DOES THE SUPERVENIENCE ARGUMENT GENERALIZE?

We evaluate the scope of Jaegwon Kim's “supervenience argument” for reduction. Does its conclusion apply only to psychology, or does it generalize to all the special sciences? The claim that the supervenience argument generalizes to all the special sciences if it goes through for psychology is often raised as an objection to the supervenience argument. We argue that this objection is ambiguous. We distinguish three readings of it and suggest that some of them make it a plausible claim, whereas other readings make it implausible. We suggest that this ambiguity is the result of picturing the world as being hierarchically organized in levels, with the domain of physics at the bottom and the domains of the social sciences at the top. The plausibility of the objection depends on how we think of this picture. This popular picture, we suggest, involves three different dimensions along which reduction may occur.     

LISTENING AND SPEAKING PSYCHOANALYTICALLY ‐ WITHWHAT IN MIND?*

In this paper, the proposition is developed that multi‐model thinking with respect both to theories of mind and to theories of technique has always been implicitly present in psychoanalytic practice as a response to the demands of the clinical moment. But this has gone unnoticed and untheorised, in part because it is hidden in general considerations regarding tact, timing and (less discussed) variations in voice tone and also because our psychoanalytic practices, without our awareness but as adaptations to the clinical moment, do not always match our theories. The author offers reasons from the broad culture of psychoanalysis why this is so. He also offers a conceptualisation and a strategy for raising the implicit and untheorised to heightened levels of awareness; he does this by highlighting the place of patient characteristics as the underpinning of theory variation and the place of a vast array of clinical possibilities as the backdrop of analytic listening. Clinical examples are used throughout.     

DO BLACK AND WHITE SUPERVISORY PROBLEM SOLVING STYLES DIFFER?*

Do black supervisors manage differently than white supervisors? Do black supervisors solve problems in the same way as white supervisors? To investigate these issues a group of 21 blacks and 56 whites in a supervisory training program conducted by the College of Business, University of Georgia, were studied using a take-home paper and pencil exercise. Certain independent variables were first identified which included biographical data, employment experience and personality factors. The exercises attempted to measure the way they resolved role conflict situations and handled disciplinary problems–two important duties of supervisors. The most outstanding finding from the study was the paucity of differences in all measures except in attitudes toward received discipline. Blacks were less willing to accept harsh punishment for violation of organizational rules than whites, especially where there was a history of high performance. We conclude, however, that organizational acculturation may substantially offset any minority subcultural influences in organizational situations.     

Job Complexity,Performance, and Well‐being: When Does Supplies‐Values Fit Matter?*

We extend person–job fit research by investigating job performance as a moderator of the supplies–values fit relationship with strain outcomes (somatic complaints and depression). Drawing on cybernetic stress and psychological centrality perspectives, we argue that supplies–values misfit relates to lower well‐being levels when job performance is low but that this effect is attenuated when job performance is high. The results are consistent with this prediction across 3 studies that provide progressively more rigorous tests of the hypothesis. Implications of the results for theoretical and empirical person–job fit research are addressed.     

DOES SCIENCE CLARIFY GOD'S RELATION TO THE WORLD?

Abstract. Central to the work of Arthur Peacocke on science and religion is the intention to develop a reasonable faith within an intelligible framework of meaning. Showing the inadequacy of reductionism is necessary for this purpose. Knowledge of God is related to what science can tell us about creation. From an evolutionary framework, characterized as a delicate balance that issued in humans, and manifested through contingency and chance, God's actions are expressed as exploring the potentialities of creation. The creation is understood to be in God, but God is more than the world, as in panentheism. God suffers with the creation in love, and the focus of human meaning is expressed in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, the sacrament of God.     

BEYOND BARBOUR OR BACK TO BASICS? THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE‐AND‐RELIGION AND THE QUEST FOR UNITY

Reflecting on the future of the field of science‐and‐religion, I focus on three aspects. First, I describe the history of the religion‐and‐science dialogue and argue that the emergence of the field was largely contingent on social‐cultural factors in Western theology, especially in the United States. Next, I focus on the enormous influence of science on Western society and on what I call cultural scientism, which influences discussions in science‐and‐religion, especially how theological notions are taken up. I illustrate by sketching the way divine action has been studied in science‐and‐religion. The divine‐action debates may seem irrelevant to theologians because the way divine action is dealt with in science‐and‐religion is theologically problematic. Finally, I analyze the quest for integration and unity of science and religion that underlies much of the contemporary field of science‐and‐religion and was stimulated particularly by the efforts of Ian Barbour. I argue that his quest echoes the logical positivist vision of unification and has a strong bias toward science as the sole source of rationality, which does not take theology fully seriously.     

CO‐CREATING CO‐CREATORS? THE “HUMAN FACTOR” IN EDUCATION

This article presents an example of the contributions the field of science and religion could offer to educational theory. Building on a narrative analysis of Philip Hefner's proposal to use “created co‐creator” as central metaphor for theological anthropology, the importance of culture is brought to the fore. Education should support a needed revitalization of our cultural heritage, and thus enable humanity to (re‐)connect with the global ecological network and with the divine as grounding source of this network. In the concluding reflections of this article, the possibility of a secular interpretation of “created co‐creator,” in which “God” is reduced to “evolution,” is assessed.     

BEHAVIORISM: PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION?1

The form frequently taken by behavior-modification programs is analyzed in terms of the parent science, Behaviorism. Whereas Behaviorism assumes that behavior is the result of contingencies, and that lasting behavior change involves changing the contingencies that give rise to and support the behavior, most behavior-modification programs merely arrange special contingencies in a special environment to eliminate the “problem” behavior. Even when the problem behavior is as widespread as alcoholism and crime, behavior modifiers focus on “fixing” the alcoholic and the criminal, not on changing the societal contingencies that prevail outside the therapeutic environment and continue to produce alcoholics and criminals. The contingencies that shape this method of dealing with behavioral problems are also analyzed, and this analysis leads to a criticism of the current social structure as a behavior control system. Although applied behaviorists have frequently focused on fixing individuals, the science of Behaviorism provides the means to analyze the structures, the system, and the forms of societal control that produce the “problems”.     

THE MODERN INVENTION OF “SCIENCE‐AND‐RELIGION”: WHAT FOLLOWS?

I am grateful to the four reviewers of The Territories of Science and Religion for their careful and insightful readings of the book, and their kind words about it. They all got the central arguments pretty much right, and thus any critical comments are not the result of fundamental misunderstandings. While there are some common themes in the assessments, each reviewer, happily, has offered a distinct perspective on the book. For this reason I will deal with their comments in turn, but with a focus throughout on a generally expressed concern about the broader implications of the book's historical analysis, and what positive or concrete proposals might follow from it.     

THE EXPLORATION OF ECOSPACE: EXTENDING OR SUPPLEMENTING THE NEO‐DARWINIAN PARADIGM?

The neo‐Darwinian paradigm, focusing on natural selection of genes responsible for differential adaption, provides the foundation for explaining evolutionary processes. The modern synthesis is broader, however, focusing on organisms rather than on gene transmissions per se. Yet, strands of current biology argue for further supplementation of Darwinian theory, pointing to nonbiotic drivers of evolutionary development, for example, self‐organization of physical structures, and the interaction between individual organisms, groups of organisms, and their nonbiotic environments. According to niche construction theory, when organisms and groups develop, they not only adapt to their environments but modify their environments, creating new habitats for later generations. Insofar as ecological niches persist beyond the lifecycle of individual organisms, an ecological inheritance system exists alongside genetic inheritance. Such ecological structures may even facilitate the development of a cultural inheritance system, as we see in humans. The article discusses theological perspectives of such new developments within holistic biology.     

Is there a ‘psychosomatogenic’ family?*

Review of the literature revealed two family theories of psychosomatic illness: the ‘enmeshed’ family of Minuchin and the family with affect disturbances. We interviewed twelve families, each containing a child with eczema. Most, but not all, of the families do fit in with one or other or both of the proposed interactional patterns, but the theory of a single family type, the ‘psychosomatogenic family’, is not supported. This complements the studies of individuals where specificity hypotheses have proved oversimplified.     

EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT: DOES THE SOURCE MATTER?1

In a chamber with a single response key, pigeon's key pecks were reinforced with food according to a variable-interval schedule. In addition, extra reinforcements occurred concurrently according to an independent schedule. In one condition, availability of the extra reinforcements was signalled by a change in key color from white to red. The extra reinforcements occurred after a peck on the red key. In a second condition, the extra reinforcements were unsignalled and occurred only after a 2-sec pause in pecking for one group of subjects and were unsignalled and occurred freely as scheduled for another group of subjects. In the first two conditions, duration of reinforcement was varied. A third condition duplicated the second but varied rate rather than duration of reinforcement. The rate of pecking varied inversely with the amount of extra reinforcement per unit time according to the same function, regardless of the condition regulating occurrence of the extra reinforcements, and regardless of whether or not a 2-sec pause was required for their occurrence. The shape of this function was predicted by Herrnstein's (1970) matching law.