Two Theories of Soul

I (1) outline two accounts the Catholic Church gives of the human soul, calling them the Lateran and the Vienne doctrines, and (2) argue they are inconsistent. (3) I run over several difficulties in the more popular Lateran doctrine. (4) I look at three uses to which Catholics might want to put a theory of the soul, and question whether either of the theories on offer can meet their needs. (5) I distinguish the Biblical idea of resurrection from the Greek idea of immortality. Finally (6) I commend the Vienne doctrine as philosophy but advise supplementing it with a view of creation, salvation and sanctification as forming a continuum rather than a discontinuous series of episodes.     

Two Theories of Just War

As it is traditionally conceived, Just War Theory is not well suited for dealing with nation vs non-nation wars. It thus makes sense to create a second Just War Theory to deal with these wars. This article explores the differences and similarities between the two theories.

Two Theories of Visual Speed

A measure of clustering in free recall based upon the parameters of the original stimulus list (R/Opt. R) was proposed and compared with five other measures for eight recall protocols. The R/Opt. R measure was shown to be relatively independent of the length of the recall protocol, but yielded higher scores where fewer categories were utilized. Optimum clustering was defined not simply in terms of perfect ordering of elements within the protocol but also in terms of the number of categories and items within those categories in the original stimulus list.     

顿悟:是进程监控还是表征转换

当前解释顿悟问题解决机制的理论主要有表征转换理论和进程监控理论。进程监控理论主要解释了顿悟问题为什么困难,但事实上它并没有说明顿悟问题为什么会解决,只回答了在什么情况下被试才会寻求其他的方法,而且它把顿悟问题解决的一般过程看成是同常规问题解决方法相同的过程。而表征转换理论主要解释了顿悟是如何获得的——顿悟的获得是由于问题解决者对问题的表征实现了正确的转变,但它并没有解释表征什么时候、怎么样才能转变?顿悟问题的解决经历了三个认知加工阶段,顿悟问题的解决需要在消除定势情况下激活正确的启发信息(线索),并验证了顿悟问题的原型激活和关键启发信息理论假说。     

论意义理论中的两条路线

意义理论在上世纪后期曾经是哲学讨论的一个核心领域,并成为语言学、逻辑学、认知科学和心理学的交叉研究领域;但它是一个非常复杂而又混乱的研究领域。D.刘易斯在谈到意义理论时指出:我区分两个主题。首先,可以把可能的语言和语法描述成一种抽象的语义系统,藉此我们把语言中的符号与我们周遭的世界关联起来。其次,通过心理学和语言学事实的描述,任何抽象的语义系统都     

控制相关理论述评

在控制感与实际控制行为的区分基础上,回顾了与控制相关的理论,分析了各理论的特点和新近的研究;指出各种控制理论都是从不同的侧面研究控制,自成体系,缺乏沟通;控制概念模糊,理论间重叠严重,尚无一个理论能很好的将它们整合;存在的问题直接导致了控制测评的混乱,阻碍了进一步的分析研究;理清控制感与真实控制之间的关系,对进一步改进和标准化控制感评估有重要意义。     

Two Conceptions of Sparse Properties*

Abstract: Are the sparse properties drawn from all the levels of nature, or only the fundamental level? I discuss the notion of sparse property found in Armstrong and Lewis, show that there are tensions in the roles they have assigned the sparse properties, and argue that the sparse properties should be drawn from all the levels of nature. The issue has direct bearing on reductionism. If the sparse properties are drawn from all the levels of nature, then macro‐scientific properties are just as primary as micro‐scientific properties, and do not need to be reduced to them.     

以产生式为单位的工作记忆容量研究

工作记忆容量,始终是工作记忆研究的主要方面之一。早在1974年,Baddeley和Hitch就采用分心作业的方法,对此进行过实验研究。他们发现,被试在记忆中负载0—2个项目时,推理作业(作业较简单)几乎没有受到干扰。但当被试需要记住6个项目时,推理时间从2．73秒(记忆负载0个项目)升至4．73秒;如果要求快速作出推理判断,则被试能够回忆的项目仅为3．7个。     

Theism, Evolutionary Epistemology, and Two Theories of Truth

In Michael Ruse's recent publications, such as Taking Darwin Seriously (1998) and Evolutionary Naturalism (1995), he has advocated a certain sort of evolutionary epistemology and has argued that it implies a rejection of metaphysical realism (MR) in favor of a position that he calls "internal realism" (IR). Additionally, he has maintained that, insofar as his evolutionary epistemology implies a rejection of MR in favor of IR, it escapes the kind of argument against naturalism that Alvin Plantinga makes in his Warrant and Proper Function (1993). In this article I explain the relevant views and arguments of Ruse and Plantinga, and I critically engage with Ruse's views, arguing that (1) his case for rejecting MR has no essential connection to evolutionary considerations; (2) his case for rejecting MR depends upon internalist assumptions about the nature of knowledge that are in need of some kind of defense; and (3) given his implicit internalism and his commitment to IR, his argument for rejecting MR can be used against his IR.     

儿童归纳推理机制述评

在儿童早期归纳推理机制的探索过程中,一直存在着两种观点.一种认为儿童归纳推理是以类别或概念为基础的;另一种则认为儿童归纳推理是以相似性为基础的.这两种观点可能各自反应了儿童归纳推理的一个方面:前者可能说明的是儿童在知识丰富领域的归纳推理;而后者则可能说明的是儿童在知识贫乏领域的归纳推理.     

中外两种推理理论的实验比较研究

通过两个实验对中国学者提出的“推理题与推理者的推理知识双重结构模型”和Evans提出的“双重加工理论”进行了实验比较研究。实验一通过两种评定方法对相应性质命题进行评定后所得实验结果表明Evans等(1983)有关“信念效应”研究中的“结论可信性”变量可以视为与胡竹菁等(1996)实验中的“内容正确性”变量是同一性质的变量; 实验二根据“形式正确性”和“内容正确性”两个自变量设计的推理实验结果与Evans等(1983)的研究结果基本一致; 但增加“内容熟悉性”这一自变量设计的推理实验结果表明“推理题与推理者的推理知识双重结构模型”比Evans提出的“双重加工理论”能更好地解释推理者对性质三段论的推理结果。     

Through Multiple Lenses: Implicit Theories of Creativity Among Indian Children and Adults*

This constructivist qualitative enquiry reveals a multiplicity of implicit theories of creativity extant in Indian culture with generic and domain specific usage of indigenous terms. Creativity was dominantly construed as a faculty of the nature of ‘pratibha’, in keeping with Indian philosophical thought, and with reference to the self, with participants invoking the holistic self, cognitive self, experiential/emotional self and physical self to describe creativity. The sense of creativity in these seemingly disparate, self‐based construals, the uncovering of which is the unique contribution of this study, derived from the person's experience of a sense of agency, rather than merely the production of novelty per se. This emphasis on process; novelty being central for some but epiphenomenal for others; the varied meanings of ‘newness’; experiencing creativity as self‐expression, self‐extension, self‐fulfillment and self‐actualization; and equating creativity with the act of learning reflect distinctive elements of implicit theories that have emerged in this study.     

反事实思维两大理论：范例说和目标－指向说

反事实思维是个体对不真实的条件或可能性进行替换的一种思维过程。该文通过综合国外许多研究者的研究成果,探讨了反事实思维的定义、分类以及反事实思维的两大理论：范例说和目标－指向说。范例说认为反事实思维的激发是自动化过程,影响反事实思维产生的因素包括：正常性、结果的效价、与替代结果的接近性、前提的突变性和前提的突出性。目标－指向说则认为反事实思维的激发过程同样受目标、情绪控制、态度等认知因素的影响     

Two Is Not Always Better Than One: A Critical Evaluation of Two-System Theories

ABSTRACT— Over the past two decades, there has been an upsurge in theoretical frameworks alluding to the existence of two different processing systems that supposedly operate according to different rules. This article critically examines the scientific advance offered by these theories (in particular advances in the domains of reasoning, decision making, and social cognition) and questions their theoretical coherence as well as the evidence for their existence. We scrutinize the conceptual underpinnings of two-system models and explicate the assumptions underlying these models to see whether they are reasonable. We also evaluate the empirical paradigms used to validate two-system models and ponder about their explanatory strength and predictive power. Given the popularity of these models, we discuss the appeal of two-system theories and suggest potential reasons for their prevalence. We comment on the potential costs associated with these models and allude to the desired nature of potential alternatives. We conclude that two-system models currently provide little scientific advance, and we encourage researchers to adopt more rigorous conceptual definitions and employ more stringent criteria for testing the empirical evidence in support for two-system theories.