Pluralism, scientific knowledge, and the fallacy of overriding values

The paper examines one implication of pluralism, the view that all values are conditional and none are overriding. This implication is that since scientific knowledge is one of the conditional values, there are circumstances in which the pursuit of even the most basic scientific knowledge is legitimately curtailed. These circumstances occur when the pursuit of scientific knowledge conflicts with moral and political values which, in that context, are more important than it. The argument focuses on the case for and against space exploration in search of intelligent extraterrestrial life. The widely held supposition that search for pure scientific knowledge cannot be reasonably curtailed is identified as the fallacy of overriding values.     

Role of HIV serostatus,relationship status of the patient,homophobia, and social desirability of the psychologist on decisions regarding confidentiality

Abstract

What factors influence a psychologist's decision to maintain or break confidentiality of an HIV-positive patient? Dangerousness (serostatus), identifiability (relationship status of patient and third party), homophobia, and impression management were the major factors examined. The sample was composed of 236 psychologists and psychologists in training attending the 1994 American Psychological Association (APA) convention in Los Angeles, California. They were given 16 scenarios depicting four different situations with patients at various HIV risk levels, and measures determining levels of impression management and homophobia. A majority (51% to 92.2%, depending on the scenario) of the respondents chose to maintain confidentiality in all scenarios. Participants were least likely to maintain confidentiality in scenarios describing a high level of dangerousness and identifiability.     

Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism and the fallacy of pragmatic inconsistency

In this paper I shall consider the difficulty for Ethical Egoism, Act Utilitarianism and later what I shall call Cumulative Effect Utilitarianism, that they both commit the fallacy of pragmatic inconsistency. I shall distinguish various forms of the fallacy of pragmatic inconsistency; in particular I shall distinguish between the fallacy of direct and indirect pragmatic inconsistency, and shall argue that though both Ethical Egoism and Act Utilitarianism probably commit both, Cumulative Effect Utilitarianism does not.How art thou out of breath when thou hast breath To say to me that thou art out of breath?William Shakespeare,Romeo and Juliet. But when I tell him he hates flatterers, He says he does, being then most flattered.William Shakespeare,Julius Caesar.     

Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy

Information generally comes from less than fully reliable sources. Rationality, it seems, requires that one take source reliability into account when reasoning on the basis of such information. Recently, Bovens and Hartmann (2003) proposed an account of the conjunction fallacy based on this idea. They show that, when statements in conjunction fallacy scenarios are perceived as coming from such sources, probability theory prescribes that the "fallacy" be committed in certain situations. Here, the empirical validity of their model was assessed. The model predicts that statements added to standard conjunction problems will change the incidence of the fallacy. It also predicts that statements from reliable sources should yield an increase in fallacy rates (relative to unreliable sources). Neither the former (Experiment 1) nor the latter prediction (Experiment 3) was confirmed, although Experiment 2 showed that people can derive source reliability estimates from the likelihood of statements in a manner consistent with the tested model. In line with the experimental results, model fits and sensitivity analyses also provided very little evidence in favor of the model. This suggests that Bovens and Hartmann's present model fails to explain fully people's judgements in standard conjunction fallacy tasks.     

An antinomy of political judgment: Kant,Arendt, and the role of purposiveness in reflective judgment

This article builds on Arendt’s development of a Kantian politics from out of the conception of reflective judgment in the Critique of Judgment. Arendt looks to Kant’s analysis of the beautiful to explain how political thought can be conceived. And yet Arendt describes such Kantian reflection as an empirical undertaking that justifies itself only in relation to the abstract principle of the moral law. The problem for such an account is that the autonomy of the moral law appears to be at odds with the social cohesion of Kantian political life. The ensuing contradiction can be deemed the antinomy of political judgment. Kant’s conception of reflective judgment offers such an inquiry considerably more to work with than Arendt uncovers. In particular, the regulative principle of the purposiveness of nature that is shown to direct all reflection can be seen to offer the solution to this antinomy.     

Shame,guilt, and personality judgment

The purpose of this study was to shed further light on the intrapersonal and interpersonal correlates of shame- and guilt-proneness by examining their relations with self- and peer-ratings of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality. Shame- and guilt-proneness were assessed using a scenario-based and a checklist measure. Consistent with findings from previous research, the self-rating data yielded support for the view that shame-proneness may be associated with more maladaptive patterns than guilt-proneness. However, peer-ratings of personality failed to corroborate these findings. Both scenario-based and checklist measures of shame-proneness were associated with a tendency to underestimate one’s Agreeableness relative to peer-ratings. Several possible interpretations of these findings are discussed in light of the extant research on personality judgment.     

Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy

Most people believe that they should avoid changing their answer when taking multiple-choice tests. Virtually all research on this topic, however, has suggested that this strategy is ill-founded: Most answer changes are from incorrect to correct, and people who change their answers usually improve their test scores. Why do people believe in this strategy if the data so strongly refute it? The authors argue that the belief is in part a product of counterfactual thinking. Changing an answer when one should have stuck with one's original answer leads to more "if only . . ." self-recriminations than does sticking with one's first instinct when one should have switched. As a consequence, instances of the former are more memorable than instances of the latter. This differential availability provides individuals with compelling (albeit illusory) personal evidence for the wisdom of always following their 1st instinct, with suboptimal test scores the result.     

Death,sin, and God's judgment

Grief is difficult for everyone, including the professional. And yet resolving grief is necessary for life to be comfortable and productive. This paper looks at the story of a young man and how unresolved grief, inappropriate guilt, and uncontrollable despair colored every phase of his life. It also demonstrates the tragedy when grief is allowed to remain in denial and resolution comes too late.     

On the nature of the conjunction fallacy

In a seminal work, Tversky and Kahneman showed that in some contexts people tend to believe that a conjunction of events (e.g., Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement) is more likely to occur than one of the conjuncts (e.g., Linda is a bank teller). This belief violates the conjunction rule in probability theory. Tversky and Kahneman called this phenomenon the “conjunction fallacy”. Since the discovery of the phenomenon in 1983, researchers in psychology and philosophy have engaged in important controversies around the conjunction fallacy. The goal of this paper is to explore the most important of these controversies, namely, the controversy about the nature of the conjunction fallacy. Is the conjunction fallacy mainly due to a misunderstanding of the problem by participants (misunderstanding hypothesis) or is it mainly due to a genuine reasoning bias (reasoning bias hypothesis)? A substantial portion of research on the topic has been directed to test the misunderstanding hypothesis. I review this literature and argue that a stronger case can be made against the misunderstanding hypothesis. Thus, I indirectly provide support for the reasoning bias hypothesis.     

On the reality of the conjunction fallacy

Attributing higher "probability" to a sentence of form p-and-q, relative to p, is a reasoning fallacy only if (1) the word probability carries its modern, technical meaning and (2) the sentence p is interpreted as a conjunct of the conjunction p-and-q. Legitimate doubts arise about both conditions in classic demonstrations of the conjunction fallacy. We used betting paradigms and unambiguously conjunctive statements to reduce these sources of ambiguity about conjunctive reasoning. Despite the precautions, conjunction fallacies were as frequent under betting instructions as under standard probability instructions.     

理性事实与自然主义谬误——兼论摩尔对康德道德哲学的误读

论文以摩尔自然主义谬误概念为出发点,指出摩尔对康德道德哲学的批评是不恰当的,并分析了摩尔对康德的误解及其原因;进而提出康德以理性事实概念为基础,解决了关于善与道德法则的关系,并为善的概念之阐明开辟了新的视野;康德的理性事实概念学说超越了从"是"到"应该"规范伦理学的思路,以及自然主义谬误所指出的错误路径,指出"应该"作为定言命令是被给予的而非被推导的,从而为规范伦理学开辟了新的境界.