The Instability of Philosophical Intuitions: Running Hot and Cold on Truetemp

A growing body of empirical literature challenges philosophers' reliance on intuitions as evidence based on the fact that intuitions vary according to factors such as cultural and educational background, and socio-economic status. Our research extends this challenge, investigating Lehrer's appeal to the Truetemp Case as evidence against reliabilism. We found that intuitions in response to this case vary according to whether, and which, other thought-experiments are considered first. Our results show that compared to subjects who receive the Truetemp Case first, subjects first presented with a clear case of knowledge are less willing to attribute knowledge in the Truetemp Case, and subjects first presented with a clear case of non-knowledge are more willing to attribute knowledge in the Truetemp Case. We contend that this instability undermines the supposed evidential status of these intuitions, such that philosophers who deal in intuitions can no longer rest comfortably in their armchairs.     

Religion and Substance Abuse Treatment: Individual and Program Effects

The relationship between personal religiousness and substance abuse treatment outcomes has emerged as an important issue in the public health arena. Using the “moral community” perspective, a conceptual framework developed by Stark, Kent, and Doyle (1982) to analyze the contextual effects of religion, we explore the degree to which religion influences two drug treatment outcome measures—critical retention and commitment to treatment. The data are derived from the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Studies (DATOS), a national study of 10,010 clients enrolled in 70 drug treatment programs. Three research questions were addressed: (1) What is the relationship between an individual's level of religiosity and retention in treatment and commitment to treatment? (2) How does the ecological context of treatment programs shape the individual‐level relationships? (3) To what extent are program practices and characteristics directly linked to outcome level? The findings are supportive of the literature that shows a weak to moderate relationship between religiosity and treatment outcomes. However, the findings did not show strong support for the “moral community” hypothesis. Although there was a wide variation in the size of the individual‐level religiosity–treatment correlations, the variation could not be conclusively attributed to the overall religious emphasis of the programs. The findings suggest that further research is needed in order to understand fully the role of religion in substance abuse treatment.     

Attachment style and two forms of affect coregulation between romantic partners

This study examined 2 forms of affect coregulation in 48 cohabiting heterosexual couples who provided daily ratings of positive and negative affect for 21 days. Coregulation was operationalized as covariation in partners’ daily levels of affect and coupling of the rates of change of partners’ affective cycles. Both forms of coregulation were detected, and both were moderated by attachment style. These results are interpreted with respect to the timescales and time courses of each form of coregulation, suggesting that covariation may be more sensitive to discrete affective episodes unfolding during couples’ shared time together, whereas coupling may be a longer term process in which partners manifest sensitivity to one another’s overall patterns of affective fluctuation.     

Justice and Third Party Risk: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation

abstract  The question of when it is permissible to inflict risks on others without their consent is one that we all face in our everyday lives, but which is often brought to our attention in contexts of technological innovation and scientific uncertainty. Xenotransplantation, the transplantation of organs or tissues from animals to humans, has the potential to save or improve the lives of many patients but gives rise to the possibility of infectious agents being transferred from donor animals into the human population. As well as being an important ethical issue in its own right it therefore provides a useful vehicle for exploring the more general question of how to balance the benefits of a practice against the risks to third parties. This paper focuses on the Rawlsian, justice-based analysis of the risks of xenotransplantation proposed by Robert Veatch. It argues that Veatch is right to take considerations of distributive justice into account, but that his particular approach is flawed. It is hoped that consideration of Veatch's arguments, and of the underlying assumptions will suggest better ways of executing a justice-based approach.     

The Psychological Battle for Control: A Qualitative Study of Health-care Professionals' Understandings of the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa

This paper reports a qualitative, idiographic study, which intensively examines a multidisciplinary team of clinicians' subjective understandings and experiences of treating young people with anorexia nervosa. The study employs semi-structured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis, these methods enabling individual clinicians' perspectives to be explored in depth and retained within the analysis. The analysis focuses on the salient higher-order theme of control which emerges as central to understanding the treatment of the anorexic child. Three control-related themes are used to illustrate the multiplicity of meanings and experiences which are relevant to this team of health-care professionals. It is suggested that this paper makes three important contributions to the current eating disorder literature: illuminating the multi-faceted nature of the construct control; highlighting the importance of therapists' subjective understandings and experiences; and illustrating the value of qualitative methods for clinically relevant research. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Flight of Fancy on The Tangled Wing or How Not to Argue for More Women in Positions of Power

ABSTRACT Numerous attempts have been made recently to argue from premises about 'human nature' to conclusions about social policy. This essay offers a critique of one such attempt, Melvin Konner's argument from the fact that women are more nurturing and less aggressive than men, to the claim that the world would be safer if women rather than men had control over the world's armaments, especially nuclear weapons (and thus they ought to occupy positions of power). I claim that the argument is badly flawed at several points, and that as such, it does not advance but impedes the movement towards equal access to governmental positions.