Minds, machines and economic agents: Cambridge receptions of Boole and Babbage

In the 1860s and 1870s the logic of Boole and the calculating machines of Babbage were key resources in W. S. Jevons’s attempt to construct a mechanical model of the mind, and both therefore played an important role in Jevons’s attempted revolution in economic theory. In this same period both Boole and Babbage were studied within the Cambridge Moral Sciences Tripos, but the Cambridge reading of Boole and Babbage was much more circumspect. Implicitly following the division of the moral sciences into material and ‘real’ as established by the Rev. Grote, John Venn treated Boole’s logic as a purely formal science, while Alfred Marshall based his psychological model of the mechanical part of the human mind upon Babbage’s two-level machine. From the different perspectives of logic and psychology, Venn and Marshall did not simply incorporate their readings of Boole and Babbage, but also attempted to establish the limits to any mechanical explanation of the mind. This comparison of the attitudes to mental science of Jevons and Marshall provides a foundation from which the differing conceptions of economic theory of the two men can be established.     

The rule of law: Natural,human, and divine

In this paper we compare two different contexts—the legal and the scientific—in which the concept of law is prominent. We argue that the acute philosophical awareness, in the early modern period, of the difficulties surrounding the law concept in the scientific context, and the various responses to these difficulties, are rooted in an earlier tradition of jurisprudential concerns over the concept of natural law in its legal sense. We seek to show, further, that each one of the various philosophical accounts of the concept of natural law (in both of its senses) is embedded in a metaphysical and theological context, so that different visions of God yield different accounts of the meaning of the natural law idiom in science as well as legal theory.