Why Nearly Everything Is Knowable A Priori

This paper argues that nearly every proposition could in principle be known a priori, with exceptions for necessary falsehoods and a few other odd cases. The argument for this conclusion has two main premises: (i) Odd exceptions aside, if it is possible that p, then it is possible that someone knows innately that p. (ii) Necessarily, whatever is known innately is known a priori. After defending (i) and (ii), I conclude by suggesting that the best way to recover a reasonably limited and interesting conception of the a priori is to adopt an anthropocentric conception of a priori knowability, one that is relativized to our own innate cognitive capacities. However, this proposal has consequences that contradict prevailing views about the a priori. More importantly, this proposal has the result that many philosophical applications of the notion of apriority are misguided.     

Illuminating the dark figure of sexual recidivism

Detected or reported (“observed”) rates of sexual reoffending have long been recognized as underestimating the occurrence of actual sexual recidivism. Past attempts to bridge the gap between the two rates have been unsuccessful. Scurich and John try to reverse this course by presenting a simulation model to estimate the predicted actual sexual recidivism rates among individuals convicted of sexual offenses based on three parameters; they also apply these data to calibrate the sexual recidivism rates from four sexual recidivism studies. The accuracy of the predicted actual sexual recidivism rates is wholly dependent upon the reliability of the inputs to the model. This analysis relies upon scientific studies and literature to delve into the precision of the parameters of Scurich and John in relation to the accuracy of their predicted actual sexual recidivism rates and the validity of the calibration process. The results reveal that some of the assumptions by Scurich and John about the parameters are supported empirically, while others are not. Overall, the simulation model parameters suffer from significant deficiencies that likely produce inaccurate predicted actual sexual recidivism rates. Moreover, the methodologies of the comparison studies used in the calibration process do not actually meet the requirements of the analytic strategy of Scurich and John, which effectively invalidates their findings. Until computational strategies are employed that account for linear and nonlinear effects of model parameters, closing the gap between observed and actual sexual recidivism rates will remain elusive.     

The role of ordinary conversation and shared activity in the main effect between perceived support and affect

People with high perceived support have better mental health, but how this occurs is not well understood. We tested hypotheses from relational regulation theory that the main effect between perceived support and affect primarily reflects ordinary conversation and shared activity. In two studies (n = 193; n = 149), students rated three important network members and psychological reactions to each. In a third study (n = 72) strangers shared an activity in a round‐robin design. Affect was strongly determined by with who participants were interacting or thinking about. Perceived support, ordinary conversation, and shared activity were strongly linked, and each was related to high positive affect, low negative affect, perceived similarity, and few negative thoughts. Perceived support's link to affect emerged when strangers shared a brief activity. Thus, much of perceived support's main effect with affect could be explained as resulting from ordinary conversation and shared activity.     

Sandel on enhancement: A response to Van Niekerk

Michael Sandel has criticised recent developments in, and towards, the biomedical enhancement of human beings. His view is criticised by Anton A. van Niekerk in a recent issue of this journal. Van Niekerk takes Sandel to task for rejecting enhancement tout court, for advancing inconsistencies, and for regarding enhancement as a “drive for mastery”. In this paper I argue that Van Niekerk’s critique fails. After discussing what we should mean by “enhancement”, and presenting an overview of what I call “the Sandelian picture” (of enhancement), I go on to address Van Niekerk’s criticisms. The first, I argue, either begs the question or attacks a straw person. The second pays insufficient attention to things Sandel says which, once on the table, leave his “inconsistency” critique inadequately argued for. The third also rests on misunderstandings and, as such, attacks a straw person. While stopping short of defending Sandel’s position outright, and allowing that Van Niekerk makes some important critical points, I maintain the three central criticisms fall short as an argued-for critique of Sandel’s view.     

Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students' Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments

This study developed an analytic framework consisting of four patterns of talk and writing that can support students' engagement in construction and critique: Talk only, writing only, use of talk and writing in sequence, and use of talk and writing simultaneously. This study aimed to examine how each pattern supports students' development of scientific knowledge through the construction and critique of arguments and what cognitive functions are associated with each pattern. To trace students' knowledge development over time using the four patterns, three students were selected as target subjects. Data were analyzed using two approaches: (1) in-depth analysis of a Knowledge Development Trajectory and (2) constant comparative method. This study highlights elementary students' capability of engaging in argumentation that promotes their scientific knowledge development when provided with proper opportunities, facilitation, and time to recognize that talk and writing can be used as epistemic tools for both constructing and critiquing arguments.     

The Viability of Structural Family Therapy in the Twenty-first Century: An Analysis of Key Indicators

This paper examines the degree to which structural family therapy has adapted effectively to client families and professional demands of the twenty-first century. A review of the current professional literature was conducted to assess the structural model’s continued clinical relevance, how the model has changed in adapting to contemporary social and professional contexts, and whether or not the integrity of the model’s core proposition has been eroded or confounded as a result of adaptive changes.