Originally published in 1910, this book attempts to describe knowledge from the point of view of a philosophical psychology. Wodehouse treats the text as a 'psychological preface to metaphysics', and splits her examination into three sections: knowledge as resulting from judgements in the actual world; the philosophical problem of fallible knowledge; and the question of imagination and 'the variousness of reality'. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in Wodehouse's work or in the overlap of psychology and philosophy.
This new, comprehensive study of Leibnizâ (TM)s system of thought reveals a philosopher equally intrigued by the complexity of physical reality and the fascinations of his metaphysical laboratory. Many of his most important, but never previously published papers are evaluated in this book. Too often put down as an arch-metaphysician, Leibniz is seen in these pages as a venturer of breathtaking boldness, his ambition being nothing less than to actually solve the enigma of existence. Accordingly his system embraced science equally with metaphysics; they complement and pollinate each other. The outcome is a view of his system as a double ontology. Reality is the domain of the actual; metaphysics the laboratory of the possible. Metaphysics springs to life with his scintillating detective work on force, motion, time, space, limits, infinity, folds, fractals and many other issues that are â ~hotâ (TM) again today; while in all these a direct line is kept open to their impact on physical existents and our understanding of reality. This book is equally suited to expert Leibnizians as to students of Early Modern philosophy; and it may be read with profit by anyone interested in this thinker, whom Bertrand Russell called â oeone of the supreme intellects of all timeâ .
This philosophy of science book is written by a biomedical scientist for a lay audience but is well-referenced for use by scientific readers and college course curricula. Its thesis is that the current paradigm in the biological and medical sciences, which is responsible for rejecting the existence of a Divine Being, is outdated. There is no factual basis for creating a dichotomy between evolution and Divine Design. Misconceptions about the nature of reality, i.e., the belief that matter is the ultimate cause of everything we think, feel, say, and do, have made it easy to ignore data demonstrating an important biological role for the energetic aspects of matter and to leave the question of the existence of a Divine being to the purview of philosophy and religion. The author uses extensive scientific data to highlight the inconsistencies in current theories and relates her personal journey in trying to explain her observations with purely mechanistic theories. Her ultimate conclusion is that the existence or non-existence of God can no longer be ignored by scientists. It is one of the most important scientific questions there is and like many other issues that were formally relegated to the domain of philosophy, can and should be investigated by modern science.
This book describes how understanding the structure of reality leads to the Theory of Everything Equation. The equation unifies the forces of nature and enables the merging of relativity with quantum theory. The book explains the big bang theory and everything else.
Two partial apprehensions of nature vied for dominance in the past century: religious (void of any influence from science) and scientific (unable to admit any reality, beyond the empirical). Both views have led to the exploitation of nature -- and the scientific may prove even more devastating. The fault, Gilkey argues, lies not in the scientific knowledge of nature but in the assumed philosophy of science that accompanies most scientific and technological practice. Scientific knowing needs to be critiqued and brought into relationship with other complementary ways of knowing.
"The book presents a summary of the current scientific understanding of the physical world, and shows that man's questioning across the ages has had continuity in terms of preoccupation with paradoxes."--