THE CHRISTIAN'S DILEMMA: ORGANICISM OR MECHANISM?

Is organicism inherently Christian‐friendly, and for that matter, is mechanism inherently religion nonfriendly? They have tended to be, but the story is much more complicated. The long history of the intertwined metaphors of nature taken as an organism, versus that of nature as a machine, reveals that both metaphors have flourished in the endeavors of philosophers, scientists, and persons of faith alike. Different kinds of Christians have been receptive to both organicist and mechanistic models, just as various kinds of nonreligious scientists have been receptive to both holistic and machine metaphors. Although, it is true, organicism has been generally more attractive to persons of faith than mechanism (and vice versa), an overview of the rich and varied history of allegiances to these metaphors—religious and nonreligious alike—shows that debate is much more interesting and complex. A brief inspection of conversation surrounding recent scientific discoveries shows that this debate between metaphors is still very much alive today.     

THE ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR WHAT'S IN IT FOR US?

When we publish behavioral research, we are not allowed to communicate the thrill, the poetry, or the exhilaration that are outcomes of the discovery process. Yet, these are among our most potent reinforcers. Explicit recognition of the emotional accompaniments to research could help attract students into the experimental analysis of behavior.     

ADAPT OR DIE: THE DEATH OF INVARIANTISM?

Contextualists support their view by appeal to cases which show that whether an attribution of knowledge seems correct depends on attributor factors. Contextualists conclude that the truth-conditions of knowledge attributions depend on the attributor's context. Invariantists respond that these cases show only that the warranted assertability-conditions of knowledge attributions depend on the attributor's context. I examine DeRose's recent argument against the possibility of such an invariantist response, an argument which appeals to the knowledge account of assertion and the context-sensitivity of assertion. I argue that DeRose's new argument does not rule out either of the two forms of invariantism, classic and subject-sensitive invariantism. Further, I argue against DeRose that an invariantist can explain the context-sensitivity of assertion.     

DEAFNESS IN THE FAMILY: WILL THE THERAPIST LISTEN?

This discussion of Harvey's paper suggests a basic approach to working with families of the deaf. It emphasizes the utilization of the natural resources and strengths of these families in helping them solve problems. The approach assumes that communication is always secure in families and that therapists must learn to capitalize on the family's intrinsic style of communication. The use of an interpreter is viewed as resourceful in some cases, depending upon individual family circumstance.     

MALE ACCEPTANCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN: THE RESULTS OF ALTRUISTIC OR EGOISTICAL MOTIVES?

It has been argued in the past that self-interest plays an important role in the reaction of men to affirmative action programs that are designed to promote women in non-traditional jobs. In the main, this hypothesis has received limited support apparently because the conception of self-interest was understood in terms of one's private well-being. It is clear, however, that self-interest also refers to group status or position in society. In this study self-interest was measured through the concept of collective relative deprivation. The effects of relative deprivation on behalf of others, and the procedure employed to implement affirmative action programs on men's attitudes toward these programs were also assessed. One hundred and forty-five male managers or professionals participated in the study. According to predictions, results show that collective relative deprivation and preferential treatment for women have negative effects on affirmative action attitudes. Findings are thus supportive of the broader conception of self-interest and relative deprivation arguments. Finally, the positive link between relative deprivation on behalf of others and affirmative action indicates that men who disapprove of sex inequalities support these programs. Il a été postulé que le ‘self-interest’ influence les réactions des hommes aux programmes d'action positive mis sur pied pour assurer une représentativité plus équitable des femmes dans les secteurs non-traditionnels d'emploi. Cette hypothèse n'a pas été confirmée en raison de la conception individualiste du ‘self-interest’. Le ‘self-interest’ réfère tout autant à la situation de l'individu qu'à celle de son groupe. Dans la présente étude, le ‘self-interest’ a été mesuré par le biais du concept de privation relative collective. Les effets de la privation relative pour autrui et de la procédure d'implantation des programmes d'action positive sur les attitudes des hommes face à l'action positive ont également été évalués. En tout, 145 cadres ou professionnels masculins ont participé à la présente étude. Les résultats confirment les hypothèses voulant que la privation relative collective et le traitement préférentiel ont des effets négatifs sur les attitudes aux programmes d'action positive, ce qui milite en faveur d'une conception élargie du ‘self-interest’. Finalement, le lien positif entre la privation relative autrui et l'action positive montre que les hommes qui sont défavorables aux inégalités de sexe favorisent les programmes.     

PUNISHMENT IN HUMAN CHOICE: DIRECT OR COMPETITIVE SUPPRESSION?

This investigation compared the predictions of two models describing the integration of reinforcement and punishment effects in operant choice. Deluty's (1976) competitive-suppression model (conceptually related to two-factor punishment theories) and de Villiers' (1980) direct-suppression model (conceptually related to one-factor punishment theories) have been tested previously in nonhumans but not at the individual level in humans. Mouse clicking by college students was maintained in a two-alternative concurrent schedule of variable-interval money reinforcement. Punishment consisted of variable-interval money losses. Experiment 1 verified that money loss was an effective punisher in this context. Experiment 2 consisted of qualitative model comparisons similar to those used in previous studies involving nonhumans. Following a no-punishment baseline, punishment was superimposed upon both response alternatives. Under schedule values for which the direct-suppression model, but not the competitive-suppression model, predicted distinct shifts from baseline performance, or vice versa, 12 of 14 individual-subject functions, generated by 7 subjects, supported the direct-suppression model. When the punishment models were converted to the form of the generalized matching law, least-squares linear regression fits for a direct-suppression model were superior to those of a competitive-suppression model for 6 of 7 subjects. In Experiment 3, a more thorough quantitative test of the modified models, fits for a direct-suppression model were superior in 11 of 13 cases. These results correspond well to those of investigations conducted with nonhumans and provide the first individual-subject evidence that a direct-suppression model, evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively, describes human punishment better than a competitive-suppression model. We discuss implications for developing better punishment models and future investigations of punishment in human choice.     

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”.     

ENFORCEMENT OR INCENTIVES? PROMOTING SAFETY BELT USE AMONG MILITARY PERSONNEL IN THE NETHERLANDS

During a nationwide campaign to promote safety belt use among military personnel, a field study was conducted at 12 different military bases in the Netherlands. Amount of enforcement, type of publicity, and incentive strategies were varied among military bases. Observations of safety belt use among servicemen in their personal vehicles were conducted before the campaign, immediately following the campaign, and 3 months later. Safety belt use increased from 65% during baseline to 73% directly after the campaign and to 76% 3 months later. An overall 28.6% increase in safety belt use (from 63% to 81%) was observed at seven bases, whereas no changes were found at five bases (68% on all occasions). To a large degree the effects were due to a 37.7% increase among young drivers. These results confirmed that enforcement, as well as incentives, can be effective in promoting safety belt use. However, treatment effects were not systematic, thereby complicating the interpretation of the results. Implications of these varied outcomes are discussed.     

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.     

THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEISM?

Abstract. Although the Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), a current approach to the scientific study of religion, has exerted an influence in the study of religion for almost twenty years, the question of its compatibility or incompatibility with theism has not been the subject of serious discussion until recently. Some critics of religion have taken a lively interest in the CSR because they see it as useful in explaining why religious believers consistently make costly commitments to false beliefs. Conversely, some theists have argued for the compatibility of religious belief with basic CSR results. In this article, we contribute to the incipient discussion about the worldview relevance of the CSR by arguing that while a theistic reading of the field only represents one interpretative option at most, antitheistic claims about the incompatibility of the CSR with theism look like they may be harder to maintain than first appearances might suggest.