Abstracts edited by Neil Frude

F riedman , S. (1987) Technical considerations in the behaviour-marital treatment of agoraphobia. American Journal of Family Therapy,
P arker , T., H ill , J. W. and M iller , G. (1987) Multiple family therapy: evaluating a group experience for mentally retarded adolescents and their families. Family Therapy
B erger , M. and J urkovic , G. J. (1987) Family context in therapy. Journal of Family Psychology
L ebow , J. L. (1987) Training psychologists in family therapy in family institute settings. Journal of Family Pgcholosy
S loman , L., P erry , A. and F rankenburg , F. (1987) Family therapy with deaf member families. American Journal of Family Therapy
H oopes , M. H. (1987) Multigenerational systems: basic assumptions. American Journal of Family Therapy
M unton , A. G. and A ntaki , C. (1988) Causal beliefs amongst families in therapy: attributions at the group level. British Journal of Clinical Psychology     

Abstracts edited by Neil Frude

C arpenter , L. J. and M erkel , W. T. (1988) The effects of three methods of observation on couples in interactional research. American Journal of Family Therapy
C hasin , R., R oth , S. and B ograd , M. (1989) Action methods in systemic therapy: Dramatizing ideal futures and reformed pasts with couples. Family Process
T homas , E. J. and Y oshioka , M. R. (1989) Spouse interventive confrontations in unilateral Family Therapy for alcohol abuse. Social
S tarr , A. C. (1989) Recovery for the alcoholic family: Family systems treatment model. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work
B linnikka , L-M. and S eitamaa , M. (1989) Spatiality of the family's inner structure: Choice of seat in Family Therapy. Family Process     

Abstracts edited by Neil Frude

S elvini -P alazzoli , M. and V iaro , M. (1988) The anorectic process in the family: a six-stage model as a guide for individual therapy. Family Process , 27 (2): 129–148.
Z acks , E., G reen , R.-J. and M arrow , J. (1988) Comparing lesbian and heterosexual couples on the circumplex model: an initial investigation. Family Process , 27 (4): 471–484.
K urdek , L. A. (1989) Relationship quality in gay and lesbian cohabiting couples: a one-year follow-up study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 6 : 39–59.
L ewis , J. M. (1988) The transition to parenthood. I: The rating of marital competence. Family Process , 27 (2): 129–148.
R adochonski , M. (1988) Family therapy following loss of sight in an adult member. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 19 (2): 167–171.
S kovholt , T. M. and M c C arthy , P. R. (1988) (Eds) Special Issue: Critical incidents in counselor development. Journal of Counseling and Development , (no. 2), 69–134.     

Poisoning the Well

In this paper it is shown is that although poisoning the well has generally been treated as a species of ad hominem fallacy, when you try to analyze the fallacy using ad hominem schemes, even by supplementing with related schemes like argument from position to know, the analysis ultimately fails. The main argument of the paper is taken up with proving this negative claim by applying these schemes to examples of arguments associated with the fallacy of poisoning the well. Although there is a positive finding in this quest, in that poisoning the well is shown to be based on and associated with these forms of argument in interesting ways, the paper in the end is led to the conclusion that the fallacy is irreducibly dialectical. Poisoning the well is thus analyzed as a tactic to silence an opponent violating her right to put forward arguments on an issue both parties have agreed to discuss at the confrontation stage of a critical discussion. It is concluded that it is a special form of strategic attack used by one party in the argumentation stage of a critical discussion to improperly shut down the capability of the other party for putting forward arguments of the kind needed to properly move the discussion forward.     

Well Founding Grounding Grounding

Those who wish to claim that all facts about grounding are themselves grounded (“the meta-grounding thesis”) must defend against the charge that such a claim leads to infinite regress and violates the well-foundedness of ground. In this paper, we defend. First, we explore three distinct but related notions of “well-founded”, which are often conflated, and three corresponding notions of infinite regress. We explore the entailment relations between these notions. We conclude that the meta-grounding thesis need not lead to tension with any of the three notions of “well-founded”. Finally, we explore the details of and motivations for further conditions on ground that one might add to generate a conflict between the meta-grounding thesis and a well-founded constraint. We explore these topics by developing and utilizing a formal framework based on the notion of a grounding structure.     

How to Collaborate Well

In this paper, I answer the question, how do we collaborate well with others? I first look at cases of good collaboration, contrasting them briefly with some cases of poor collaboration; I then describe the similarities between the good cases, such as shared aims, shared planning of projects, shared norms among collaborators. The conclusion is that collaborating well involves shared norms, derived both from societal norms and from a well-ordered relationship between participants; a shared vision derived from shared knowledge and open communication grounded in relationship; and open-mindedness and thoughtful disagreement, which depend on mutual respect and trust between participants.     

"活得好"与"做得好":亚里士多德幸福概念的两重含义

在这篇文章中,我将证明,亚里士多德伦理学里的eudaimonia概念是"在两种意义上说的",而非只具有一种意思.它既是"活得好"也是"做得好".这一区分构成了亚氏伦理学主要论证的基础.它是一条贯穿许多主要论争的单一线索.对于这两种用法的区分将能够提供对这些争辩的一种统一性的解决.尤为重要的是,它将使我们得以用一种不十分费劲的方式去阅读那荆棘丛生的<尼各马可伦理学>第十卷的第六到第八章.幸福是"活得好"还是"做得好"这一问题是一个比涵盖论-理智论的论争更为基本的问题.在很大程度上,涵盖论-理智论的论争之所以会发生,正是由于争论双方都没能在作为"活得好"的幸福与作为"做得好"的幸福之间进行区分.他们共同地设定幸福的意思在于"活得好",然后开始争论它到底是各种善的复合、还是专注于思辨.本文将首先表明对于活动的讨论在亚里士多德幸福论之中有着何种位置;然后,我将论述"做得好"和"活得好",并将讨论下面一些争论主题:(a)幸福的两种标准;(b)思辨生活的非实用性;(c)首要幸福与第二等级幸福这一层级的性质,以及(d)道德与思辨的关系.