The so-called evolutionary social scienccs are based on the belief that Darwinism can explain the living world and that it therefore should be able to explain other complex systems such as minds and societies. In fact, Darwinism cannot explain biological evolution. It does make an important contribution, but this is towards understanding adaptation, which is a major problem in biology but not in the social sciences. Darwinism has much less to offer to the social sciences than to biology and the shortcomings it brings with it are much greater.

Because of the intellectual attraction of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, its conccpts are often borrowed to conceptualized evolutionary change also in non-biological domains. However, a heuristic strategy like that is problematic. An attempt is therefore made to identify generic features of evolution which transcend domain-specific characteristics. Epistemological, conccptual, and methodological implications are discussed, and the ontological question is raised how non-biological evolutionary theories can be accommodated within the Darwinian world view of modern sciences.

Since Sidney Winter published his paper on “Knowledge and competence as Strategic assets”, the number of publications on the role of knowledge in economics has immensely grown. l-Iere we shall analyze that role from an evolutionary point of view, and try to show that the discussion about concepts like “evolution” is not closed, and that the Darwinian framework of evolutionary economics is in debate.

In several recent papers Arthur Robson sketches evolutionary scenarios in order to explain why we humans evolved hard-wired utility functions and the capacity to choose flexibly on the basis of them. Thesescenarios are scrutinized minutely in the paper. It is pointed out that Robson ignores several relevant insightful ideas and distinctions that have surfaced in other contemporary evolutionary theorizing. A somewhat different picture of human behavior emerges once these ideas and distinctions are taken seriously.

Este trabajo constituye una revisión de los contenidos, orientación y objetivos de una parte significativa de los manuales de lógica elemental de las décadas de 1960 y 1970 redactados por autores españoles. En concreto, analizamos los prólogos, los rudimentos prerios, y la presentación de los distintos cálculos gue aparecen en tales obras. EI estudio de la semántica, los contenidos metatcóricos o las extensiones de Ia lógica elemental quedan para una segunda etapa de esta investigacion.This work is a critical examination of contents, orientation, and goals of a significative portion of elementary spanish logic textbooks in the 60’s and 70’s. It is centered on an analysis ofprefaces, preliminaries and the different kinds of calculi appearing in these books. Topics, like semantics, metatheory or extensiones of elementary logic, are left for futrher analysis.

It has been suggested in the literature about actions that one can honour the philosophical intuition lying behind Davidson’s argument for the Anscombe Thesis (the claim that by-sentences --sentcnccs used to report actions of the general form: ‘A X-ed by V-ing’-- involve two descriptions of the same action) without accepting the argument’s conclusion. The suggestion in question is to interpret by-sentences as referring to two synchronous but different actions of the same agent. I argue that this suggestion, together with two plausible semantic principles about the naming of events and a reasonable metaphysical principle about the constitution of events, leads to certain ontological commitments which are hardly acccptable. My conclusion is then that in order to deny the Anscambe Thesis what must be done is to show that Davidson’s intuition is wrong.