艾耶尔在哲学史上的地位

一、思想背景 1929年秋A.J.艾耶尔来到牛津时,他并没有想到要成一名职业哲学家。他读过两本哲学著作,一本是罗素的《怀疑论文集》(1928),一本是摩尔的《伦理学原理》(1903)。这些选择有着重要的意义。艾耶尔总是把自己看作罗素的继承人,他效法罗素的思想,包括其内容反其轻率的表达;而且在某种程度上他还效法罗素的生活方式,包括其政治态度和恋爱方式。他从摩尔那里得到的显然要少得多,尽管他也很尊重摩尔,正如《语言、真理和逻辑》序言中所表明的那样。一个重要的相似之处是,摩尔和艾耶尔都是由于其他哲学家的主张而非哲学以外的数学或科学问题、历史或日常生活问题而引发进行哲学思索的。 在20年代,正统的唯心主义在苏格兰以外的地方或多或少已经灭绝。普里查德在1915年发表于《心》上的一篇文章中激烈地批判了罗素的知识论,而且他和约瑟夫都坚持敌视罗素的逻辑。普里查德认为,作为一个伦理推断论者,摩尔是那些在道德哲学中犯了根本错误的人当中的一个。普里查德晚年出版了唯一的一部著作《康德的认识论》(1909),约瑟夫的主要著作《逻辑导论》出版于1916年。     

艾耶尔在哲学史上的地位

其次,是对知识论中关于知觉、他人心理,历史、归纳等问题的一种有益的图式化表述,这些问题起源于那种由于各种信仰(关于物质事物、过去事件,他人心理、自然规律的)和用来证明它们的唯一证据(感觉材料,记忆及其痕迹、行为和观察到的规则)之间的鸿沟而导致的怀疑主义。和这种图式的其他支持者一样,艾耶尔认识到了对待这些鸿沟的四个基本途径。一是直觉,据称它可以直接到达鸿沟的另一端;二是关于一般原则的理论,它可以用作跨越鸿沟的桥梁;三是还原主义,它可以通过定义那些被断定用来证明它们的事物填平这一鸿沟;四是怀疑主义的忧郁选择。艾耶尔还想像出第五种被称之为“描述分析法”的途径,它似乎承认这种鸿沟,但又对它无可奈何。     

今日维特根斯坦

维特根斯坦在第一次世界大战的战壕中写完他的第一本书——《逻辑哲学论》,当时他在奥地利军队中服役.一系列精雕细刻的格言由一个复杂的排列体系联结起来,并且一切都按照从形而上学到形式逻辑的方向排列.此书被罗素誉为是一部杰作.人们很快就广泛认识到这本书的重要性,特别是通过石里克、卡纳普和魏斯曼,维也纳学派认识到了它的重要性.《逻辑哲学论》立刻使维特根斯坦在哲学家的神殿中占有了一席之地.《逻辑哲学论》是维特根斯坦自己出版的唯一的一本书.有一段时间他放弃哲学去当了一名小学教师,后来又在奥地利做一名建筑师,1929年他回到剑桥,在那里断断续续地工作一直到他1951年去世.他的思想交流实际上仅局限于课堂,他在由学生和同事组成的非常亲密的     

科学变革中的进化与连续性

一、不可通约性与意义 最有影响的实证主义的意义理论曾经认为,意义的基本单位就是个体的词项或陈述,到了本世纪50年代,这些理论转而认为,理论的或语言的关系域决定着个体词项的意义。     

The Timing Effects of Accent Production in Periodic Finger-Tapping Sequences

When subjects are required to produce short sequences of equally paced finger taps and to accentuate one of the taps, the interval preceding the forceful tap is shortened and the one that immediately follows the accent is lengthened. Assuming that the tapping movements are triggered by an internal clock, one explanation attributes the rnistiming of the taps to central factors: The momentary rate of the clock is accelerated or decelerated as a function of motor preparation to, respectively, increase or decrease the movement force. This hypothesis predicts that the interresponse intervals measured between either tap movement onsets or movement terminations (taps) will show the same timing pattern. A second explanation for the observed interval effects is that the tapping movements are triggered by a regular internal clock but the timing of the successive taps is altered because the forceful movement is completed in less time than the other tap movements are. This "peripheral" hypothesis predicts regular timing of movement onsets but distorted timing of movement terminations. In the present study, the trajectories of the movements performed by subjects were recorded and the interresponse intervals were measured at the beginning and the end of the tapping movements. The results of Experiment 1 showed that neither model can fully explain the interval effects: The fast forceful movements were initiated with an additional delay that took into account the small execution time of these movements. Experiment 2 reproduced this finding and showed that the timing of the onset and contact intervals did not evolve with the repetition of trial blocks. Therefore, the assumption of an internal clock that would trigger the successive movements must be rejected. The results are discussed in the framework of a modified two-stage model in which the internal clock, instead of triggering the tapping movements, provides target time points at which the movements have to produce their meaningful effects, that is, contacts with the response key. The timing distortions are likely to reflect both peripheral and central components.     

Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies

Pigeons responded on two keys in each component of a multiple concurrent schedule. In one series of conditions the distribution of reinforcers between keys within one component was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for key locations when summed across components. In a second series, reinforcer allocation between components was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for components, summed across key locations. In each condition, resistance to change was assessed by presenting response-independent reinforcers during intercomponent blackouts and (for the first series) by extinction of responding on both keys in both components. Resistance to change for response totals within a component was always greater for the component with the larger total reinforcer rate. However, resistance to change for response totals at a key location was not a positive function of total reinforcement for pecking that key; indeed, relative resistance to extinction for the two locations showed a weak negative relation to ratios of reinforcer totals for key location. These results confirm the determination of resistance to change by stimulus—reinforcer contingencies.