First published in 1962, contains the William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. It sets out Austin's conclusions in the field to which he directed his main efforts for at least the last ten years of his life. Starting from an exhaustive examination of his already well- known distinction of performative utterances from statements, Austin here finally abandons that distinction, replacing it by a more general theory of 'illocutionary forces' of utterances which has important bearings on a wide (...) variety of philosophical problems. (shrink)

Résumé L’influence des discours théoriques sur leur objet d’étude est une particularité propre aux sciences sociales : le simple fait de formuler un discours sur le monde social entraîne des changements au sein de ce dernier. En économie, ce phénomène a fait l’objet de traitements variés. Récemment, une frange de la sociologie économique a pris le parti d’étudier le monde économique comme encastré dans la science qui l’étudie. Auparavant, certains grands noms la discipline économique s’étaient déjà penchés sur le sujet. (...) Ce travail a pour objectif d’éclaircir ces deux cheminements de pensée ayant le même objet, d’en identifier les principales différences et d’expliquer ces dernières par des problématiques de départ distinctes. Nous identifierons, dans la lignée de ce qui a pu être fait en économie des conventions, une approche stratégique de l’influence des discours théoriques (celle des économistes), et une approche interprétative (celle des sociologues). (shrink)

George Soros makes an important analytical contribution to understanding the concept of reflexivity in social science by explaining reflexivity in terms of how his cognitive and manipulative causal functions are connected to one another by a pair of feedback loops (Soros, 2013). Fallibility, reflexivity and the human uncertainty principle. Here I put aside the issue of how the natural sciences and social sciences are related, an issue he discusses, and focus on how his thinking applies in economics. I argue that (...) standard economics assumes a ‘classical’ view of the world in which knowledge and action are independent, but that we live in a complex reflexive world in which knowledge and action are interdependent. I argue that Soros's view provides a reflexivity critique of the efficient market hypothesis seen as depending on untenable claims about the nature of random phenomena and the nature of economic agents. Regarding the former, I develop this critique in terms of Cauchy distributions; regarding the latter I develop it in terms of rational expectations and rational addiction reasoning. (shrink)

To explain the phenomena in the world of our experience, to answer the question “why?” rather than only the question “what?”, is one of the foremost objectives of all rational inquiry; and especially, scientific research in its various branches strives to go beyond a mere description of its subject matter by providing an explanation of the phenomena it investigates. While there is rather general agreement about this chief objective of science, there exists considerable difference of opinion as to the function (...) and the essential characteristics of scientific explanation. In the present essay, an attempt will be made to shed some light on these issues by means of an elementary survey of the basic pattern of scientific explanation and a subsequent more rigorous analysis of the concept of law and of the logical structure of explanatory arguments. (shrink)

Transplantation is becoming an increasingly more common approach to treatment of diseases of organ failure, making organ donation an important means of saving lives. Most world religions find organ donation for the purpose of transplantation to be acceptable, and some even encourage members to donate their organs as a gift of love to others. Recent developments, including artificial organs, transplants from nonhuman species, use of stem cells, and cloning, are impacting the field of transplantation. These new approaches should be discussed (...) with bioethical considerations in mind, particularly the notion of human beings as a unity of body and spirit. (shrink)

The prophets Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1–15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–28) had comparable tasks before them: to convince their respective kings about the wrongs of taking somebody else's wife and marrying her. Nathan succeeded, while John failed and furthermore lost his life. What made the difference? One possible explanation is that Nathan proceeded in two steps: (1) Tell an interesting, nonthreatening story that nevertheless makes the point at issue; (2) transfer that message to the case at hand. In contrast, (...) John used a direct approach, which raised apprehension, even fear (on the part of Herodias, the woman involved), and led to failure. That lesson has wider applications, as illustrated here for teaching the biblical Genesis narration. The other ingredient in this teaching is relational and contextual reasoning (RCR), the use of which is also indicated for other issues besides teaching Genesis. (shrink)

The right to buy and sell human organs is challenged by the authors within the framework of a broad Christian perspective. Opposition to organ sales is argued in the light of the developing underclass of poor organ donors throughout the world who sell their organs to the rich. Very often neither the donors nor the recipients are fully informed about the medical risks involved in the procedure of organ transplantation.

A social scientific interpretation of the development of global ethics is offered. Both spontaneous and intended mechanisms of the construction of such an ethics within the broader processes of globalization are analyzed, and possible theoretical foundations are suggested. The scientific and technological achievements that gave rise to the medical procedure of organ transplantation generated new questions and challenges that theologians, scholars of religion, natural scientists, and social scientists are now trying to resolve.

The essay is an attempt to construct a new interfaith dialogical universal ethic after the Holocaust/Shoah, after first examining several biblical passages of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, namely Leviticus 19:13–18; Matthew 22:34–40; Matthew 5:43–48; and Luke 10:25–37. The author contends that the foundational Jewish and Christian scriptural texts can no longer be read, understood, and either interpreted or reinterpreted the way they were prior to the events of 1933–1945. Thus, following an examination of the scriptural passages (...) in question, a new direction in the construction of such an ethic is suggested: that the only kind of holiness that merits our support is one grounded in ethical relations between all human beings, regardless of particularistic identities, and scriptural support for positions that exclude and distance rather than include and embrace must, ultimately, be rejected. (shrink)

We respond to concerns raised by Langdon Gilkey. The discussion addresses the nature of theological thinking today, the question of truth within the situation of pluralism, the identity and difference between theological models and scientific models, and the proposed methods for testing theological models.