Coherence as a Test for Truth

This paper sets out to demonstrate that a contrast can be drawn between coherentism as an account of the structure of justification, and coherentism as a method of inquiry. Whereas the former position aims to offer an answer to the 'regress of justification' problem, the latter position claims that coherence plays a vital and indispensable role as a criterion of truth, given the fallibility of cognitive methods such as perception and memory. It is argued that 'early' coherentists like Bradley and Blanshard were coherentists of the latter kind, and that this sort of coherentism is not open to certain sorts of standard objection that can be raised against justificatory coherentism.     

ANSELMIAN SPACETIME: OMNIPRESENCE AND THE CREATED ORDER

For Anselm, the attribute of omnipresence is not merely concerned with where God exists, but with where and when God exists. His account of this attribute thus precipitates a discourse on the nature of space and time: how they are related to God, to one another, and to the rest of the created order. In the course of this analysis Anselm articulates a number of positions which are generally thought to be the sole possession of modernity. In Part One of what follows I argue, first, that Anselm provides us with an analysis of objects which have both spatial and temporal parts, and second, that he provides us with a clear distinction between those objects which persist by enduring through time in their entirety and those which persist by being temporally extended. In Part Two I argue that Anselm's analysis of omnipresence is consciously informed by a conception of spacetime, according to which space and time form a single, four‐dimensional manifold in which objects both persist and move.     

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTINUITY, FISSION, AND THE NON-BRANCHING CONSTRAINT

Abstract: Those who endorse the Psychological Continuity Approach (PCA) to analyzing personal identity need to impose a non-branching constraint to get the intuitively correct result that in the case of fission , one person becomes two. With the help of Brueckner's (2005 ) discussion, it is shown here that the sort of non-branching clause that allows proponents of PCA to provide sufficient conditions for being the same person actually runs contrary to the very spirit of their theory. The problem is first presented in connection with perdurantist versions of PCA. The difficulty is then shown to apply to endurantist versions as well.     

Politics and Church: Byproduct or Central Mission?

One of the more intriguing paradoxes that has developed in mainline Protestantism over the last 30 years is that mainline clergy have become more politically active. Since the public politicking of mainline clergy in the late 1960s generated storms in the churches, why would clergy become more politically active over time? In this article, we adopt the theoretical structure of a benefit exchange between leaders and members initiated by Mancur Olson. We seek to determine the extent to which church members' appetites for political action by the clergy are shaped by a satiating selective benefit exchange or are driven largely by political compatibility. We propose that because of continued political disagreement between clergy and church members and considerable disapproval of clergy involvement in politics by church members, clergy politicking is allowed largely by the satisfaction of a selective benefit exchange.     

THE DIVERSITY–VALIDITY DILEMMA: STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RACIOETHNIC AND SEX SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES AND ADVERSE IMPACT IN SELECTION

Pyburn, Ployhart, and Kravitz (this issue, 2008) introduced the diversity–validity dilemma: that some of the most valid predictors of job performance are also associated with large racioethnic and sex subgroup predictor score differences. This article examines 16 selection strategies hypothesized to minimize racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact and, hence, balance diversity and validity. Rather than presenting a highly technical review, our purpose is to provide practitioners with a concise summary, paying particular attention to comparing and contrasting the effectiveness of the strategies and reporting new developments. The paper is organized around 4 key questions: (a) Which strategies are most effective for reducing subgroup differences? (b) Which strategies do not involve a validity tradeoff? (c) What are the major new developments in strategies for reducing adverse impact? (d) What are the major new developments in alternative predictor measurement methods (e.g., interviews, situational judgment tests, assessment centers) for reducing adverse impact? We then conclude with recommendations and caveats for how to best balance diversity and validity. These ideas are developed further in Kravitz (this issue, 2008) , who considers even broader approaches for solving the diversity–validity dilemma.