From Agent to Active Sense : Was there an Augustinianism-Averroisant?

Peer reviewe

Propositiones disputandae a Dominicanis Ill. Card. Madrutio exhibitae, et ab ipso Illmo. ad nos missae

Incipit: "1. Liberum arbitrium ad actus quibus ad iustificationem disponitur, et in vitam aeternam pervenit, concurrit ex innata libertate..." (fol. 160r)Explicit: "... ut liberum arbitrium consentiat nec primum vere est ille motus voluntatis, siquidem causa efficax est primus vere motus." (fol. 161v)30792E-1 T-5 N-1

XXX. Discours

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this record.Mapping between non-preference- and preference-based health-related quality-of-life instruments has become a common technique for estimating health state utility values for use in economic evaluations. Despite the increased use of mapped health state utility estimates in health technology assessment and economic evaluation, the methods for deriving them have not been fully justified. Recent guidelines aim to standardise reporting of the methods used to map between instruments but do not address fundamental concerns in the underlying conceptual model. Current mapping methods ignore the important conceptual issues that arise when extrapolating results from potentially unrelated measures. At the crux of the mapping problem is a question of validity; because one instrument can be used to predict the scores on another, does this mean that the same preference for health is being measured in actual and estimated health state utility values? We refer to this as conceptual validity. This paper aims to (1) explain the idea of conceptual validity in mapping and its implications; (2) consider the consequences of poor conceptual validity when mapping for decision making in the context of healthcare resource allocation; and (3) offer some preliminary suggestions for improving conceptual validity in mapping

The text of Robert Boyle's 'Designe about natural history’

This publication presents a new text of Robert Boyle’s prescriptions for the writing of natural history, compiled in 1666 and partially divulged in 1684, but unpublished till modern times. The current edition restores the text to its correct order for the first time, and adds various cognate documents, including certain sections of the ‘Designe’ which survive elsewhere among the Boyle Papers at the Royal Society and are here first published. The result is to supply a significant document for understanding the evolution of Baconian method during the formative years of the Royal Society. The editors are Michael Hunter, Professor of History at Birkbeck, University of London, and Director of the Robert Boyle Project, and Peter Anstey, Professor of Early Modern Philosophy at the University of Otago, New Zealand. (Text from the publisher's website at http://www.bbk.ac.uk/boyle/researchers/occasional_papers.htm