Response to Pashler et al. (2016)

Pashler, Rohrer, Abramson, Wolfson, and Harris (2016/this issue) in their critique of Chatterjee, Rose, and Sinha (2013 Chatterjee, P., Rose, R., &; Sinha, J. (2013). Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money. Marketing Letters, 24, 109–118. doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9215-0[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) data argue that (a) large effect sizes in Study 1 and Study 2 undermine the credibility of the data; (b) in a lexical task that is part of Study 3, a concentration of participants in (5,0) and (0,5) benefit/cost word data points and the similarity of 9 neutral word responses at these points are extremely unlikely; and (c) there are apparent errors in the execution of Study 3. In this response, I examine these issues in detail. A recent review of money prime literature (Vohs, 2015 Vohs, K. (2015). Money priming can change people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors: An update on 10 years of experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), e86–e93. doi:10.1037/xge0000091[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) notes many effect sizes that are as big as or bigger than ours. Although 8 coding errors were discovered in Study 3 data and this particular study has been retracted from that article, as I show in this article, the arguments being put forth by the critics are untenable. For instance, my analysis shows that results hold even without the concentration of (5,0) and (0,5) participants, and I offer statistical simulations to counter critics’ arguments. Regarding the apparent errors in Study 3, I find that removing the target word stems SUPP and CE do not influence findings in any way. I also report findings from MacDonnell and White (2015 MacDonnell, R., &; White, K. (2015). How construals of money versus time impact consumer charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 551–563. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv042[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), who replicate the basic finding of Chatterjee et al. in a different context.     

Rightness,Parsimony, and Consequentialism: A Response to Peterson

This paper argues against Martin Peterson in favour of the ‘standard view’ of rightness, according to which rightness does not come in degrees. It begins (section 1) with a defence of the standard view against the charge that it is committed to ‘deontic leaps’. It goes on (section 2) to claim that greater conceptual parsimony would allow Peterson to avoid certain problems involving equality and related matters that arise out of his conception of moral value, and that Peterson should take the same instrumentalist attitude towards the norms of practical rationality as he does towards the norms of common-sense morality. The paper closes (section 3) with some doubts about Peterson’s programme of consequentialization and its alleged advantages.     

Access to Assistive Technology,Systems Thinking,and Market Shaping: A Response to Durocher et al.

Fairness of access to assistive technology is important for its allocation on an equitable basis and for broader social justice and rights issues. Although the use of Daniels’s notion of “justice as fair opportunity” is helpful to the context of assistive technology, other aspects of Daniels’s broader conceptualisation of “just health” are not appropriate in this context. It is argued that fairness of access to assistive technology is crucial for the equitable attainment of the sustainable development goals; however, such access will be achieved only by the sector developing a much stronger systems thinking and market shaping perspective.     

Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: A Response to Krahmer et al.

This response discusses the experiment reported in Krahmer et al.’s Letter to the Editor of Cognitive Science. We observe that their results do not tell us whether the Incremental Algorithm is better or worse than its competitors, and we speculate about implications for reference in complex domains, and for learning from ‘‘normal” (i.e., non‐semantically‐balanced) corpora.     

Response to Lynn, et al.'s "Evaluation of Woodard's theory of perceptually oriented hypnosis"

In this article some misunderstandings of Perceptually Oriented Hypnosis presented in the recent evaluation by Lynn, et al. are pointed out. Perceptually Oriented Hypnosis emphasizes individual differences naturally occurring in the experience of everyday life or being-in-the-world and differentiation as major themes to understanding hypnosis. Woodard advocates that qualitative research enhances our understanding of hypnotic experiencing and allows us to examine hypnotic phenomena that elude the laboratory and control settings.     

The Twofold Assumption: A Response to Cole-Turner,Moritz, Peters and Peterson

Abstract

The article discusses points and perspectives offered by the four respondents to the R.J. Russell Fellow Lectures for 2013/14. Joshua M. Moritz and Ron Cole-Turner bring in new material from biblical and patristic traditions relevant for the proposal of deep incarnation. How does the concept of deep incarnation fare in relation to tradition and science? Ted Peters and Daniel J. Peterson raise questions about the compatibility between a compatibilist view of divine action and creaturely freedom on the one hand, and ideas of kenosis on the other. Which models of kenosis models are workable, and which forms of compatibilism?