Sustained dialogue between people and the authenticity of relationships are dependent on the existence of an epistemic distance between the interlocutors – there needs to be a difference between the patterns of thought salient among the subjects involved. A lack thereof must lead to the collapse of the conditions requisite for continued engagement. This is the case because we can only sustain dialogue based on difference of opinion among agents. In short, similar constitutions of the ego must lead to a (...) breakdown in communication. The consumer industry populates the world with objects of a similar ilk and thereby renders the environment homogeneous. The egos constructed under its rule must thus be similar in nature, hence the claim that dialogue must collapse under its rule. However, should we focus on the sundered duties implied by a community, as we intend to do with this article, we may recover the conditions of epistemic distance and thereby also the conditions of sustained and authentic relationships. (shrink)

It is generally considered that empirical science is tied to the hypothetico-deductive method. The method consists basically of four steps: 1. framing a hypothesis, 2. deducing consequences from the hypothesis, 3. checking by observation whether the consequences are true or false, 4. accepting or rejecting the hypothesis accordingly. Is the method really an essential feature of science, or is it possible to envisage doing science without it?

One of the conclusions reached by Antony Flew in his interesting paper “Is There a Case for Disembodied Survival?” is that “if there is to be a case for individual and personal survival, what survives must be some sort of astral body.” In the present paper I shall investigate whether he is really justified, on the basis of the arguments he presents, in drawing this conclusion.

I feel most flattered by the careful attention which Dr. Roger Smook has devoted to my paper “Is There a Case for Disembodied Survival?” and I am duly grateful to him.We certainly agree that the most important thing in his reply is his response to my challenge “to show: that there can be a coherent notion of an incorporeal personal being, and that a being of this sort could significantly be said to be the same person as he was (...) when he was a creature of flesh and blood”. Smook's response runs: “By a conscious being I understand any entity which has an ongoing conscious life of however rudimentary a sort …. I begin by assuming 1. (shrink)