"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, disinformation, denial of truth, manipulation of the past, including the "unperson"—a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments; this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels Nineteen Eighty-Four but political doublespeak is criticized throughout his work, such as in Politics and the English Language. The New York Times has said the term is "the most used adjective derived from the name of a modern writer". Finding Orwell in Burma
The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation is a book about the philosophy of science by the philosopher Ernest Nagel, in which the author discusses the nature of scientific inquiry with reference to both natural science and social science, evaluates the views of other philosophers, including Isaiah Berlin. The book received positive reviews, as well as some more mixed assessments, it is considered a classic, commentators have praised the work for Nagel's discussion of subjects such as reductionism and holism, as well as for his criticism of Berlin. However, critics have found Nagel's discussion of social science less convincing than his discussion of natural science. Nagel describes the book as "an essay in the philosophy of science" concerned with "analyzing the logic of scientific inquiry and the logical structure of its intellectual products", adding that it was written for a larger audience than only "professional students of philosophy", he discusses branches of natural science such as physics and social sciences such as history.
He discusses the philosopher of science Henri Poincaré and criticizes the philosopher Isaiah Berlin. The Structure of Science was first published by Harcourt, Brace & World in 1961, it was reprinted in 1979 by Hackett Publishing Company. The Structure of Science received positive reviews from the philosopher A. J. Ayer in Scientific American, G. B. Keene in Philosophy, Michael Scriven in The Review of Metaphysics, mixed reviews from the philosopher Raziel Abelson in Commentary and the philosopher Paul Feyerabend in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science; the book was discussed by Alex Rosenberg in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Colin Klein in The Philosophical Quarterly, the philosopher Kenneth F. Schaffner in The Journal of Philosophy. Ayer described the book as a well-written work that avoided being overly technical, should have wide appeal, was an "important contribution toward the essential task of building a bridge between philosophy and science." He credited Nagel with providing a diverse range of examples in his discussion of scientific explanation, considered his views about geometry and physics, while not novel, to be "sensible and convincing".
However, he was not satisfied by Nagel's discussion of the distinction between a scientific law and a "generalization of fact". Keene described the book with only minor defects, he praised Nagel for the thoroughness of his treatment of the nature of scientific inquiry, his discussion of explanation in the biological sciences, his criticism of functionalism in the social sciences, his discussion of historical explanation. Scriven described the book as a "great work", considered Nagel's treatment of some subjects definitive, he praised Nagel's discussion of the history of science and careful analysis of "alternative positions", pointing in particular to Nagel's "discussion of the ontological status of theories and models" and "his treatment of fallacious arguments for holism". However, he noted. Though he found Nagel's analysis of telological explanations "thorough and enlightening", he was not satisfied by Nagel's conclusions about their distinguishing features, he found Nagel's criticism of approaches in the social sciences less convincing than other parts of the book.
Abelson considered the book's publication an important event in American philosophy. He credited Nagel with consolidating the rival insights of logical positivism and pragmatism, demonstrating how four different kinds of explanation function in different types of inquiry, refuting the view that science does nothing more than describe "sequences of phenomena", convincingly criticizing Berlin. However, he argued that Nagel's account of science was strained and that some of Nagel's views were unclear, he believed that Nagel was less successful in discussing sociology and history than he was in discussing the natural sciences. He charged Nagel with vacillating between the "mechanistic" view of social knowledge and that of "pragmatic pluralism", arguing that each of these perspectives has merit, but only when adopted with full commitment. Feyerabend credited Nagel with adding significant detail to the "hypothetico-deductive account" of explanation, with making interesting observations about "the cognitive status of theories."
However, he argued that Nagel neglected the larger issue of the "cognitive status of all notions of our language" and that his account of reduction was flawed. Rosenberg described the book as a classic exposition of philosophical naturalism and wrote that one of its passages, dealing with realism and instrumentalism, was famous. Klein wrote that discussions of the role of reduction in scientific explanation published after the book moved away from Nagel's views, because of "perceived shortcomings in Nagel’s theory of reduction." He argued. In his view, while "Nagel’s account of reduction has a number of flaws" Nagel's "account of intertheoretic connection is correct." Schaffner noted that "Nagel's theory is based on the reduction of classical thermodynamics to statistical mechanics" and that criticisms of
Robert Allen Bell is a retired Major League Baseball pitcher. He made his debut with the Cincinnati Reds in 2000. Drafted by the Atlanta Braves in the 3rd round of the 1995 Major League Baseball Draft, Bell was considered a Braves top prospect and pitched in their minor league system until November 10, 1998, when he was traded with Denny Neagle and Michael Tucker to the Cincinnati Reds for Bret Boone and Mike Remlinger. Bell made his major league debut with the Reds on April 2000 against the Chicago Cubs. In Bell's first season in the Majors, he finished with an ERA of 5.00 in 26 starts. His record was 7-8 with 73 walks; the following season, Bell started 9 games for Cincinnati before being sent down to AAA. On June 15, 2001, Bell was traded to the Texas Rangers for Edwin Encarnación. In 18 starts for the Rangers, Bell had a 5-5 record with a 7.18. In 2002, Bell pitched in 17 games for the Rangers and split time with the Rangers and their AAA affiliate; the Rangers released Bell on March 12, 2003.
Five days Bell signed a minor league deal with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Bell began the season in the minors, he went on striking out 44 batters in 101 innings. The Devil Rays resigned Bell following the 2003 season. In 2004, Bell ended the season with a career high 8 wins. In 2005, Bell appeared in 8 games with the Devil Rays. In AAA, he only appeared in 22 games, he elected free agency afterwards. He signed with the Cleveland Indians on December 15, 2005, but Bell spent the entire 2006 season with the Indians' Triple-A affiliate, the Buffalo Bisons. Bell signed a minor league deal with the Baltimore Orioles in 2006. Bell appeared in 30 games with the Orioles as a reliever, but was outrighted to the minors following the 2007 season, elected free agency. In December 2007, he signed a minor league contract with the Washington Nationals, but was released during spring training. In April 2008, Bell signed a minor league contract with the Chicago White Sox, but was released in June. On February 16, 2013, Bell joined the Tampa Bay Rays organization as a sales account representative for the Hudson Valley Renegades.