On Hare's attempt to bridge the Kantian-consequentialist gap: A response to Forschler's rejoinder

In a paper in this journal (Wall 2016), the author of the present paper critiqued Scott Forschler's attempt (2013) to establish that Jens Timmermann's argument (2005) against R. M. Hare's attempt (1981) to bridge the Kantian-consequentialist gap is unsuccessful. Forschler's thesis is that Hare's utilitarianism is strictly normative, not metaethical. In Hare's ethical rationalism, which is metaethical but contains no intrinsic ends (Forschler 2013), reason determines the proper ends, and preference satisfaction has no value prior to reason's determinations (Forschler 2013). The present author responded that Hare's moral approach presupposes that preference satisfaction is the ultimate end (Wall 2016) and that an analysis of preference satisfaction in Hare's moral approach cannot be confined to normative ethics. Forschler's rejoinder (2017) suggests that Hare's moral theory was misinterpreted by the author, who now shows that such a judgment results from significant oversights concerning the foundation of Hare's moral theory and utilitarian foundations.     

On the validity of graphoanalysis: a rejoinder to Crumbaugh's Reply

Crumbaugh (1977) reexamines an earlier study showing no validity for graphoanalysis (Vestewig, Santee, & Moss, 1976), and from considerations of the methodology and from reanalysis of the data findings some validity for the system. This rejoinder points out conceptual and statistical errors in his reply, and reaffirms the conclusion of the earlier study.     

Negation: A rejoinder to Wales and Grieve

Wales and Grieve (1969) report an experiment in which they show that a factor of “confusability” affects the comprehension of affirmative and negative sentences, and then claim that this is a relevant factor in explaining the difficulty of negatives. The present paper submits arguments and experimental evidence to dispute this claim.     

The disruption of STM: A response to our commentators

We welcome the discussion prompted by our data (Larsen & Baddeley, this issue 2003). In the case of Macken and Jones (this issue 2003), we note that much of it concerns inconsistency between their findings and those of ourselves and/or others, emphasizing the need for further replication. We welcome the emphasis that Neath, Farley, and Surprenant (this issue 2003) place on the importance of strategy. This is likely to be an issue of increasing importance in the field, although we have doubts about the correlational approach adopted by Neath et al. Finally, we welcome the demonstration by Page and Norris (this issue 2003) that their primacy model is able to give a computationally explicit account of the irrelevant speech effect within a broad phonological loop framework.     

A questionable questionnaire: a rejoinder to Marks

In a recent article Marks argues that two previous articles in this journal in 1986 and 1988, questioning the construct validity of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire, should be dismissed due to methodological flaws and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this response to Marks, the methodologies of the two studies in question are clarified and defended. Research and other evidence supporting the two Chara studies are presented. It is concluded that the construct validity of the imagery questionnaire has not been established and that further investigations of the questionnaire, and particularly its rating scale, are warranted.     

In search of explanations: A rejoinder to Borkenau

The main points raised by Borkenau against our challenge of the 'intuitive psychometrics' view of personality judgements are discussed, in particular his example of the link between school grades and intelligence. It is argued that the semantic similarity interpretation advanced in our paper is more adequate and more parsimonious than explanations in terms of psychometric reasoning.     

The need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials: A commentary

The ideology of evidence-base medicine (EBM) has dramatically altered the way we think, conceptualize, philosophize and practice medicine. One of its major pillars is the appraisal and classification of evidence. Although important and beneficial, this process currently lacks detail and is in need of reform. In particular, it largely focuses on three key dimensions (design, [type I] alpha error and beta [type II] error) to grade the quality of evidence and often omits other crucial aspects of evidence such as biological plausibility, reproducibility, generalizability, temporality, consistency and coherence. It also over-values the randomized trial and meta-analytical techniques, discounts the biasing effect of single centre execution and gives insufficient weight to large and detailed observational studies. Unless these aspects are progressively included into systems for grading, evaluating and classifying evidence and duly empirically assessed (according to the EBM paradigm), the EBM process and movement will remain open to criticism of being more evidence-biased than evidence-based.     

论归隐思想与《周易》中归隐思想的学派归属

隐遁或归隐思想是中国文化中的奇葩。通常都是把隐遁与老庄联系在一起,其实,隐遁行为产生于儒、道思想形成之前,无所谓属于道家或者儒家。传说的最早的隐遁者是许由、务光、巢父,乃是庄子的创造;有明文记载的最早的隐遁者是稍晚的有殷周之际的箕子、微子、伯夷、叔齐等人。对于他们的归隐思想,儒家和道家各自作了不同的解释。儒家的归隐思想有三个要素:守志、待时、致命,其必要条件是与政治的联系。守道而不惜其身是儒家的重要特征;道家的归隐思想则是守身,坚守心灵的自由。道家主要是以庄子论,老子与庄子又有不同。《周易》经传中的归隐思想是儒家性质的。