Originally published: New York: Grossman Publishers, 1969.

This article reviews the research of “top rebirth scientist” Ian Stevenson on spontaneous past-life memory cases, focusing on three key problems with Stevenson’s work. First, his research of entirely anecdotal case reports contains a number of errors and omissions. Second, like other reincarnation researchers, Stevenson has done no controlled experimental work on such cases; yet only such research could ever resolve whether the correspondences found between a child’s statements and a deceased person’s life exceed what we might find by chance. (...) Finally, the best reincarnation research should at least meet the standards met by typical empirical research, but Stevenson’s methodology does not even meet the standards expected of third- or fourth-year college students. -/- 1. How Controlled Experimental Work is Possible -- 2. The Anecdotal Record - 2.1 Reincarnation and Biology - 2.2 The Imad Elawar Case -- 3. Conclusion. (shrink)

We consider connections between number sense—the ability to judge number—and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers. In particular, we present empirical evidence concerning the neuroanatomical underpinnings of number sense and quantifier interpretation. We show, further, that impairment of number sense in patients can result in the impairment of the ability to interpret sentences containing quantifiers. This result demonstrates that number sense supports some aspects of the language faculty.

This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.

Le livre de Borkenau, „Der Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild“ développe une nouvelle théorie de la naissance de la pensée moderne. Il s’attache à rechercher l’origine, moins de telles ou telles idées particulières que des concepts fondamentaux et des méthodes de penser de l'époque moderne. Borkenau considère avant tout la représentation mécaniste du monde telle qu'elle a été fondée dans la philosophie de Descartes et de ses successeurs comme décisive pour la pensée moderne et il élucide ses conditions sociologiques.L'étude (...) de Grossmann part du livre de Borkenau qu'il soumet à la critique et il essaye d'indiquer de manière indépendante une meilleure voie qui mène à la compréhension de la formation de la pensée bourgeoise. Ses arguments se rapportent avant tout à deux groupes de problèmes. D'après Borkenau, c'est au début du xvne siècle que la conception mécaniste du monde l'a emporté sur la philosophie qualitative qui régnait auparavant. Cette interprétation est jugée par Grossmann comme une méconnaissance de l'histoire réelle des idées et des faits. L'origine des questions fondamentales de la mécanique doit être cherchée à la Renaissance et Léonard de Vinci est un de ses créateurs. Ces théories nouvelles, dégagées en grande partie de l'étude des machines de son temps, se sont développées par différentes voies jusqu'à Galilée et Descartes, dont les doctrines ne marquent donc pas le début de la pensée mécaniste.L'autre critique fondamentale est étroitement liée à celle-ci. Elle concerne l'explication que donne Borkenau de la représentation mécaniste. Si celle- ci a pris naissance au xvne siècle, la condition essentielle de cette réalisation doit donc s’être produite à peu près à cette époque. D'après Borkenau cette condition serait la diffusion des manufactures. Avec la division de l'activité artisane en activités uniformes non qualifiées à l'intérieur de la manufacture, serait né le concept d'un travail social abstrait. La décomposition du processus de travail en mouvements simples dans la manufacture aurait rendu comparables les heures de travail. Le calcul avec du travail abstrait constituerait la base de la représentation mécaniste du monde. Grossmann montre en s'appuyant sur Marx que le plus souvent il ne saurait être question de division de travail dans les manufactures, mais que, en règle générale, des artisans qualifiés travaillaient réunis dans un même local. Ce n’est pas le calcul avec les heures de travail, mais l'évolution du machinisme qui aurait été la cause immédiate de la mécanique scientifique. Cette genèse remonte sans doute à la Renaissance et a très peu à faire avec les manufactures qui ont été finalement refoulées par l'industrie des machines.Alors que Borkenau, lorsqu'il vient à parler du conditionnement social des philosophes et des savants, remonte surtout aux batailles des partis politiques, Grossmann ne voit dans les partis qu’un facteur de l'ensemble de la situation complexe, à partir de laquelle s'explique le mouvement des idées modernes. Une théorie suffisante de l'évolution de la pensée moderne implique qu'on tienne compte de la totalité des forces sociales.Franz Borkenau's book „The Transition from Feudal to Modern Thought“ („Der Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild“), serves as background for Grossmann's study. The objective of this book was to trace the sociological origins of the mechanistic categories of modern thought as developed in the philosophy of Descartes and his successors. In the beginning of the 17th century, according to Borkenau, mechanistic thinking triumphed over mediaeval philosophy which emphasized qualitative, not quantitative considerations. This transition from mediaeval and feudal methods of thought to modern principles is the general theme of Borkenau's book, and is traced to the social changes of this time. According to this work, the essential economic change that marked the transition from mediaeval to modern times was the destruction of the handicraft system and the organization of labor under one roof and under one management. The roots of the change in thought are to be sought here. With the dismemberment of the handicraft system and the division of labor into relatively unskilled, uniform, and therefore comparable activities, the conception of abstract homogeneous social labor arises. The division of the labor process into simple, repeated movements permits a comparison of hours of labor. Calculation with such abstract social unities, according to Borkenau, was the source from which modern mechanistic thinking in general derived its origin.Grossmann, although he considers Borkenau’s work a valuable and important contribution, does not believe that the author has achieved his purpose. First of all, he contends that the period that Borkenau describes as the period of the triumph of modern thought over mediaeval should not be placed at the beginning of the 17th century, but in the Renaissance, and that not Descartes and Hobbes but Leonardo da Vinci was the initiator of modern thought. Leonardo's theories, evolved from a study of machines, were the source of the mechanistic categories that culminated in modern thought.If Borkenau’s conception as to the historical origin of these categories is incorrect in regard to time, Grossman claims it follows that it is incorrect also in regard to the social sources to which it is ascribed. In the beginning, the factory system did not involve a division of labor into comparable homogeneous processes, but in general only united skilled handicraftsmen under one roof. The development of machinery, not the calculation with abstract hours of labor, is the immediate source of modern scientific mechanics. This goes back to the Renaissance and has relatively little to do with the original factory system that was finally superseded by the Industrial Revolution.While Borkenau, in tracing the social background of the thought of the period, relies chiefly on the conflicts and strife of political parties, Grossmann regards this as one element only in the formation of the general social situation, which in its entirety and in the interaction of its elements explains the development of modern thought. (shrink)

Translated from German. Includes bibliographical references. Includes index.

This paper provides evidence from the history of the natural sciences in philosophy (particularly mathematical physics, chemistry, and biology) that a “piloting” soul would have to make physical changes in human beings violating well-established physical laws. But, among other things, it has been discovered that there can be no such changes, and thus that there is no piloting soul. -/- 1. Introduction -- 2. Suitable Restrictions in Physical Theories -- 3. Evidence that Physical Formulas are not Violated -- 4. How (...) the Preservation of Physical Formulas Shows that There is No Afterlife - 4.1 How the Narrow Version Differs from Standard Closure - 4.2 Elucidation of the Tight Argument Against an Afterlife - 4.3 Summary and Final Thought. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Early Career The Harlem Renaissance Contemporary Interpretations of Locke's Legacy.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction: Background and Early Career The Harlem Renaissance Contemporary Interpretations of Locke's Legacy.

Presented as a Vorlesung in the German philosophical tradition, this book presents the most detailed account of Nelson's method of argument analysis, celebrated by many luminaries such as Karl Popper. It was written in 1921 in opposition to the relativistic, subjectivistic and nihilistic tendencies of Nelson's time. The book contains an exposition of a method that is a further development of Kant's transcendental dialectics, followed by an application to the critical analysis of arguments by many famous thinkers, including Bentham, Mill, (...) Poincaré, Leibniz, Hegel, Einstein, Bergson, Rickert, Simmel, Brentano, Stammler, Jellinek, Dingler, and Meinong. The book presents a general theory of philosophical argumentation as seen from the viewpoint of the typical fallacies committed by anybody arguing philosophically, whether professional philosophers or philosophical laypeople. Although the nature of philosophy and philosophical argumentation is one of the most recurrent objects of reflection for philosophers, this book represents the first attempt at a general theory of philosophical fallacy. According to Nelson, it is in the shape of false dilemmas that errors in reasoning always emerge, and false dilemmas are always the result of the same mechanism--the unwitting replacement of one concept for another. (shrink)

Grossman’s first major, published study of Marxist economic theory was a devastating critique of Fritz Sternberg’s ambitious and long book, Imperialism. The article exposed the way Sternberg failed to grasp Marx’s method and basic economic arguments, and drew impatient revolutionary conclusions from assumptions of anti-revolutionary revisionism. It also outlined Grossman’s own recovery, restatement and elaboration of features of Marx’s economic analysis, and Lenin’s conception of workers’ revolution. This abridgement consists of the first three sections of the article. An (...) introduction to Grossman’s article is published simultaneously. (shrink)