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.

Debate among scientists is frequently hampered by intense difficulties in communicating and translating their viewpoints. This well-known fact illustrates the role of unarticulated core knowledge in the activities of sientific communities. But it has been little noticed that the issue afficts not just written science, but especially traditions of experimental activity and their products, including instruments and techniques. The question is addressed on the basis of examples from the history of optics and electromagnetism - Fresnel and Brewster, Maxwell and Hertz - and texts from Kuhn's Structure. Particular attention is paid to interrelations between succeeding theories, and to the notorious problem of theory-choice.

We study twentieth-century biological sciences as experimental sciences by historically reconstructing the uses of experiments. Concepts like artificial, natural, and inventions, are handled so as to show how much current biological thought has been constructed on the basis of the invention of different kinds of experiments, instruments, and technical devices, experimental systems, and ideas concerning the fonctioning of nature. It is suggested that the frontier that may separate the natural from the artificial has already been crossed. Human intervention in the natural phenomena through reproducible experiments hints to a view of current biological knowledge as a permanent invention of nature.

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.

In this paper I examine the roles that experiment plays in science. Experiment can test theories, but it can also call for a new theory. Experiment can also provide hints about the mathematical form of a theory. Likewise it can provide evidence for the existence of the entities involved in our theories. Finally, it may also have a life of its own, independent of theory. I will illustrate these roles using episodes from the history of contemporary physics. I will also discuss an epistemology of experiment, a set of strategies that provides grounds for reasonable belief in experimental results.

In most of the proposals about metonymy it is argued that it is a figure of signification or trope that exploits a figurative or transferred meaning. These proposals lose sight of what the examples that we normally consider metonymy have in common, to wit, that they are understood if we complete the metonymic noun phrase and not if we substitute it by another. It is in this sense that we understand that referential metonymy is a case of ellipsis and, thus, a figure of language or scheme whose mechanism of interpretation is intimately related to the mechanism of retrieval of expressions.

Kripke argued for the existence of necessary a posteriori truths, and tried to explain why some of them seem to be contingent. His main explanation motivated two philosophical proposals: (i) the attempt - linked to some interpretations of two-dimensionalism - to analyse the epistemic concept of a priori truth using metaphysical modal concepts; (ii) the argument for psychophysical dualism worked out by Kripke relying on his explanation of the appearances of contingency. I point out several difficulties for (i), and argue that (ii) can oe blocked because of the existence of alternative accounts of the phenomenon.

The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the Implicature Theory for epistemic contexts, as an attempt to save the validity of the Principle of Substitution in those contexts. I defend that Recanati 's arguments against the Implicature Theory are not conclusive because they are based on inadequate examples and on unclear interpretations of Grice's writings. I then argue that the mixing up of theories of meaning and attitude ascription with the classical intuitions held by Fregeans against Russellians in these contexts does not give promising results.