature of reason and its relationship to feeling, will and action; finally the development of different aspects of reason in (...) an educational context is considered. (shrink)

The excellent quality and depth of the various essays make [the book] an invaluable resource....It is likely to become essential reading in its field.—CHOICE.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's rationale for supporting the development and approval of BiDil for heart failure specifically in black patients was based on under-powered, post hoc subgroup analyses of two relatively old trials , which were further complicated by substantial covariate imbalances between racial groups. Indeed, the only statistically significant difference observed between black and white patients was found without any adjustment for potential confounders in samples that were unlikely to have been adequately randomized. Meanwhile, because the accepted (...) baseline therapy for heart failure has substantially improved since these trials took place, their results cannot be combined with data from the more recent trial amongst black patients alone. There is therefore little scientific evidence to support the approval of BiDil only for use in black patients, and the FDA's rationale fails to consider the ethical consequences of recognizing racial categories as valid markers of innate biological difference, and permitting the development of group-specific therapies that are subject to commercial incentives rather than scientific evidence or therapeutic imperatives. This paper reviews the limitations in the scientific evidence used to support the approval of BiDil only for use in black patients; calls for further analysis of the V-HeFT I and II data which might clarify whether responses to H-I vary by race; and evaluates the consequences of commercial incentives to develop racialized medicines. We recommend that the FDA revise the procedures they use to examine applications for race-based therapies to ensure that these are based on robust scientific claims and do not undermine the aims of the 1992 Revitalization Act. (shrink)

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that (...) the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being “filtered out” or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses. (shrink)

Air pollution is a current concern of people and government entities. Therefore, in urban scenarios, its monitoring and subsequent analysis is a remarkable and challenging issue due mainly to the variability of polluting-related factors. For this reason, the present work shows the development of a wireless sensor network that, through machine learning techniques, can be classified into three different types of environments: high pollution levels, medium pollution and no noticeable contamination into the Ibarra City. To achieve this goal, signal smoothing (...) stages, prototype selection, feature analysis and a comparison of classification algorithms are performed. As relevant results, there is a classification performance of 95% with a significant noisy data reduction. (shrink)

Background The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in (...) biomedical research. Methods This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 to 5. Results Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be ‘moderately important’ to ‘very important’ for their decision making. Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF. Conclusions Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF. (shrink)