J. Lambert

Depuis l’Antiquité et jusqu’au XVIIIe siècle, le modèle de l’administration a servi à définir conjointement l’hygiène et la physiologie. Nous examinons quelques oeuvres représentatives (Sanctorius, Lavoisier, Casimir Broussais, Max Rübner) d’« hygiènes physiologiques » dans lesquelles on tente de déduire les normes hygiéniques des normes physiologiques. Si ces tentatives ne parviennent évidemment pas à réduire les unes aux autres, elles conduisent en revanche à se demander si un concept de norme est pensable sans la représentation d’une gestion.

The major goal of this paper is to argue that a well known argument to overturn the principle that coextensive predicates substitute in any statement without alteration of truth value can be avoided - even in the simplest of languages. Apparently this can be done nonartificially only by expanding the universe with nonexisting objects. It is not proved that the principle of substitution salva veritate holds in Meinongian model structures, but in fact it does - as any completeness proof of free logics based on inner domain-outer domain semantics will show. I f - as some have suggested - Meinong's views are compatible with the attitudes of a complete extensionalist, and he subscribed to the outlined modern theory of predication, there is no escape from Außersein. That may seem terribly obvious, but in the light of the development of free logics, more than mere conviction is needed. This dogmatic intuition is supplanted with some strong inclining reasons.

This note is a comment on Suppes's essay on the limits of rationality. The substantial point is that if a theory of rationality is conceived as a structure plus scope, then, contra Suppes, intuitive judgement is part of the theory of rationality because it is part of the scope of that theory. The point is supported by analogy with a learning theory. Finally, intuitive judgement and informal knowledge is suggested to be evidence of the irreducible vagueness of theory as opposed to irreducible limits on theory.

The major goal of this paper is to argue that a well known argument to overturn the principle that coextensive predicates substitute in any statement without alteration of truth value can be avoided - even in the simplest of languages. Apparently this can be done nonartificially only by expanding the universe with nonexisting objects. It is not proved that the principle of substitution salva veritate holds in Meinongian model structures, but in fact it does - as any completeness proof of free logics based on inner domain-outer domain semantics will show. I f - as some have suggested - Meinong's views are compatible with the attitudes of a complete extensionalist, and he subscribed to the outlined modern theory of predication, there is no escape from Außersein. That may seem terribly obvious, but in the light of the development of free logics, more than mere conviction is needed. This dogmatic intuition is supplanted with some strong inclining reasons

This note is a comment on Suppes's essay on the limits of rationality. The substantial point is that if a theory of rationality is conceived as a structure plus scope, then, contra Suppes, intuitive judgement is part of the theory of rationality because it is part of the scope of that theory. The point is supported by analogy with a learning theory. Finally, intuitive judgement and informal knowledge is suggested to be evidence of the irreducible vagueness of theory as opposed to irreducible limits on theory

SummaryIn the above titled remarks, a distinction between general terms and predicates is made following Quine and Leonard. It is argued that, given Quine's characterization of extensionality vis a vislanguages in his book Word And Object, a language similar to the regimented language Quine regards as adequate for the purposes of science and philosophy, except for the addition of constant singular terms some of which may be irreferential, can be completely extensional. If correct, this conclusion, apparently at odds with a proof to the contrary by Lambert in 1974, is a heretofore unnoticed consequence of the distinction between predicates and general terms, and should be of concern to naturalistically inclined philosophers