评西德 O.霍弗等人主编的《伦理学词典》

词典是知识的宝库。衡量词典的好坏,要看它是否完全反映了研究工作业已达到的水平。因为词典通常有很大的实用范围,所以就迫切需要对它现有的内容作出评价和分析。哲学以及作为哲学的一个分支的、研究一定社会历史阶段的道德行为和相应的道德观念的伦理学,乃是阶级利益在理论上的表现。可是,伦理学词典的编辑者却否定了这个观点。他们忠实于资产阶级伦理学的传统。编者O.霍弗是威尔茨堡大学哲学系教授。他对伦理学问题之所以越来越感兴趣,是因为他想把他的伦理学词典变成为“一个传播知识、同时作出评论的‘建议者”’(第6页)。他认为,当前人们之所以急剧地转向于对个人、社会和政治生活的伦理学问题的讨论,是有各种各样原因的。他认为这些     

西方的伦理学概念

对平常人来说,“伦理学”一词意味着是由一特殊集团或共同体所制定的一套约束其行为的标准——在追求他们的目的时,区别什么是合法的与不合法的,或者什么是可以或不可以被人接受的。因此我们就有“商业伦理学”,或“医疗伦理学”。伦理学是研究人类思想或行为的某一给定的领域中存在的或应该找到的根本原則和基本     

论库恩的《科学革命的结构》和科学发展的辩证法

本世纪六十年代资产阶级科学哲学演变的特点是同在此以前占统治地位的实证主义坚决分道扬镳。“在现代自然科学和社会科学的哲学中,主要倾向是反实证主义”——西方现代逻辑学-方法论的刊物上常常这样说。对这一现象进行历史和哲学的     

康德思想今论

一、康德的哲学体系实践理性的首要意义思考康德哲学现实意义的人,首先注意的是康德哲学的系统性。康德是一位伟大的系统学家,康德关于哲学知识结构的观念,至今仍未过时。我们在康德手稿中可以读到这样一段话:“有些人认为,系统只与叙述有关,其实,认识和思维的客体也有系统……有些人打算构筑体系,而他们搞出来的不过是些组合物。构筑这种东西,需要的只是一种方法;系统需要方法……不掌握系统,可以获得历史知识,在一     

解释康德学说的几条途径——第四届国际康德讨论会情况报告

H.劳纳教授领导的伯尔尼方法论研究所(F.格瑞特联合会)于1980年5月1日至4日召开了一次康德哲学讨论会,有十一篇论文讨论了康德哲学的各种问题。讨论会不但表明了,对康德的解释存在着巨大的困难,而且也表明了,康德的学说仍有着重要的现实意义,对康德学说的兴趣已打破了语言的界限和哲学的传统。在这一方面最突出的例证就是那些试图用(内涵)逻辑的形式方法来解释康德某些著作的论文。 L W.贝克的《康德论自然界的规律性》,E.埃     

Stimulus control of respondent and operant key pecking: A single key procedure

Pigeons' responses to a uniformly illuminated response key were either reinforced on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement or extinguished for one-minute periods. When 1.5 second signals were presented at the beginning of each component, so as to differentially predict reinforcement, the pigeons pecked at the signals, at rates higher than rates during the remainder of the component. When the brief signals were not differentially predictive of reinforcement, pecking in their presence decreased to near zero levels. Similar results were obtained with signals based upon colors and upon line orientations. Changes in rates of (unreinforced) pecking occurred during the signal whether pigeons responded differentially during the remainder of the component or not. Experiment II demonstrated that the presence of the signal correlated with extinction was not necessary for pecking to develop at the signal which preceded the component in which responding was intermittently reinforced. The experiments demonstrated a clear dissociation of respondent control from operant control of a response. In addition, operant behavior was shown to be relatively insensitive to differing rates of reinforcement, as compared to the sensitivity of respondent behavior to differing rates of reinforcement produced by the very same operant behavior.     

Self-control in pigeons under the Mischel paradigm

Walter Mischel studied self-control in preschool children in the following manner: if the child waited for an interval to end, he or she received the more preferred of two reinforcers; if the child responded to terminate the interval by ringing a bell, the less preferred reinforcer was given. We used an analogous procedure to study self-control in pigeons: if the bird waited for a trial to end, it received the more preferred reinforcer; if the bird terminated the trial by pecking a key, the less preferred reinforcer was given. We explored the effects on self-control of a number of variables analogous to those studied by Mischel and co-workers, e.g., presence versus absence of reinforcers, of alternative responses, and of stimuli during the wait interval; prior experience of the subjects; and test paradigm. The results obtained with pigeons paralleled the results obtained by Mischel with human children.     

Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives

Four pigeons were exposed to independent concurrent variable-interval 20-second variable-interval 60-second schedules of reinforcement. A transparent partition was inserted midway between the two response keys. The length of the partition was systematically manipulated. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate in Experiment 1. Over-matching was observed with a partition length of 20 centimeters. In Experiment 2 a four-second limited hold was added to the schedules. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate that exceeded the decrease observed in Experiment 1. This manipulation produced nearly exclusive choice of the variable-interval 20-second component. The present results, together with results obtained in related research, suggest that deviation from matching is a function of procedural variables that determine the consequences of a changeover response.