Shames' article (1979) ingeniously attempts to impeach arguments which support the view that a psychologist's experimental results are significantly influenced by the experimenter expectancy effect. This attack is a powerful one in which Shames unveils his “expectancy paradox”: the scientist investigating the influence of the expectancy effect in psychology remains himself subject to any such expectancy effect. Therefore, he argues, “The more substantial is the evidence for the veridicality of experimenter expectancy ... the more suspect it becomes ...” (1979, p. 384). Shames maintains that this paradox is inescapable only if the experimenter expectancy effect is inexorable in any particular research program and is pervasive through the broad spectrum of psychological research. A review of the literature leads him to hold that this effect is neither inexorable nor unquestionably pervasive. “Thus,” Shames concludes, “the expectancy paradox is less pernicious than may have been feared; however, since it is so intimately tied to the experimenter expectancy effect, the spectre of doubt as to the compass of this effect is cast” (1979, p. 387).

In a recent note, Horwich (1978) challenges the foundations of Hempel's classic paradox of confirmation by a clever example purporting to show that under Nicod's Criterion, data can be made to confirm a hypothesis with which they are logically incompatible. Specifically, Horwich observes that 'Pb' (i.e., 'object b has property P') is formally equivalent to '(x)(∼Px · ∼Pb ⊃ x ≠ b)'. The latter has form '(x)(ψx ⊃ ϕx)' with '∼P___ · ∼Pb' for 'Ψ' and '___ ≠ b' for 'ϕ', while the observation that distinct objects a and b both lack P, i.e. that —Pa · ∼Pb · a ≠ b, can be expressed as 'Ψa · ϕa' for these same instantiations of the predicate markers. Accordingly, if an uncertain generality '(x)(Ψx ⊃ Ψx)' were always to be confirmed by an observation of form 'Ψa · ϕa', as Nicod's Criterion has long been presumed to say, then we could confirm that b has P by observing that b and some other object both lack P—a flagrant absurdity.

In the theory of explanation it is imperative that self-explanation be excluded; we cannot allow an explanandum to explain itself. This applies to the explanation of events and to the explanation of laws. In Nagel's account the following three features of a valid explanation of a universal law serve as a prophylaxis against self-explanation: “... all the premises are universal statements, there is more than one premise, each of which is essential in the derivation, and the premises, taken singly or conjointly, do not follow logically from the explicandum”).

In their article, “Relative Simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity,” Jackson and Pargetter (1977) have offered a method to determine distant simultaneity which they claim to be independent of any assumptions concerning one-way velocities and thus a basis for denying the conventionality of distant simultaneity within the framework of the Special Theory. In what follows, I shall argue that the case they make to support the claim to independence is mistaken.

The unique role of the second derivative of position with respect to time in classical mechanics is investigated. It is indicated that mechanics might have been developed around other order derivatives. Examples based on and are presented. Kirchhoff s argument for using ẍ is given and generalized.