Computational simulations are now useful tools in experimental life. Their novelty and continuous development make it very difficult to understand their epistemic relevance. In this paper a first evaluation of them is presented through a parallel between thought experiments and computational simulations. Both simulations that play the role of actual experiment and also simulations that are part of experiments will be under scrutiny, since both of them are important in the understanding of contemporary experiments. But simulations as parts of actual experiments can especially show a new face in the complex relation theory-experiment.

According to van Fraassen, constructive empiricism (CE) makes better sense of scientific activity than scientific realism (SR). I discuss a recent episode in biomedical research - investigations about Helicobacter Pylori and its relation to peptic ulcer. CE's expedient to cope with it is a sort of belief substitution. I argue that replacing realist beliefs by empiricist surrogates (as-if beliefs) could accommodate scientists' expectations and behavior. Nonetheless, theoretical agnosticism could hardly motivate scientists to focus just on the observational consequences derived from the theory at issue. Contrary to van Fraassen, I conclude then that, concerning scientific practice, realist beliefs cannot be considered as a gratuitious surplus which should be rejected.

In this paper I shall carefully examine some recent arguments for dualism. These arguments presuppose a strong version of physicalism that I consider inappropriate. I shall try to show that, if we reformulate the thesis of physicalism according to Kim's view of physicalism (in terms of the supervenience relation), there is a third option, a version of type physicalism, where physicalism and quaiia could be conciliated. In order to sketch this option, I shall consider the main argument against type physicalism: the explanatory gap argument, and two arguments that Kim mentions against physicalism: the inverted spectrum / zombies argument and the intrinsicality argument. I shall try to show that these three arguments depend upon a misconception of the nature of our ordinary mental concepts.

This paper presents a critical evaluation of different opinions about determinism in Classical Mechanics. The goal of this analysis is to show that, even in the supposedly non controversial field of Classical Mechanics, the answer about determinism is not univocally fixed by scientific arguments, but inescapably depends on the epistemological perspective fom which the problem is formulated.

The starting point of this work is the existence of historical paradoxes in the set theory. These are: Russell's paradox, applied to the set W, Cantor's, for the set U, and Burali-Forti's, of the set Omega. A systematic analysis aimed at the simplification and the refining of such paradoxes showed that: (i) there exist at least eight contradictory expressions instead of three; (ii) another contradictory set is suggested by an extension of Burali-Forti's paradox; (iii) almost all of the contradictions apply to more than one paradoxical set.

Belnap and Gupta have recently maintained that truth is a circular concept: its extension cannot be established without being previously hypothesized. This has led Yaqub to claim that the circular character in question cannot be made compatible with the thesis that semantic properties tlre supervenient ones. Belnap and Gupta have explicitly denied sitch a claim any plausibility. In this paper, I offir some new arguments in support of Yaqub 's position. Such arguments are based on an analysis of some aspects of Belnap and Gupta's theory that, as for as I know, had not been considered before.

This paper contains two sections. In the first one, some ideas on human mind Dennett presents in his book Consciousness Explained are sketched. In the second section, a critical review is made on Dennett's Multiple Drafts Theory. It is concluded that some of its proposals do not find enough experimental support from research on Cognitive Neuroscience. Even though there is no cardinal point in the brain, both functional and anatomical criteria can be found to distinguish conscious and unconscious information processing in the human brain

The notion of stimulus meaning, a key notion for Quine's Indeterminacy of Translation thesis, has undergone an essentiaJ change fi'om the beginning of the nineties. Then, this essay offers an expository work oj this change (its origin and motivations) and its final result. Th~ main aim of this essay is to show the validity of the reasons that forced Quine to modify his stimulus meaning notion and the failure of its substitutes (global stimulus, stimulus range, and perceptual similarity) to solue the problems they were thought to give an account of. Moreover, these new notions make the Indeterminacy Thesis, mainly the Inscrutability of Reference Thesis, face new problems and, if I'm right, unsolvable ones.

A prevailing assumption in contemporary epistemology is that there exists a conceptual connection between the notions of belief and rationality. In this paper I examine a weak notion of rationality, according to which it is not necessary to assume the existence of a uniquc set of norms of rationality in order to be able to assign beliefi to a subject. From this point of view, belief attribution only requires that we understand a subject's utterances and, to do this, we only need assume that she is similar to us in some epistemic relevant issues.

Peacocke's explanation of the first-person concept provides non-circu/ar possession conditions for such a concept, accommodating two different constraints: the noncircularity requirement and Evans's Thesis. In this paper, it is argued that Peacocke's explanation faces some difficulties: on the one hand, it appears unable to meet a serious objection facing the non-circularity requirement; on the other hand, it misunderstands the constitutive constraints imposed by Evans's Thesis on a correct account of the first person.