Comparison, Grouping, and Preference

How does the attractiveness of a particular option depend on comparisons drawn between it and other alternatives? We observe that in many cases, comparisons hurt: When the options being compared have both meaningful advantages and meaningful disadvantages, comparison between options makes each option less attractive. The effects of comparison are crucial in choice problems involving grouped options, because the way in which options are grouped influences which comparisons are likely to be made. In particular, we propose that grouping focuses comparison, making within-group comparisons more likely than between-group comparisons. Consistent with this prediction, experimental results showed that grouping hurts: An option is more likely to be chosen when alone than when part of a group.     

Why Induction Is No Cure For Baldness

The paper aims at establishing that the premises of both the inductive and the multi‐premised versions of the sorites argument are not apparently acceptable and that, therefore, sorites‐type arguments do not constitute logical or conceptual paradoxes. Rather, it is suggested that such arguments are most properly and fruitfully described as skeptical challenges. A secondary goal of the paper is to focus attention to the unduly neglected inductive version of the argument.     

Occupational specialty congruence: New data and future directions

The present research examined the relationship between within-occupational congruence and satisfaction, and attempted to integrate hypotheses and findings of prior studies with the conceptual implications of occupational specialty congruence. Correspondence between vocational interests within occupations and specialty choice has shown higher correlations with satisfaction than with congruence (Assouline & Meir, 1987). Occupational specialty congruence was derived by comparing preferred functions with the actual functions characterizing a given occupational specialty. In the present study, involving 120 computer software professionals, occupational specialty congruence correlated approximately .45 with satisfaction, using core job function dimensions. Specialty change within occupation, rather than occupational change, may help in cases of poor occupational choice, burnout, or a change in health. Further research should explore the generalizability of the function dimensions employed herein. Identifying core dimensions can aid in designing both career tracks and certification exams.     

Consciousness-Body-Time: How Do People Think Lacking Their Body?

War captivity is an extreme traumatic experience typically involving exposure to repeated stressors, including torture, isolation, and humiliation. Captives are flung from their previous known world into an unfamiliar reality in which their state of consciousness may undergo significant change. In the present study extensive interviews were conducted with fifteen Israeli former prisoners of war who fell captive during the 1973 Yom Kippur war with the goal of examining the architecture of human thought in subjects lacking a sense of body (disembodiment) as a result of confinement and isolation. Analysis of the interviews revealed that threats to a normal sense of body often lead to a loss of the sense of time as an objective dimension. Evidence suggests that the loss of the sense of body and the loss of the sense of time are in fact connected; that is, they collapse together. This breakdown in turn results in a collapse of the sense of self.     

The Secular University and Its Critics

Universities in the USA have become bastions of secularity in a distinctly religious society. As such, they are subjected to a variety of robust and rigorous religious critiques. In this paper I do not seek to engage in the debate between the supporters of the secular university and its opponents. Furthermore, I do not claim to summarize the history of the critique of the secular university, nor to present an exhaustive map of its current articulations. My purpose is rather more limited and modest, namely, to locate some of the key arguments of the current religious criticism of the secular university and put them in a wider philosophical context. Exploring the philosophical infrastructure of this criticism enables not only a more comprehensive and profound understanding of it, but also urges us to rethink the purpose and essence of the university as an institution that both reflects and forms our society and culture. The article is structured as follows; first section puts the religious criticism of the secular university in the context of the latest wave of criticism levelled at contemporary universities. Second section explores the argument according to which the secularization of the university led to the loss of the ideal of education for excellence in the wide, classical sense of the term. Third section examines the theoretical foundations of the call to reintegrate religion in contemporary universities, while fourth section explores the various practical consequences of this demand.     

The Present's Uniqueness

This paper offers an account of what makes the present unique. The present, it is argued, plays a constitutive role regarding succession, pastness and futurity, and is thus a pivot sustaining temporality. This is first shown with respect to experienced temporality, but the claim is then expanded to objective temporal relations and properties. A bulk of the argumentative effort goes towards establishing that, despite the crucial role experienced temporality plays in it, the result of the study is a Wittgensteinean kind of realism regarding objective time. That sets the proposal of this paper apart from both eternalism and presentism.     

Mere faith and entitlement

The scandal to philosophy and human reason, wrote Kant, is that we must take the existence of material objects on mere faith. In contrast, the skeptical paradox that has scandalized recent philosophy is not formulated in terms of faith, but rather in terms of justification, warrant, and entitlement. I argue that most contemporary approaches to the paradox (both dogmatist/liberal and default/conservative) do not address the traditional problem that scandalized Kant, and that the status of having a warrant (or justification) that is derived from entitlement is irrelevant to whether we take our beliefs on mere faith. For, one can have the sort of warrant that most contemporary anti-skeptics posit while still taking one??s belief on mere faith. An alternative approach to the traditional problem is sketched, one that still makes use of contemporary insights about ??entitlement.??