为什么说风水是伪科学

风水,是认为所谓地气可以渗入死人骨骼从而影响生者祸福的一种巫术。它是传统方术的一种。风水术虽然在理论上搀和了古人的环境经验,但更多的是以低级有神论的世界观为核心的,与科学相去甚远。如果一定要把这样与科学八竿子打不着的东西标榜成科学,那这样的科学就是假冒科学,通常称为伪科     

有感于《风水地理》进课堂

近日读报,发现本市党委机关报援引了一条这样的消息:家居摆设与风水有关系吗?电视机为何要摆放在"土"的方位?近日记者获悉,《风水地理》这     

Escape from freedom: Choosing not to choose in pigeons

Preference for the availability of food-reinforcement alternatives was investigated with Rachlin and Green's (1972) concurrent-chains self-control paradigm. The terminal link of one chain made available a choice between immediate access to food for T seconds and delayed access to food for 4 seconds. The terminal link of the other chain provided only delayed access to food. When T was reduced to .25 seconds, pigeons began to select the delayed-access key in both terminal links. Even so, the pigeons strongly preferred constraint over choice. This effect could not be accounted for by differences in the actual amount of food obtained in the terminal links, by avoidance of the immediate-reinforcement key when not presented as part of a choice, or by avoidance of a multi-key terminal link. Rather, constraint was preferred over freedom. Apparently, the preference for choice is determined by the particular type of choice offered.     

Choosing what to choose from: Preference for inclusion over exclusion when constructing consideration sets from large choice sets

Decision making is a two‐stage process, consisting of, first, consideration set construction and then final choice. Decision makers can form a consideration set from a choice set using one of two strategies: including the options they wish to further consider or excluding those they do not wish to further consider. The authors propose that decision makers have a relative preference for an inclusion (vs. exclusion) strategy when choosing from large choice sets and that this preference is driven primarily by a lay belief that inclusion requires less effort than exclusion, particularly in large choice sets. Study 1 demonstrates that decision makers prefer using an inclusion (vs. exclusion) strategy when faced with large choice sets. Study 2 replicates the effect of choice set size on preference for consideration set construction strategy and demonstrates that the belief that exclusion is more effortful mediates the relative preference for inclusion in large choice sets. Studies 3 and 4 further support the importance of perceived effort, demonstrating a greater preference for inclusion in large choice sets when decision makers are primed to think about effort (vs. accuracy; Study 3) and when the choice set is perceived as requiring more effort because of more information being presented about each alternative (vs. more alternatives in the choice set; Study 4). Finally, Study 5 manipulates consideration set construction strategy, showing that using inclusion (vs. exclusion) in large choice sets leads to smaller consideration sets, greater confidence in the decision process, and a higher quality consideration set.