Zwischen Berechenbarkeit und Nichtberechenbarkeit. Die Thematisierung der Berechenbarkeit in der aktuellen Physik komplexer Systeme

Between Calculability and Non-Calculability. Issues of Calculability and Predictability in the Physics of Complex Systems. The ability to predict has been a very important qualifier of what constitutes scientific knowledge, ever since the successes of Babylonian and Greek astronomy. More recent is the general appreciation of the fact that in the presence of deterministic chaos, predictability is severely limited (the so-called ‘butterfly effect’): Nearby trajectories diverge during time evolution; small errors typically grow exponentially with time. The system obeys deterministic laws and still is unpredictable, seemingly a paradox for the traditional viewpoint of Laplacian determinisms. With the concept of deterministic chaos the epistemological issue about an adequate understanding of predictability is no longer just a mere philosophical topic. Physicists on the one hand recognize the limits of (long term) predictability, computability and even of scientific knowledge, on the other hand they work on concepts for extending the horizon of predictability. It is shown in this paper that physics of complex systems is useful to clarify the jungle of different meanings of the terms ‘predictability’ and ‘computability’ — also with philosophical implications for understanding science and nature. Today, from the physical point of view, the relevance of the concepts of predictability seems to be underestimated by philosophers as a mere methodological topic. In the paper I analyse the importance of predictability and computability in physics of complex systems. I show a way how to cope with problems of unpredictability and noncomputability. Nine different concepts of predictability and computability (i.e. open solution, sensitivity/chaos, redundancy/chance) are presented, compared and evaluated. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities

Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup authorities to be strongly affected by procedural fairness, the available outcome information should be ambiguous. Furthermore, we argue that people confronted with an outgroup authority react particularly negatively to unfair procedures that give them negative outcome expectancies. These patterns are not expected in encounters with ingroup authorities. Two experiments support our line of reasoning. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the integration of theoretical perspectives on procedural justice. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures

Many public information documents attempt to persuade the recipients that they should engage in or refrain from specific behaviour. This is based on the assumption that the recipient will decide about his or her behaviour on the basis of the information given and a rational evaluation of the pros and cons. An analysis of 20 public information brochures shows that the argumentation in persuasive brochures is often not marked as such. Argumentation is presented as factual information, and in many instances the task of making argumentational links and drawing conclusions is left to the reader. However, since the information offered does follow familiar argumentational schemes, readers can, in principle, reconstruct the argument. All the brochures make use of pragmatic argumentation (argumentation from consequences),i. e.,they formulate at least certain benefits of the desirable behaviour or disadvantages of the undesirable behaviour. In addition, they make regular use of argumentation from cause to effect and argumentation from example. Argumentation from rules and argumentation from authority are less frequently used. This empirical analysis of the use of argumentation schemes is a solid base for interesting and rich hypotheses about the cognitive processing of persuasive brochures. Central processing requires the reader to be able to reconstruct argumentation from informational texts and to identify and evaluate various types of argumentation.     

Pappus in optical space

Optical space differs from physical space. The structure of optical space has generally been assumed to be metrical. In contradistinction, we do not assume any metric, but only incidence relations (i.e., we assume that optical points and lines exist and that two points define a unique line, and two lines a unique point). (The incidence relations have generally been assumed implicitly by earlier authors.) The condition that makes such anincidence structure into a projective space is the Pappus condition. The Pappus condition describes a projective relation between three collinear triples of points, whose validity can— in principle—be verified empirically. The Pappus condition is a necessary condition for optical space to be a homogeneous space (Lobatchevski hyperbolic or Riemann elliptic space) as assumed by, for example, the well-known Luneburg theory. We test the Pappus condition in a full-cue situation (open field, broad daylight, distances of up to 20 m, visual fields of up to 160° diameter). We found that although optical space is definitely not veridical, even under full-cue conditions, violations of the Pappus condition are the exception. Apparently optical space is not totally different from a homogeneous space, although it is in no way close to Euclidean.     

Work Organization, Work Characteristics, and Their Psychological Effects on Nurses in the Netherlands

The aim of the current study was to examine relationships between organizational characteristics, work characteristics, and psychological work reactions in nursing work. We used several theoretical frameworks to select our research variables. In line with the contingency and sociotechnical system approaches, we selected complexity, uncertainty, and decision authority to represent the organizational characteristics. As to the work characteristics, we selected the variables of the Demand–Control–Support model (autonomy, social support, workload), role conflict, and role ambiguity. In order to measure the psychological work reactions, burnout, psychosomatic health complaints, job satisfaction, and intrinsic work motivation were assessed in questionnaires distributed to 1,855 nurses working in general hospitals in the Netherlands. Using correlation and hierarchical multiple regression analysis, the main results showed that high decision authority predicted high social support andhigh autonomy. High decision authority predicted high job satisfaction and high intrinsic work motivation. Finally, high complexity was indirectly predictive for high burnout. Workload operated as a mediator variable in this relationship.     

Games In The Semantics Of Programming Languages – An Elementary Introduction

Mathematical models are an important tool in the development ofsoftware technology, including programming languages and algorithms.During the last few years, a new class of such models has beendeveloped based on the notion of a mathematical game that isespecially well-suited to address the interactions between thecomponents of a system. This paper gives an introduction to thesegame-semantical models of programming languages, concentrating onmotivating the basic intuitions and putting them into context.     

Big five domain and gender as determinants of rater agreement: a comparison based on self- and peer-rating on the Polish Adjective List

The study tested the hypothesis that with respect to the big five domains associated with temperament, agreement between self- and others' ratings is higher than with respect to other domains. The same was expected with respect to peer–peer agreement. There were two groups of subjects: self-raters (n=639) and peer-raters (n=1278). All subjects completed the Polish Adjective List (PAL), which consists of five scales: Dynamism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Excitability and Intellect, which are Polish representations of the big five personality factors extracted in American lexical studies. Each target person completed one self-rating inventory and was assessed by two peer-raters. Domains associated with temperament (Dynamism and Excitability) elicited higher agreement between self-and peer-ratings than Agreeableness and Intellect, although in case of Conscientiousness judges appeared to be as accurate as in the case of Excitability. The pattern was even less clear with respect to the peer–peer comparison. The other finding shows that in case of female raters there was more agreement between self- and peer-rating, than in case of male raters.