The Barbour – Smith – Gilkey Paradox: Historical Relativity in Natural Science and Historical Religion

This paper is about the relation of historical relativity and religious certainty. To live in history and to live with historical relativity is to admit that we are subject to the limitations of creaturehood: we know right and wrong, truth and falsity, relative to our own time and place, history and culture, but we do not know any truth or right that is non-relative to time and place. The differences between historical and naturalistic discourses of explanation are radical, and usually overlooked by scientists.     

The effects of familiarity on thought--action fusion

The present study examined whether beliefs about the importance of thoughts (i.e., thought–action fusion; TAF) are related to the target subject of the negative thought. One hundred and seven undergraduate students were randomly assigned to imagine either a beloved relative or a stranger being diagnosed with cancer and provided in vivo ratings of anxiety, likelihood, moral wrongness, urge to neutralize, and how upsetting the event would be if it occurred. Results indicated that thinking of a relative being diagnosed with cancer provoked more distress, urges to neutralize, and higher estimates of likelihood, as well greater use of mental neutralizing behaviors, compared to thinking of a stranger. Contrary to our prediction, the groups did not differ in their ratings of the moral wrongness. These findings broadly support the assertion that the more personally significant a negative intrusive thought, the more it will provoke distress and urges to neutralize. Results are discussed in terms of the cognitive model of obsessions and clinical implications are addressed.     

Hail the impossible: p-values, evidence, and likelihood

Significance testing based on p-values is standard in psychological research and teaching. Typically, research articles and textbooks present and use p as a measure of statistical evidence against the null hypothesis (the Fisherian interpretation), although using concepts and tools based on a completely different usage of p as a tool for controlling long-term decision errors (the Neyman-Pearson interpretation). There are four major problems with using p as a measure of evidence and these problems are often overlooked in the domain of psychology. First, p is uniformly distributed under the null hypothesis and can therefore never indicate evidence for the null. Second, p is conditioned solely on the null hypothesis and is therefore unsuited to quantify evidence, because evidence is always relative in the sense of being evidence for or against a hypothesis relative to another hypothesis. Third, p designates probability of obtaining evidence (given the null), rather than strength of evidence. Fourth, p depends on unobserved data and subjective intentions and therefore implies, given the evidential interpretation, that the evidential strength of observed data depends on things that did not happen and subjective intentions. In sum, using p in the Fisherian sense as a measure of statistical evidence is deeply problematic, both statistically and conceptually, while the Neyman-Pearson interpretation is not about evidence at all. In contrast, the likelihood ratio escapes the above problems and is recommended as a tool for psychologists to represent the statistical evidence conveyed by obtained data relative to two hypotheses.     

The Flynn effect puzzle: A 30-year examination from the right tail of the ability distribution provides some missing pieces

The Flynn effect is the rise in IQ scores across the last eighty or more years documented in the general distribution of both industrialized and developing nations primarily on tests that require problem solving and non-verbal reasoning. However, whether the effect extends to the right tail (i.e., the top 5% of ability) remains unknown. The present study uses roughly 1.7 million scores of 7th-grade students on the SAT and ACT as well as scores of 5th- and 6th-grade students on the EXPLORE from 1981 to 2010 to investigate whether the effect operates in the right tail. The effect was found in the top 5% at a rate similar to the general distribution, providing evidence for the first time that the entire curve is likely increasing at a constant rate. The effect was also found for females as well as males, appears to still be continuing, is primarily concentrated on the mathematics subtests of the SAT, ACT, and EXPLORE, and operates similarly for both 5th and 6th as well as 7th graders in the right tail. These findings help clarify the nature of the effect and may suggest ways that potential causes can now be more meaningfully offered and evaluated.     

有关医疗事故认定问题的商榷

随着医疗法律制度的逐渐健全,人们法律意识不断提高,医疗纠纷逐渐成为热点问题,它的解决与医疗事故的认定密切相关.仅从认定的意义,包括赔偿责任承担、鉴定费用分配、行政和民事诉讼中的作用,以及认定书的效力方面作以商榷,旨在使该问题得以进一步明确.     

论医患之间建立诚信关系的社会意义

医患诚信是病人权利让渡契约的伦理基础;是社会伦理公平正义的基本表现;是医患经济利益调整的必然要求,也是医学人文精神回归的体现;医患诚信是医学职业道德的重要使命。在医患之间建立诚信关系具有十分重大的社会意义。     

从元分析看传统心理统计的局限性

当前,心理学研究文献中占主导地位的数据分析和解释方法是传统的统计方法。元分析方法已经表明传统的统计方法延缓了心理学理论的创新和知识累积的增长。该文从元分析方法的角度阐述了传统的心理统计在处理研究结果方面的局限性。     

两汉经学的式微与魏晋玄学的孕育--论王符《潜夫论》治道思想的历史地位

王符《潜夫论》治道思想的历史地位在两汉经学的式微与魏晋玄学的孕育中得以显现出来,其表现有三：一是其治道思想作为社会批判思潮的代表性;二是其所关注时代问题的转变,围绕本末、名实、才性诸问题而展开;三是王符治道思想中所彰显出的人本理性精神。     

History Assessments of Thinking: A Validity Study

This article reports a validity study of History Assessments of Thinking (HATs), which are short, constructed-response assessments of historical thinking. In particular, this study focuses on aspects of cognitive validity, which is an examination of whether assessments tap the intended constructs. Think-aloud interviews with 26 high school students were used to examine the thinking elicited by 8 HATs and multiple-choice versions of these tasks. Results showed that although both HATs and multiple-choice items tapped historical thinking processes, HATs better reflected student proficiency in historical thinking than their multiple-choice counterparts. Item format also influenced the thinking elicited, with multiple-choice items eliciting more instances of construct-irrelevant reasoning than the constructed-response versions. Implications for history assessment are discussed.     

Fisher与Neyman–Pearson的分歧与心理统计中的假设检验争议

假设检验思想的提出者Fisher与Neyman–Pearson在统计模型的方法论基础、两类错误的性质、显著性水平的理解、以及假设检验的功能等方面存在诸多分歧, 使得心理统计中最常用的原假设显著性检验模式呈现出隐含的各种矛盾, 从而引发了应用上的争议。心理统计不仅需要检讨现有检验模型的模糊之处和提出其他补充性的统计推论方式,更应注重反思心理统计的教育传统, 以建立更加开放和多元的统计应用视野, 使心理统计为更好地心理学研究服务。