科学的统一

1.分类与系统论自有了科学以来,自有了欧洲哲学以来,人们就梦想着科学的统一,梦想着能有一个统一的科学体系。即使在科学哲学创立之前,希腊人的思想就发展到了这一步,即认为甚至科学和哲学也能构成一种哲学的统一。这种观点的影响早已烟消云散了。今天,在这种观点一度占支配地位的那些领域中,我们不断发现了一些未曾阐述清楚的经验关系和系统关系。我们不再讨论科学(与或不与哲学)的统一,而是讨论学科性、多学科性和学科间性,抚昔追今,我们所探讨的知识秩序已不再能用知识本     

罗素与实用主义者

罗素与他曾遇见过的,并就哲学问题进行过交流的好几位实用主义哲学家相互影响。这些相互影响同罗素与他的朋友和合作者如摩尔、怀特海、维特根斯坦等之间的相互影响性质不同。这是一种敌对的性质。事实上罗素与唯心主义者的相互影响也是如此。不同的地方只在于罗素本人曾经历新黑格尔主义这一阶段。至于就实用主义来说,罗素自始至终把它作为对手,实用主义者的主张对他来说是不相容的。尽管罗素自己思想发展过程中在这一点上没有改变过,但是,正如我们将看到的,他思想上的变化使他比他自己承认的更接近这些实用主义的观点。1896年,罗素在他第一次访问美国时结识了詹姆斯和皮尔斯。后来罗素又从W.维尔比(Welb     

创造性思维与创造力培养的概念

创造性思维是适应性思维或称重新概念化。其绝大部分不是外显行为,而是内隐的认知。我们日常大部分认知和行为是自动化的。它们满足着我们的日常需要。而满足我们需要的方式有一定导向,甚至变得刻板严格。在我们日常生活的所有方面,象饮食社交、宗教艺术、学术训练等等,我们都发展了动作的、自动化的认知和行为来满足基本的需要。我们去餐馆吃饭来满足饥饿的需要,与亲属的社会交往在家庭团聚中已经仪式化,我们的医生每月     

系统属性的产生问题

《哲学问题》1992年第2期上刊登了C.и.雅科夫连柯一篇内容丰富的文章《论自然界中的组织作用和破坏(随机的)作用,该期还登载了B.и.阿尔申诺夫和я.и.斯维尔斯基的文章《从涵义的读出到涵义的产生》。按照编辑部的意图,后一篇文章大概是前一篇文章的评论。但我以为,这篇文章并没有起到多大的评论作用,因为这篇论涵义的有趣     

人对动物有道德义务吗?

自从10年以前彼得·辛格的《动物解放》一书出版以来,在英国人的书籍中便对动物的道德处境的问题展开了激烈的讨论,在这期间,这个问题也在我们国家引起了较大的重视。从历史上看,这种关心无疑是对于自然的新意识的结果,而这种对于自然的新意识又是由于那些不能再忽视的生态问题产生的。可是按照事情的性质,我们这里所谈的与两个不同的问题有关。适当同自然环境打交道的问题是个我们共同的切身利益的问题,不是一种“生态     

Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance

In a discrete-trial conditional discrimination procedure, 4 pigeons obtained food reinforcers by pecking a key with a short latency on trials signaled by one stimulus and by pecking the same key with a long latency on trials signaled by a second stimulus. The physical difference between the two stimuli and the temporal separation between the latency values required for reinforcement were varied factorially over four sets of conditions, and the ratio of reinforcer rates for short and long latencies was varied within each set of conditions. Stimulus discrimination varied directly with both stimulus and response differences and was unaffected by the reinforcer ratio. Sensitivity to reinforcement, estimated by generalized-matching-law fits to the data within each set of conditions, varied directly with the response difference but inversely with the stimulus difference arranged between sets of conditions. Because variations in stimulus differences, response differences, and reinforcer differences did not have equivalent effects, these findings question the functional equivalence of the three terms of the discriminated operant: antecedent stimuli, behavior, and consequences.     

Set- and Element-Level Stimulus-Response Compatibility Effects for Different Manual Response Sets

In a previous study of two-choice reactions, pairings of spatial stimuli with bimanual presses made on a keyboard and verbal stimuli with unimanual aimed movements made on a display screen showed higher set-level compatibility than the opposite pairings; element-level compatibility (i.e., mapping) effects were also larger for the conditions with high set-level compatibility than for those whose set-level compatibility was low. In the 4 experiments described here, the relevant factors were isolated, allowing the determinants of those compatibility differences to be evaluated in more detail. Forty-eight students participated in Experiment 1, and 24 each in Experiments 2, 3, and 4. The primary determinant of the set-level compatibility variation was whether the response alternatives involved 1 or 2 effectors, but the differences in element-level compatibility effects were determined primarily by the distinction between responding on the screen as opposed to on the keyboard. Implications for models of stimulus-response compatibility are examined.     

Ethical issues in cochlear implant surgery: an exploration into disease, disability, and the best interests of the child

This paper examines ethical issues related to medical practices with children and adults who are members of a linguistic and cultural minority known as the DEAF-WORLD. Members of that culture characteristically have hearing parents and are treated by hearing professionals whose values, particularly concerning language, speech, and hearing, are typically quite different from their own. That disparity has long fueled a debate on several ethical issues, most recently the merits of cochlear implant surgery for DEAF children. We explore whether that surgery would be ethical if implants could deliver close to normal hearing for most implanted children, thereby diminishing the ranks of the DEAF-WORLD. The ethical implications of eugenic practices with the DEAF are explored, as are ethical quandaries in parental surrogacy for DEAF children, and their parallels in transracial adoption.     

Ethical issues in pediatric life-threatening illness: dilemmas of consent, assent, and communication

The treatment of life-threatening illnesses in childhood is replete with ethical issues and with clinical issues that have ethical implications. The central issues are those involved with a child's participation in the decision-making process and with communication of information about the illness and treatments to children. This article examines the questions of patient autonomy and of parental responsibility and prerogative in the context of pediatric oncology. Included in this examination of the ethical dimensions of pediatric life-threatening illness is a discussion of the many related aspects involved, including medical, cultural, psychosocial, legal, and developmental. A multidimensional approach that considers the ways in which these multiple aspects interact with one another, and which focuses on establishing a strong working alliance between the health care team and the pediatric patient's family, can help to avoid or resolve potential ethical and clinical conflicts.     

Util-izing animals

ABSTRACT Biomedical experimentation on animals is justified, researchers say, because of its enormous benefits to human beings. Sure, animals suffer and die, but that is morally insignificant since the benefits of research incalculably outweigh the evils. Although this utilitarian claim appears straightforward and relatively uncontroversial, it is neither straightforward nor uncontroversial. This defence of animal experimentation is likely to succeed only by rejecting three widely held moral presumptions. We identify these assumptions and explain their relevance to the justification of animal experimentation. We argue that, even if non-human animals have considerably less moral worth than humans, experimentation is justified only if the benefits are overwhelming. By building on and expanding on arguments offered in earlier papers, we show that researchers cannot substantiate their claims on behalf of animal research. We conclude that there is currently no acceptable utilitarian defence of animal experimentation. Moreover, it is unlikely that there could be one. Since most apologists of animal experimentation rely on utilitarian justifications of their practice, it appears that biomedical experimentation on animals is not morally justified .