Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise

To become an expert in a technical domain means acquiring the tacit knowledge pertaining to the relevant domain of expertise, at least, according to the programme known as “Studies of Expertise and Experience” (SEE). We know only one way to acquire tacit knowledge and that is through some form of sustained social contact with the group that has it. Those who do not have such contact cannot acquire the expertise needed to make technical judgments. They can, however, use social expertise to judge between experts or expert claims. Where social expertise is used to make technical judgments we refer to it as “transmuted expertise”. The various kinds of transmuted expertise are described and analysed.     

解决"以药养医"问题的演化博弈分析

能否妥善解决"以药养医"问题已经成为保持社会的稳定与和谐、促进经济健康发展亟待解决的社会问题之一.以探讨其经济学原因为起点,以政府和医院作为博弈方进行演化博弈分析,推论出政府与医院之间的互动演化关系,并提出完善医疗体制的融资渠道、发挥电子信息技术优势等政策建议.     

如何消除团队中的搭便车现象

团队中出现搭便车现象的主要原因是工作伦理和管理制度存在问题。本文提出了借鉴清教徒工作观以重整工作伦理的观点。同时,运用团队有效性模型进行了问题诊断并提出了相应对策。     

Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems

The present paper analyzes the self-generated explanations (from talk-aloud protocols) that “Good” and “Poor” students produce while studying worked-out examples of mechanics problems, and their subsequent reliance on examples during problem solving. We find that “Good” students learn with understanding: They generate many explanations which refine and expand the conditions for the action parts of the example solutions, and relate these actions to principles in the text. These self-explanations are guided by accurate monitoring of their own understanding and misunderstanding. Such learning results in example-independent knowledge and in a better understanding of the principles presented in the text. “Poor” students do not generate sufficient self-explanations, monitor their learning inaccurately, and subsequently rely heavily on examples. We then discuss the role of self-explanations in facilitating problem solving, as well as the adequacy of current AI models of explanation-based learning to account for these psychological findings.     

How to Pick Out a Dragon: Fiction and the Selection Problem

Topoi - Non-actualist theories promise straightforward accounts of meaning, truth and reference of fictional discourse but are ostensibly saddled with a Selection Problem, that multiple possible...     

Experts in science: a view from the trenches

In this paper I analyze four so-called “principles of expertise”; that is, good epistemic practices that are normatively motivated by the epistemological literature on expert judgment. I highlight some of the problems that the four principles of expertise run into, when we try to implement them in concrete contexts of application (e.g. in science committees). I suggest some possible alternatives and adjustments to the principles, arguing in general that the epistemology of expertise should be informed both by case studies and by the literature on the use of experts in science practice.     

浅谈中学生学业自我设限行为及其干预策略

自我设限是指个体针对可能到来的失败威胁而事先设置障碍,以达到自我保护或自我提升的目的,是一种消极的应对方式。自我设限在学业中的具体体现就是学业自我设限。中学生学习负担重,心理压力大,学业自我设限行为较为普遍。下文所述的自我设限的行为表现、不良后果和干预策略旨在为学校教育提供科学信息,帮助自我设限的学生走出学业困境,从容的应对学习中的困难和挑战。     

How to Think about the Problem of Free Will

In this essay I present what is, I contend, the free-will problem properly thought through, or at least presented in a form in which it is possible to think about it without being constantly led astray by bad terminology and confused ideas. Bad terminology and confused ideas are not uncommon in current discussions of the problem. The worst such pieces of terminology are “libertarian free will” and “compatibilist free will.” The essay consists partly of a defense of the thesis that the use of these phrases by writers on the problem of free will can only generate conceptual confusion and partly of a formulation of the problem that does not make use of them. I contend that this formulation is neutral with respect to the historically important positions on free will (e.g., compatibilism and incompatibilism).     

Experts in Dialogue: An Introduction

Different approaches to expertise and argumentation are discussed. After introducing the problem of expertise and its present day significance in a historical context, various connections with the study of arguments are highlighted. The need for and potential of argumentation analysis to contribute to existing research in social epistemology, science studies, and cognitive science, is discussed, touching on the problems of reasoning and argumentation, embodiment, tacit knowledge, expert context versus public context, expert disagreement, persuasion versus justification, and argument analysis as meta-expertise. As the arguments used by experts constitute a boundary object, we presume that a dialogue format is suitable to address central problems of the special issue “Rethinking Arguments from Experts”.     

How Doxastic Justification Helps Us Solve the Puzzle of Misleading Higher‐Order Evidence

Certain plausible evidential requirements and coherence requirements on rationality seem to yield dilemmas of rationality (in a specific, objectionable sense) when put together with the possibility of misleading higher‐order evidence. Epistemologists have often taken such dilemmas to be evidence that we're working with some false principle. In what follows I show how one can jointly endorse an evidential requirement, a coherence requirement, and the possibility of misleading higher‐order evidence without running afoul of dilemmas of rationality. The trick lies in observing the difference between attitudes it is rational to hold (= propositional justification) and rationally holding those attitudes (= doxastic justification).     

The structure of Design Problem Spaces

It is proposed that there are important generalizations about problem solving in design activity that reach across specific disciplines. A framework for the study of design is presented that (a) characterizes design as a radial category and fleshes out the task environment of the prototypical cases; (b) takes the task environment seriously; (c) shows that this task environment occurs in design tasks, but does not occur in every nondesign task; (d) explicates the impact of this task environment on the design problem space; and (e) demonstrates that, given the structure of the information-processing system, the features noted in the problem spaces of design tasks will not all occur in problem spaces where the task environment is vastly different. This analysis leads to the claim that there are a set of invariant features in the problem spaces of design situations that collectively constitute a design problem space. Protocol studies are reported in which the problem spaces of three design tasks in architecture, mechanical engineering, and instructional design are explored and compared with several protocols from nondesign problem-solving tasks.     

How to Respond to the Problem of Deviant Formal Causation

Recently, a new problem has arisen for an Anscombean conception of intentional action. The claim is that the Anscombean’s emphasis on the formally causal character of practical knowledge precludes distinguishing between an aim and a merely foreseen side effect. I propose a solution to this problem: the difference between aim and side effect should be understood in terms of the familiar Anscombean distinction between acting intentionally and the intention with which one acts. I also argue that this solution has advantages over an alternative that has already been endorsed in the literature: it is a better fit for the Anscombean theory, and it naturally accommodates intuitions about the moral significance of aiming vs. merely foreseeing.     

元认知训练对不同认知方式小学生应用题解题能力的影响

本研究以小学五年级292名学生为对象,考察了三种思维训练方式(元认知内隐训练、元认知外显训练和一般思维策略训练)对三种不同认知方式学生(场独立型、场依存型和中间型)数学应用题解题能力的影响。结果发现：(1)思维策略的元认知外显训练和元认知内隐训练比一般思维策略训练能蜓有效地提高场依存型、中间型和场独立型三类学生的应用题解题能力：(2)元认知外显训练和内隐训练对于场独立型和中间型学生同等重要。但元认知外显训练更有助于场依存型学生应用题解题能力的提高。成为该类学生的优势圳练方式;(3)在小学五年级．场独立型学生的应用题解题能力明显优于场依存型学生的应用题解题能力。     

问题表征过程中信息提取的实验研究

以代数应用题为材料,考察领域知识不同的学生在问题表征过程中的信息提取特点以及解题成绩的差异.结果表明:初中生更倾向于按照问题的表面特征对应用题分类;领域知识丰富组和领域知识贫乏组在问题表征过程中对四类信息的提取存在差异;解题成功者对关键信息的再认率高于解题不成功者,而在多余信息和混淆信息的再认上,解题不成功者高于解题成功者.