Curie’s principle asserts that every symmetry of a cause manifests as a symmetry of the effect. It can be formulated as a tautology that is vacuous until it is instantiated. However, instantiation requires us to know the correct way to map causal terminology onto the terms of a science. Causal metaphysics has failed to provide a unique, correct way to carry out the mapping. Thus, successful or unsuccessful instantiation merely reflects our freedom of choice in the mapping.

The basic issues which this paper will be concerned with are: how has history been defined, what has been asked about history, and what sort of answers have been found. These questions may also be stated as: what is the nature of historical theory (since “theory” here will mean any set of definitions, assumptions, and operating hypotheses) and how do different theories affect what may “be done” with history.

It has frequently been argued that there is a clear and irreducible difference between statements of fact and statements of value. To say “X is cobalt” and “X is good” is to make statements differing not merely in detail but in kind. To attempt to reduce the second type of statement to the first is to commit the “naturalistic” fallacy. To attempt to reduce the first type of statement to the second is to commit the “idealistic” fallacy. In this paper, I shall accept this position as correct but argue that, far from settling the question of value science, it is merely the elementary premise from which all discussion of this matter must begin.

In the works which constitute his distinguished contribution to philosophy, Emile Meyerson has advanced and defended the opinion that scientific explanation consists in transforming empirically discovered natural laws into statements of identity in time. This contention, which it is the purpose of the present paper to examine, is of great interest both on its own account and by reason of its intimate connection with Meyerson's central thesis that all thought consists essentially in similar processes of identification. Indeed so intimate is this connection that our present inquiry although it deals explicitly only with the nature of scientific explanation nevertheless constitutes by implication an examination of the more general thesis also, for if scientific explanation is not a process of identification then obviously not all thought is identificatory.

In this paper, I elucidate the main points involved in the question of the non-triviality of the conventionality of simultaneity within the kinematics of special relativity. I argue that there is an important distinction to be made between the inherited component and the sui generis component of the conventionality of simultaneity. The factual core of the kinematics of special relativity is explored, and it is shown that the Round-Trip Clock Retardation effect obtains if, and only if Winnie's Passage Time Principle holds. Some consequences of this fundamental fact are then explored. In particular, Grünbaum's view that the epistemological conventionality of simultaneity is logically prior to the physical inter-frame relativity of simultaneity is found to be based largely on what I call the inherited component of the former. Finally, a question is raised as to the very self-consistency of the claim, made by Ellis and Bowman, that standard signal synchrony and slow-transport synchrony are logically independent. In some concluding remarks, the author's general agreement with Grünbaum's conception of bridled conventionalism is indicated.

In recent years American legislatures and other governing bodies, public and private, have been considering, probably more frequently than ever before, problems associated with the idea of overthrow of government by force and violence. The question usually takes the form of whether Communists believe in and advocate this doctrine; and, if they do, whether they should therefore be penalized in various ways. This issue is and has been central to a series of legal actions which, whatever their ultimate outcome, will constitute a landmark in the history of American jurisprudence.

In the current article and contrary to a widespread assumption, I argue that Humeanism and ontological emergence can peacefully coexist. Such a coexistence can be established by reviving elements of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of science, in which an idiosyncratic account of diachronic emergence is associated with extensions of the Humean mosaic and the correlative coming into being of new best system laws, which have the peculiarity of being temporally indexed. Incidentally, this reconciliation of Humeanism and emergence allows for conceiving the autonomy of the special sciences in an interesting way, consistently with the reductionist ideal of a unified science.

In this study we shall analyze the postulate set into its various elements. In order to carry out our analysis, it is advisable to have before us a typical set.

We take the set of five postulates for Boolean Algebras given by H. M. Sheffer in Trans. Am. Math Soc. 14, p. 482 ff.

This article offers a characterization of what I call multiple-models juxtaposition (MMJ), a strategy for managing trade-offs among modeling desiderata. MMJ displays models of distinct phenomena together and fulfills different desiderata both in the individual models and by a comparison of those models. I discuss a concrete case from developmental biology, where MMJ coordinates generality and detail. I also clarify the distinction between MMJ and multiple-models idealization (MMI), which also uses multiple models to manage trade-offs among desiderata. MMJ and MMI differ in several points, such as the ways they manage trade-offs and the purposes of using multiple models.

Carl G. Hempel has often stated that inductive-statistical explanations, as he conceives them, are inductive arguments. This discussion note raises the question of whether such arguments are to be understood as (1) arguments of the traditional sort, containing premises and conclusions, governed by some sort of inductive “acceptance rules,” or (2) something more closely akin to Carnap's degree of confirmation statements which occur in an inductive logic which entirely eschews inductive “acceptance rules.” Hempel's writings do not seem unequivocal on this issue. It is suggested that adoption of construal (2) would remove the need for Hempel's high probability requirement on I-S explanations.

Common probabilistic fallacies and putative paradoxes are surveyed, including those arising from distribution repartitioning, from the reordering of expectation series, and from misconceptions regarding expected and almost certain gains in games of chance. Conditions are given for such games to be well-posed. By way of example, Bernoulli's “Petersburg Paradox” and Hacking's “Strange Expectations” are discussed and the latter are resolved. Feller's generalized “fair price, in the classical sense” is critically reviewed.

Abner Shimony called it coherence; John Kemeny called it strict fairness; today many people speak of strict coherence. According to Shimony's definition, a set of betting rates on a series of propositions hi and ei is strictly incoherent, when “there exists a choice of stakes Si such that, if X accepts the series of bets at these stakes, then no matter what the actual truth values of hi, and ei may be, X can at best lose nothing, and in at least one possible eventuality he will suffer a positive loss” ([3], p. 9).

Ludwig Wittgenstein and certain of his friends and followers have offered an interesting answer to the question of the relation “one fact (such as a sentence) [must] have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other”. The answer in brief, as Russell puts it, is that, “in order that a certain sentence should assert a certain fact there must … be something in common between the structure of the sentence and the structure of the fact”. Wittgenstein himself in the Tractatus usually denominates this common element as logical structure. The sentence is said to picture its fact; it reflects, mirrors, shows or exhibits by means of its own structure the structure of the fact it is about. Critics and interpreters generally agree with Russell's broad characterization of the theory but disagree greatly as to the exact nature of this postulated common structure. Consequently, the evaluation of the theory which this paper proposes to make must include an examination of its several alternative interpretations.

In this paper, I examine a number of alternative global structures for Newtonian space-time, and corresponding Newtonian theories of mechanics and gravitation. I argue that since these theories differ only with respect to questions concerning the relative distribution of inertial and gravitational forces, the choice between them is a matter of convention. Therefore, the global structure of Newtonian space-time is also a matter of convention. Since this result is based on a consideration of the nature of inertial and gravitational forces, rather than on general reductionist principles, it is a “limited conventionalist” result.