第3届逻辑、理性与互动国际研讨会综述

逻辑、理性与互动国际研讨会（The International Workshop on Logic,Rationalityand Interaction,LORI）旨在集合逻辑学家和他们在哲学、语言学、计算机科学、认知科学,尤其是知识互动话题方面,如信念和行动等领域的工作。LORI-3于2011年10月10日到13日,在中国广州举办。主办方是中山大学逻辑与认知研究所。下面是一份LORI-3的简要的会议综述,根据内容进行了分类。完整的会议论文集收录在了Logic,Rationality,and Interaction,LNAI 6953号,     

THE QUR'AN,SCIENCE, AND THE (RELATED) CONTEMPORARY MUSLIM DISCOURSE

We discuss the special place of the Qur'an in the Muslim discourse in general and on science in particular. The Qur'an has an unparalleled influence on the Muslim mind, and understanding the Islamic treatise on science and religion must start from this realization. We explore the concept of science in the Islamic culture and to what extent it can be related to the Qur'an. Reviewing various Islamic discourses on science, we show how a simplistic understanding of the plan to adopt modern science within an Islamic revival program has been corrupted in the form of the theory of “scientific miraculousness of the Qur'an.” We assess and dismiss this theory but use it to show how a serious misunderstanding of the nature of modern science and a narrow view of the Qur'an has led to that embarrassingly popular yet misguided theory. We conclude by promoting a multiplicity of readings of the Qur'an and show that this allows for an enlightenment of one's interpretation of Qur'anic verses, using various tools at one's disposal, including scientific knowledge. We uphold Averroes's principle of “no possible conflict,” which can be used to persuade the Muslim public of a given idea not by proving that it can be found in the Qur'an but rather by showing that at least some readings of it are fully consistent with the given scientific theory.     

NEW DIRECTIONS,NEW COLLABORATIONS

In a world where all of life is on the edge of extinction and destruction by humankind, those who practice religion‐and‐science within a mutual dialogue bear the responsibility of doing so with this edge of life in mind. To speak of religion‐and‐science as a field of inquiry is to acknowledge the ethical responsibilities it entails. If one task of Zygon is to reformulate religion in light of the future dialogue of religion‐and‐science, we need to think about what kind of hope for the future is needed. Clearly, we are not simply called to repeat the past or comment on what has already been done by other academics. To help accomplish these goals and to reflect on the mission and future of Zygon, I appeal to the metaphor of improvisation, particularly as it is embodied in the visual and performing arts.     

计算机支持下协同工作的心理学研究

计算机支持下协同工作（ｃｏｍｐｕｔｅｒｓｕｐｐｏｒｔｅｄｃｏｏｐｅｒａｔｉｖｅｗｏｒｋ,简称ＣＳＣＷ）是计算机科学和认知科学的新兴交叉研究领域,主要研究在高技术支持下的群体协作。ＣＳＣＷ中蕴含着大量的心理学研究问题。心理学家需要更好地理解群体协作的性质以评估新技术是否与群体协作相适应,其研究成果会有助于理解如何构建技术和哪些技术可能成功。本文首先从分析ＣＳＣＷ的领域维度入手,然后讨论与之相关的一些重要的心理学研究问题,最后简要介绍国外在该领域进行的研究工作     

The Function, Mechanism, And Evolution Of Learning: A Review Of Sara J. Shettleworth’s Cognition, Evolution, And Behavior.

Behavior is a property of living animals and is therefore a biological phenomenon. This book shows us what it looks like to have a truly biological science of behavior. Such a science needs to discover the laws that control behavior as it is occurring, and it is this that behavior analysts and other psychologists interested in animal behavior and learning have done so well. The science also needs to explain, however, the role that behavior plays in the life of the individual and in the existence of the species, and this has not been part of the agenda for most psychologists. Shettleworth addresses all of these questions about behavior. She views learning in terms of what it accomplishes for the individual and then provides insight into its causal laws and its evolution. All of this is accomplished with a critical eye and unremitting rigor. These accomplishments occur in the context of a theory based on a unique combination of domain‐general and domain‐specific processes that takes a major step in the direction of showing what students of animal behavior and animal learning have to offer each other.     

A BIOLOGIST'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE FUTURE OF THE SCIENCE‐RELIGION DIALOGUE IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY

In recent issues of Zygon, numerous reflections have been published commenting on where the field of science‐and‐religion has been, where it presently stands, and where it should move in the future. These reflections touch on the importance of the dialogue and raise questions as to what audience the dialogue addresses and whom it should address. Some scholars see the dialogue as prospering, while others point out that much work needs to be done to make the dialogue more accessible to a larger audience and more successful at tackling the provocative questions before us. Other academics view the questions themselves as needing further consideration and focus before answers to them can even be explored. In this article I provide a general overview of these essays by outlining some general categories of thought that seem to emerge from the contributors. I then present some of my own opinions concerning the future of the science‐religion field and emphasize that the dialogue, in addition to its traditional roles, must further the philosophical framework that can aid humanity in resolving the most pressing global concerns of our time.     

What have we learned about burnout and health?

Abstract It has been a decade since an international group of scholars came together to discuss and debate the construct of job burnout. That conference, which took place in Krakow, Poland in 1990, was a major turning point in the development of this field. Not only did it bring together a wide range of theoretical perspectives and empirical data, it generated new directions for the work that needed to be done in the future (Schaufeli et al., 1993). Now that we are 10 years into that future, it would be worthwhile to assemble a new group of international scholars and discover what progress has been made. In essence, that is what the editors of this Special Issue have done. They have invited several of the leading burnout researchers from several continents to contribute their newest studies on this important social phenomenon. Thus this Special Issue affords us the opportunity to assess the strides that have been made since that first meeting in Krakow. So what have we now learned about burnout and its relation to health?     

Science Blogging: Networks,Boundaries and Limitations

There is limited research into the realities of science blogging, how science bloggers themselves view their activity and what bloggers can achieve. The ‘badscience’ blogs analysed here show a number of interesting developments, with significant implications for understandings of science blogging and scientific cultures more broadly. A functioning and diverse online community (with offline elements) has been constructed, with a number of non-professional and anonymous members and with boundary work being used to establish a recognisable outgroup. The community has developed distinct norms alongside a type of distributed authority and has negotiated the authority, anonymity and varying status of many community members in some interesting and novel ways. Activist norms and initiatives have been actioned, with some prominent community campaigns and action. There are questions about what science blogging—both in the UK and internationally—may be able to achieve in future and about the fragility of the ‘badscience’ community. Some of the highly optimistic hopes which have been associated with science blogging have not been realised. Nonetheless, the small group of bloggers focused on here have produced significant achievements with limited resources, especially when one considers this in the context of community values as opposed to some of the expectations attached to science blogging within scientific cultures more broadly. While the impacts of this science blogging community remain uncertain, the novel and potentially significant practices analysed here do merit serious consideration.     

Translational contributions of the experimental analysis of behavior

It has been argued that to increase societal impact behavioral researchers must do more to address problems of obvious practical importance. The basic science wing of behavior analysis has been described as especially detached from this goal, but is it really necessary that basic science demonstrate social relevance? If so, why hasn''t this occurred more often, and what can be done to improve the status quo? To address these questions and to stimulate discussion about the future of basic behavior science, I describe two widely embraced arguments in favor of pure basic science (that which is undertaken without concern for practical applications); explain why a translational research agenda is likely to better recruit tangible support for basic science; propose that addressing practical problems does not require basic science to abandon its focus on fundamental principles; and identify some possible impediments to translational innovation that may need to be addressed for basic behavior science to increase its translational footprint.     

A Bayesian marriage of science and politics

Conclusion Some might say that there is a sense in which the very consideration of whether science is equated with rationality is obscene. For far too long science has been dealt with by philosophers within the confines of a protectionist, if not an apologist, policy. Putnam has provided a service by exposing some of the weaker links of the scientism mythology. I have tried to bolster that critique by indicating how, along Bayesian lines, value and holistic considerations could be used to help positively transform science.Richard Rudner would have undoubtedly agreed with very little of what I have said — he seldon did. But he would have been there with open-mind and open-heart. Forqua mentor andqua friend he was, indeed, the philosopher par excellence.     

This I Have Learned from Over 40 Years of Personality Research

ABSTRACT During the over 40 years in which I have conducted personality research, I have had a number of insights about the research process that I thought would be worth sharing: an awareness of the human side of science; lessons from the person-situation debate; lessons from comparing research on highly ego-involving natural events, such as sport parachuting, with laboratory analogues; the realization of what is wrong with the concept of the Freudian unconscious and what should be done to replace it; and awareness of pervasive biases in the journal-reviewing process. Perhaps the one most general lesson I have learned is that the advancement of psychology as a cumulative, integrative science is hampered not so much by its conceptual complexity as by the difficulty of humankind to view itself objectively, with honesty, courage, and a willingness to surrender illusions.     

Get With the Program: Kasparov, Deep Blue, and Accusations of Unsportsthinglike Conduct

Garry Kasparov made two allegations of unfairness in his recent chess match with the computer 'Deep Blue'. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the ethos of the contest would be violated if the purported activities had occurred and on what grounds. Kasparov's first allegation, that the program was tampered with during play, would if true, violate fair play as it would encroach on Deep Blue's autonomy, a necessary condition for fair play in individual strategic endeavours. The most charitable interpretation of Kasparov's second allegation, that scouting information was used in an unfair manner, concerns questions of the nature of the identity of artificial individuals. Consideration of this issue finds Kasparov's claim groundless.     

Open source software and software patents: A constitutional perspective

Imagine if each square of pavement on the sidewalk had an owner, and pedestrians required a license to step on it. Imagine the negotiations necessary to walk an entire block under this system. That is what writing a program will be like if software patents continue. The sparks of creativity and individualism that have driven the computer revolution will be snuffed out. Imagine if each square of pavement on the sidewalk had an owner, and pedestrians required a license to step on it. Imagine the negotiations necessary to walk an entire block under this system. That is what writing a program will be like if software patents continue. The sparks of creativity and individualism that have driven the computer revolution will be snuffed out.—Richard Stallman and Simson Garfinkel (1992) This article highlights the vulnerability of the open source software movement to patent infringement lawsuits. With the number of patents on software algorithms predicted to exceed 100,000 this year, it is now virtually impossible to write any computer program, however trivial, that does not violate one or more patents. This paper argues that this situation is not only ludicrous, but it is contrary to any reasonable reading of the Constitution’s intentions with respect to the protection of intellectual property. In addition, the patentability of software algorithms stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to grasp one of the most fundamental concepts of computer science. From this error stems a long, dysfunctional chain of legal reasoning and patent policies, the effect of which has been to transform the mental reasoning processes, abstract knowledge, and scientific truths of computing into patentable subject matter. The result poses a potentially catastrophic threat not only to the open source software movement and the emerging industry of electronic commerce, but more fundamentally, to the very existence of the sciences of computing, without which further U.S. technological leadership will be impossible to sustain. An anthropologist, Dr. Pfaffenberger has authored dozens of how-to and reference books on computers and the Internet. He won the Albert Payson Usher Prize from the Society for the History of Technology and the Best Book of the Year Award from the American Society for Information Science.     

Why we view the brain as a computer

The view that the brain is a sort of computer has functioned as a theoretical guideline both in cognitive science and, more recently, in neuroscience. But since we can view every physical system as a computer, it has been less than clear what this view amounts to. By considering in some detail a seminal study in computational neuroscience, I first suggest that neuroscientists invoke the computational outlook to explain regularities that are formulated in terms of the information content of electrical signals. I then indicate why computational theories have explanatory force with respect to these regularities:in a nutshell, they underscore correspondence relations between formal/mathematical properties of the electrical signals and formal/mathematical properties of the represented objects. I finally link my proposal to the philosophical thesis that content plays an essential role in computational taxonomy.     

Scientific Reforms,Feminist Interventions,and the Politics of Knowing: An Auto‐ethnography of a Feminist Neuroscientist

Feminist science studies scholars have documented the historical and cultural contingency of scientific knowledge production. It follows that political and social activism has impacted the practice of science today; however, little has been done to examine the current cultures of science in light of feminist critiques and activism. In this article, I argue that, although critiques have changed the cultures of science both directly and indirectly, fundamental epistemological questions have largely been ignored and neutralized through these policy reforms. I provide an auto‐ethnography of my doctoral work in a neuroscience program to a) demonstrate how the culture of science has incorporated critiques into its practices and b) identify how we might use these changes in scientific practices to advance feminist science agendas. I critically analyze three areas in current scientific practice in which I see obstacles and opportunities: 1) research ethics, 2) diversity of research subjects and scientists, and 3) identification of a project's significance for funding. I argue that an understanding of the complicated and changing cultures of science is necessary for future feminist interventions into the sciences that directly challenge science's claim to epistemic authority.     

Relativity, Rotation And Rigidity

Much of Essler's work has been devoted to bringing science andphilosophy together for the purpose of conceptual clarification. Oneparticularly interesting area for such cooperation between science andphilosophy has been relativity theory. In this paper I will consider oneinstance of such interplay: the transformation that our notions of rotationand rigidity have undergone in general relativity and what this process canteach us. I will start by saying a little about the physics of the situation andthen go on to some philosophical observations about meaning and theory.     

LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited

A main thread of the debate over mathematical realism has come down to whether mathematics does explanatory work of its own in some of our best scientific explanations of empirical facts. Realists argue that it does; anti-realists argue that it doesn't. Part of this debate depends on how mathematics might be able to do explanatory work in an explanation. Everyone agrees that it's not enough that there merely be some mathematics in the explanation. Anti-realists claim there is nothing mathematics can do to make an explanation mathematical; realists think something can be done, but they are not clear about what that something is.

I argue that many of the examples of mathematical explanations of empirical facts in the literature can be accounted for in terms of Jackson and Pettit's [1990] notion of program explanation, and that mathematical realists can use the notion of program explanation to support their realism. This is exactly what has happened in a recent thread of the debate over moral realism (in this journal). I explain how the two debates are analogous and how moves that have been made in the moral realism debate can be made in the mathematical realism debate. However, I conclude that one can be a mathematical realist without having to be a moral realist.     

THE LOVE RACKET: DEFINING LOVE AND AGAPEFOR THE LOVE‐AND‐SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Abstract. Scholars of religion and science have generated remarkable scholarship in recent years in their explorations of love. Exactly how scholars involved in this budding field believe that love and science should relate and/or be integrated varies greatly. What they share in common is the belief that issues of love are of paramount importance and that the various scientific disciplines—whether natural, social, or religious—must be brought to bear upon how best to understand love. I briefly introduce the emergence of the love‐and‐science research program and note that scholars have not done well defining what they mean by love. I suggest that the present surge in love scholarship will fail to produce the positive results that it otherwise might if love is not defined well. I provide and defend a definition of love adequate for those doing love‐and‐science research: To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote well‐being. To explain better what this simple definition entails, I explore its three main phrases. Love is said to have many forms, but agape is the form to which the love‐and‐science literature most commonly refers. I comment briefly on the debates about how to best understand agape, noting sixteen different definitions proposed by major scholars. I identify weaknesses in many of them and then offer what I argue is a more adequate definition of agape as intentional response to promote well‐being when confronted by that which generates ill‐being. In short, agape repays evil with good. While research on love and science requires much more than adequate definitions, I believe that the definitions I proffer can prove useful in furthering the love‐and‐science research program.     

Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science

This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be adopted in any computer science publishing standard. These principles would contribute to the reliability and scientific nature of academic publications in computer science and would allow for more straightforward discourse in future publications.     

The Hope,Promise, and Possibility of Psychotherapy

In this paper, five values—diversity, science, education, practice, and spirit—(a) are examined within the professional context of psychotherapy, (b) are presented as forming the foundation of much if not all that is psychotherapy, and (c) are considered as binding values that join us as a community of practicing, theorizing, and researching psychotherapists. Some of the positives of each value are reviewed. Diversity has heightened our sensitivity to and respect for individual and cultural differences. Science has kept us focused on empirically challenging and empirically informing our practice. Education has maintained emphasis on providing solid training/supervision in psychotherapy and transmitting its culture. Practice has provided us with opportunities to increasingly implement and expand on our role as helpers and healers. Spirit has been the guiding light—the heart and soul—that supports, infuses and informs all of our therapeutic endeavors and gives them meaning. What follows is a celebration of sorts—(a) capturing some of what we have done and are doing right in psychotherapy, (b) reflecting some of the weight of those “right” efforts, and (c) conveying some of the inherent hope, promise, and possibility that forever guide us in our work.