Nonindexical contextualism

Philosophers on all sides of the contextualism debates have had an overly narrow conception of what semantic context sensitivity could be. They have conflated context sensitivity (dependence of truth or extension on features of context) with indexicality (dependence of content on features of context). As a result of this conflation, proponents of contextualism have taken arguments that establish only context sensitivity to establish indexicality, while opponents of contextualism have taken arguments against indexicality to be arguments against context sensitivity. Once these concepts are carefully pulled apart, it becomes clear that there is conceptual space in semantic theory for nonindexical forms of contextualism that have many advantages over the usual indexical forms.     

Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism

Recent evidence from cognitive neuroscience suggests that certain cognitive processes employ perceptual representations. Inspired by this evidence, a few researchers have proposed that cognition is inherently perceptual. They have developed an innovative theoretical approach that rests on the notion of perceptual simulation and marshaled several general arguments supporting the centrality of perceptual representations to concepts. In this article, I identify a number of weaknesses in these arguments and defend a multiple semantic code approach that posits both perceptual and non-perceptual representations.     

PERMUTATIONS AND FOSTER PROBLEMS: TWO PUZZLES OR ONE?

How are permutation arguments for the inscrutability of reference to be formulated in the context of a Davidsonian truth‐theoretic semantics? Davidson (1979 ) takes these arguments to establish that there are no grounds for favouring a reference scheme that assigns London to ‘Londres’, rather than one that assigns Sydney to that name. We shall see, however, that it is far from clear whether permutation arguments work when set out in the context of the kind of truth‐theoretic semantics which Davidson favours. The principle required to make the argument work allows us to resurrect Foster problems against the Davidsonian position. The Foster problems and the permutation inscrutability problems stand or fall together: they are one puzzle, not two. ¹ 1 Thanks are due to all with whom I have discussed this work. I have benefited in particular from conversations from Crispin Wright and Richard Heck, and from the comments of an anonymous referee for Ratio.
     

Jurors’ perception of violence: A framework for inquiry

The impact that the perceived violence of a crime has on jury decision making has received much controversy lately. Violence may affect juries by how it is presented, as in the case of graphic evidence; its evidentiary purpose, as in establishing a history of violence in domestic abuse cases; and in sentencing, when the question of the heinousness of the crime is raised. Many judicial experts argue that evidence of violence may prejudice juries’ verdicts. There is also concern within the legal community that what constitutes a heinous crime cannot be objectively determined. Psychological research has only just begun to explore these issues. This paper reviews the current legal state of these issues, the arguments and questions that have been raised within the legal community, and the empirical research that has been conducted thus far. The paper concludes with directions for future research that would improve our understanding of how jurors’ perception of violence affects their decisions.     

Interactions entre règles sociales de santé publique : étude des liens entre le port du masque et les règles routières en temps de crise sanitaire

IntroductionThe health crisis that France has experienced since the beginning of 2020 has justified the introduction of new health rules requiring changes in behaviour. The context of the implementation of these health rules, instituted very recently and for a limited period of time, raises the question of their perception and respect among the population.ObjectiveMobilising the social developmental psychology, the objective of this article is to explore inter-individual differences in the perception of these health rules measured through the wearing of masks. It aims also at studying the links between these perceptions with the experience of the health context and the perception of other legal public health rules, apprehended through some road safety rules.MethodThe questionnaire survey, carried out during the second confinement with a representative sample of 4999 people, made it possible to measure the experience of the health context, the internalisation of the rules and their justifications, the usefulness of the rules and the perception of the legal system.ResultsThe results show the links between internalisation, the type of arguments used to justify it for wearing a mask and for road rules respectively, as well as the links between internalisation and the perception of the legal system. They also show that women use moral and prudential arguments more to justify their internalisation of rules and that they have internalised the traffic rules (but not the wearing of masks) more than men.ConclusionThese results show that the perception of the rule of wearing a mask is more related to the general perception that individuals have of the legal system and other legal public health rules involving the relationship with others than to the context in which these rules were put in place.     

Nonrelativist Ethical Standards for Goal Setting in Psychotherapy

A number of authors have commented on the topic of mandated reporting in cases of suspected child maltreatment and the application of this requirement to researchers. Most of these commentaries focus on the interpretation of current legal standards and offer opinions for or against the imposition of mandated reporting laws on research activities. Authors on both sides of the issue offer ethical arguments, although a direct comparison and analysis of these opposing arguments is rare. This article critically examines the ethical arguments made by authors on both sides of the debate. The conclusion is reached that researchers should be mandated reporters of child maltreatment because the current arguments do not justify their exclusion from current ethical and legal standards. The author makes recommendations for the ethically responsible conduct of research in regard to this topic and legal implications are discussed.     

On the evaluation of one-sided evidence

We examine predictions and judgments of confidence based on one-sided evidence. Some subjects saw arguments for only one side of a legal dispute while other subjects (called ‘jurors’) saw arguments for both sides. Subjects predicted the number of jurors who favored the plaintiff in each case. Subjects who saw only one side made predictions that were biased in favor of that side. Furthermore, they were more confident but generally less accurate than subjects who saw both sides. The results indicate that people do not compensate sufficiently for missing information even when it is painfully obvious that the information available to them is incomplete. A simple manipulation that required subjects to evaluate the relative strength of the opponent's side greatly reduced the tendency to underweigh missing evidence.     

Forensic neuropsychology: A reply to the method skeptics

Various critics or method skeptics have contended that clinical neuropsychology is not sufficiently developed as a science to be offered as evidence in legal or trial proceedings. The present article attempts to balance the extreme position of the method skeptics with an overview of legal and research data that support forensic applications of neuropsychology. It is suggested that clinical evidence can usefully inform legal decision making and that the modern trend has been for courts to be increasingly open to such expert testimony. The relevance of studies of clinical judgment, experience, and actuarial prediction is discussed, and neuropsychological assessment validity is specifically addressed. It is concluded that the arguments of the method skeptics should guide future research and caution forensic neuropsychologists, but that a retreat from the courtroom is unwarranted.     

Disquiet in the consulting room: everything/nothing that is said here is confidential

Writing from experiences in the consulting room in private practice in Australia, the author refers to the layered complexity of a conflict of ethical duty which has legal and social implications. The paper explores how the ethics that are congruent with creating a safe vas bene claustrum can be diametrically opposed to the social and legal structures and processes on which we all rely. It is suggested that within the vas, analysts and analysands engage in a shared process of emotionally connected, layered, symbolic thinking. Subpoenas directed at analysts are seeking concrete evidence that will stand up in court. The paper argues that this is a category error based on ignorance and misconceptions of what analytic work entails. The intrusion of a subpoena into the vas has the potential to cause havoc in the mental health and the lives of already vulnerable, possibly traumatized and isolated individuals. It can undermine a fundamental human right and undermine the profession of psychotherapy as a whole. The paper proposes that analysts have an ethical obligation to protect the work contained within the vas from these category errors and to educate other professionals as to why we cannot provide the kind of evidence that the courts require.     

Against Supermax

abstract Supermax prisons subject inmates to extreme isolation and sensory deprivation for extended periods of time. Crime reduction and retributive arguments in favour of supermax confinement are elaborated. Both types of arguments are shown to falter once the logic of the two approaches to the justification of legal punishment is made clear and evidence about the effects of supermax confinement on inmates is considered. It is also argued that many criminal offenders suffer from defects in their capacities for morally responsible action, lack sufficient opportunities to remain law‐abiding, or are understandably alienated from society and the prison regime. The implications of this more realistic picture of offenders for supermax confinement are then explored briefly.     

Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations: Challenging Self‐Sufficient Arguments in “Race” Discourse

While the public debate on whether to apologise to the Stolen Generations ended on 13 February, 2008, public opinion was still divided, reflected particularly in the arguments against apologising that were common in political and public discourse. We examine the ways in which differing arguments can be flexibly deployed and combined within a political context to not just resist, but also to support, an act of reparation for historical injustice. In particular, we consider how Rudd makes use of specific rhetorically self‐sufficient arguments to justify offering the apology; precisely the same arguments that had previously been used by political leaders and members of the public to oppose the apology. It is the use of such arguments in combination with each other and additional common tropes drawn from egalitarian and liberal discourse that allow for the building of a rhetorically powerful case for offering the apology. Rather than the traditional focus of such research on the ways in which racism is accomplished in talk, we suggest that Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations can be seen as a practical tool‐kit for building an “anti‐racist” rhetoric in the context of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous relations in Australia.     

Order and Strength Matter for Evaluation of Alibi and Eyewitness Evidence

We explored the effects of presentation order and evidence strength on participants acting as investigators in a criminal context. Participants evaluated evidence and suspect guilt in a study in which alibi witness and eyewitness evidence of varying strength, presented in different orders, were compared. In contrast to research on the confirmation bias, which suggests that evidence presented early distorts subsequent evaluations of evidence, the present findings suggest that under certain circumstances, evidence received most recently can have a greater impact on decision‐making. Recency effects were observed most frequently when recent evidence was particularly strong and often when it contradicted previously encountered strong evidence. The impact of recency extended beyond the impact of evidence and to evaluations of the credibility of individual pieces of evidence. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An editorial overview

Now is an excellent time to be doing research at the intersection of psychology and law. In the last few years, both the legal system and the legal academic community have taken more and more interest in the empirical findings of cognitive and social psychologists. Much of this interest has been provoked by the large number of convicted people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Examination of their cases reveals that most are associated with one (or more) of the following problems: bad eyewitness testimony, a false confession, or flawed forensic evidence. These issues are ones that psychologists have been investigating for years. For those of you new to this area, we recommend Elizabeth Loftus’s foundational work on so many areas of memory, Gary Wells’s work on eyewitness identification, Saul Kassin’s work on false confessions, and Reid Hastie’s work on jury decision making. All have written for both psychological and legal audiences.     

Responsibilities of Criminal Justice Officials

In recent years, political philosophers have hotly debated whether ordinary citizens have a general pro tanto moral obligation to follow the law. Contemporary philosophers have had less to say about the same question when applied to public officials. In this paper, I consider the latter question in the morally complex context of criminal justice. I argue that criminal justice officials have no general pro tanto moral obligation to adhere to the legal dictates and lawful rules of their offices. My claim diverges not only from the commonsense view about such officials, but also from the positions standardly taken in legal theory and political science debates, which presume there is some general obligation that must arise from legal norms and be reconciled with political realities. I defend my claim by highlighting the conceptual gap between the rigid, generalised, codified rules that define a criminal justice office and the special moral responsibilities of the various moral roles that may underpin that office (such as guard, guardian, healer, educator, mediator, counsellor, advocate, and carer). After addressing four objections to my view, I consider specific contexts in which criminal justice officials are obligated not to adhere to the demands of their offices. Amongst other things, the arguments advanced in this paper raise questions about both the distribution of formal discretion in the criminal justice system and the normative validity of some of the offices that presently exist in criminal justice systems.     

情境对序数的空间表征之影响

通过设置垂直维度上不同的情境,本研究采用“奇偶判断任务”探讨了情境对序数空间表征的影响。结果发现,只有序数的情况下,被试对小数的上键反应或下键反应、对大数的上键反应或下键反应都没有显著差异;在楼层情境下,被试对小数的下键反应更快,对大数的上键反应更快;在家谱情境下,被试对小数的上键反应更快,对大数的下键反应更快。以上结果表明,垂直维度上序数的空间表征受到情境的影响,这说明在垂直维度上数字的空间表征具有动态性,且受到具体和情境的调节。     

The unwary purchaser: consumer psychology and the regulation of commerce in America

Starting in the 1870s, American jurists deciding cases of trademark infringement began advancing arguments that the ordinary purchaser was an unwary one, easily deceived by imitations. Embedded within their legal decisions was a vision of the typical consumers' habitual behavior and cognitive ability. In response to legal critics who argued that the presumed psychology of the consumer was unevenly deployed, applied psychologists developed laboratory-based experiments and scales for determining the likelihood that the "average" purchaser would be confused. Although these psychologists failed in their goal of securing regular legal patronage, this commercial context and the resulting experiments were constitutive of the delineation of "recognition" as a distinct mental process. Furthermore, this case study complicates the scholarly consensus about the role of standardization and personal responsibility in the liberal administration of mass society.     

The Monogamous Conception of Romantic Love and Western Critiques of Polygamy in African Traditions

Abstract

I critically examine how, from a Western cultural perspective of romantic love and Judeo-Christian tradition, certain liberal cultural values and prejudices are used presumptuously to criticize polygamy in African traditions. These criticisms assume, circularly, the superiority of Western cultural monogamous values over African cultural traditional practice of polygamy. I argue that these arguments are specious and particularly unreasonable from an intercultural philosophical perspective. A plausible liberal justification for Western legal imposition of monogamy is to prevent harm. I argue that if polygamy is so harmful as to warrant legal restriction based on the liberal principle of harm, such harm also exists in monogamy. The harm that is falsely associated with polygamy is not the result of polygamy per se but other factors relating to the social-cultural context of the marriage or the character of the individuals in the marriage.     

Three Pervasive Presuppositions about Human Life and Ethics Strongly Warrant Analysis

Common philosophical discussions concerning the ethics of human interaction with the biosphere and universe have been significantly informed by certain presuppositions: (1) nature is conquerable; (2) human cultural and social (contrasted with moral) progress is somewhat like a thing, beyond human control, and is inevitable and benevolent; and (3) Homo sapiens is the superior life‐form. Although arguments, such as whether humans should conquer nature, founded upon these presuppositions have sometimes been challenged, each of these three presuppositions wants direct analysis. The three have become so ingrained in professional and everyday discourse that they have mythic proportions, as though beyond question. Because of the weightiness of the relevant philosophical issues, they merit overt analysis. Although they are independent and may be analyzed separately, this article treats them as whole, as they often work together in arguments. After finding substantial problems, the article suggests alternative ways of building sustainable presuppositions in similar territory.     

The influence of affect on self-focused attention: Conceptual and methodological issues

A number of investigators have suggested that affective states influence the focus of attention. One recent proposal is that negative moods increase self-focus. This review considers the evidence that bears on this hypothesis. Conceptual issues pertaining to the construct of self-focus are discussed first. Next, the various parameters that influence attentional focus are presented in order to provide a way of organizing the mood/selffocus literature. Studies that have used state measures of mood and self-focus are considered in this context. Methodological limitations of existing studies are discussed and directions for future work provided.