当代体育运动心理学跨文化研究述

采用文献检索法,对12份重要的国际期刊上1988~2004期间的文章进行检索,最终从其中的8份期刊中检索到33篇体育运动心理学跨文化研究的文献,在此基础上尝试从研究的方法论及研究的内容两方面来述评当代体育运动心理学跨文化研究的发展情况。方法论方面的述评主要包括数据收集方法、“文化”代表物、被试等值性,以及概念等值性四个方面的内容;研究内容方面的述评主要包括运动成就动机、教练-运动员关系、生涯转折,以及心理品质/心理技能四个方面的内容。文章最后对未来的研究提出了“建立指导研究的理论构架”、“发展指导研究的方法论模型”、“注重研究的实践应用价值”三点建议,并提出三阶段理论构架和四阶段方法论模型,分别尝试作为指导未来研究的理论构架和方法论模型     

Break philosophy through internally

This paper contrasts and illustrates two types of breakthroughs in philosophy; i.e., external and internal ones. Both are made possible through its application to a newfield. In the external breakthrough, a new field is discovered by such factors without philosophy as encounters with different traditions of thought and advance in technology. In the internal one, a new field is brought into attention by critical examination of one or another assumption within philosophy that has once dismissed the field as too trivial or insignificant to be its proper subject. Based on this distinction, a research guideline for philosophy is proposed that one must always seek the possibility of its internal breakthrough. It is also suggested that the philosophy of science and epistemology can be innovated internally when they are applied to a new field, that is, statistics. Finally the distinction between pure and applied philosophy is reinterpreted in the light of the internal breakthrough.     

"生态平衡":中国心理学研究突围的别一个方向

当下心理学研究出现的种种问题就其实质而言,是一种生态失衡现象,因此,心理学欲走向健康发展之轨道,应注重心理学研究的生态建设。     

膝关节骨性关节炎治疗中的若干问题分析

膝关节骨性关节炎是很多膝关节紊乱疾病恶化后的最常见结局,我们通过分析系统方法主要基本原则在膝关节骨性关节炎治疗中的指导性作用。揭示在医学科学研究中自觉主动运用系统科学方法,可以拓展研究的新思路,在复杂的临床工作中,为膝关节骨性关节炎的治疗提供最佳方案。     

有关进化心理学局限性的理论思考

进化心理学是现代西方心理学的新取向之一。这一新取向吸引了众多的追随者,但是它自身的核心假设、方法论和认识论方面却存在着局限性。文章从三个方面分析了这种局限性：第一,进化心理学的核心假设是心理的模块性观点。依据这种观点,心灵由大量功能各异的心理模块组成,但是来自于心理学和生物学的研究都表明这种观点是缺乏科学依据的。第二,进化心理学从过去的角度理解现在,所依据的事实大多是推测性的,更多的是一种历史叙事,从方法论的角度来说,这种研究不具备可证伪性,不符合科学方法论的基本原则。第三,在认识论方面,进化心理学继承了社会生物学的传统,有意或无意地夸大了基因的作用,贬低了个体发展过程中其它因素,现代生命科学的研究已经证明了基因决定论的虚假性     

科学隐喻的方法论意义

The essential significance of scientific metaphor lies in applying the general metaphorical theory to specific interpretations and elaborations of scientific theories to form a methodology of scientific explanation. It is a contextual grasp of objective reality. A given metaphorical context and its grasp of the essence of reality can only be valid when the context is continually restructured. Taking the context as a whole, the methodological characteristic of scientific metaphor lies in the unity of understanding and choice, experience and concepts, semantic structures and metaphorical domains, rationality and irrationality. As a form of thinking based on reasons, scientific metaphor plays an important role in invention, representation, explanation, evaluation, and communication. Translated by Liu Yiyu from Zhongguo Shehui Kexue 中国社会科学 (Social Sciences in China), 2004, (2): 92–101     

Freestanding Pragmatism in Law and Bioethics

This paper represents the first installment of alarger project devoted to the relevance of pragmatism forbioethics. One self-consciously pragmatist move would be toreturn to the classical pragmatist canon of Peirce, James andDewey in search of substantive doctrines or methodologicalapproaches that might be applied to current bioethicalcontroversies. Another pragmatist (or neopragmatist) move wouldbe to subject the regnant principlist paradigm to Richard Rorty'ssubversive assaults on foundationalism in epistemology andethics. A third pragmatist method, dubbed ``freestandingpragmatism' by its proponents, embraces a ``pragmatist' approachto practical reasoning without discernable moorings either to theclassical canon or to Rorty's neopragmatism. This thirdpragmatist approach to method in practical ethics is the subjectof this article. I begin with an examination of freestandingpragmatism in the theory of judicial decision making. I arguethat this version of legal pragmatism – so described on account ofits commitments to contextualism, instrumentalism, eclecticism,and freedom from grand theory – bears a striking resemblance tomuch self-described pragmatist work in bioethics today. Ifurther argue that if this is what we mean by ``pragmatism,' thenin a certain sense ``we are all pragmatists now.'     

RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES OF RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE

Abstract. In replying to the four thoughtful critiques of my first Gifford volume I try to clarify the differences among us. I defend my use of Kuhn's concept of paradigms against Nancey Murphy's use of Lakatos's concept of research programs and then compare both of us with advocates of the “strong program” in the social construction of science. Sallie McFague identifies me with the empiricist, objectivist, “modernist” tradition and contrasts it to her own “postmodernist” acceptance of cultural relativism and the social construction of science, but I argue that I am seeking an intermediate position that redefines objectivity rather than rejecting it. Some themes common to feminist and process theology are also examin ed. In dialogue with Bob Russell I discuss the metaphysical and theological implications of the unity of space and time in relativity, the beginning of time in recent cosmology, and the thesis that God acts by determining events in indeterminate quantum systems. Finally I compare John Cobb's indebtedness to Whitehead with my own and suggest that I am more willing to adapt or modify process thought in the interpretation of scientific theories and religious experience.     

IMPLICATIONS OF BEHAVIORAL PHARMACOLOGY RESEARCH FOR APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSES: JEAB'S SPECIAL ISSUE CELEBRATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF JOSEPH V. BRADY (MARCH 1994)

We review four articles from JEAB's March 1994 issue celebrating the contributions of Joseph V. Brady. These articles have implications for studying private events and for studying multiple operants. We suggest that regularly including self-reports about private events in behavioral pharmacological research has resulted in an accumulated knowledge that has facilitated examination of interesting relations among self-reports, environmental factors, and other observable behaviors. Methodological lessons that behavioral pharmacologists have learned regarding the study of multiple operants are also relayed. We provide examples of how these lessons could be useful to applied behavior analysts studying nonpharmacological issues.