The Question of Questions: What is a Gene? Comments on Rolston and Griffths & Stotz

If the question “What is a gene?” proves to be worth asking it must be able to elicit an answer which both recognizes and address the reasons why the concept of the gene ever seemed to be something worth getting excited about in the first place as well analyzing and evaluating the latest develops in the molecular biology of DNA. Each of the preceding papers fails to do one of these and sufferrs the consequences. Where Rolston responds to the apparent failure of molecular biology to make good on the desideratum of the classical gene by veering off into fanciful talk about “cybernetic genes,” Griffiths and Stotz lose themselves in the molecular fine print and forget to ask themselves why “genes” should be of any special interst anyway.     

The social epidemiologic concept of fundamental cause

The goal of research in social epidemiology is not simply conceptual clarification or theoretical understanding, but more importantly it is to contribute to, and enhance the health of populations (and so, too, the people who constitute those populations). Undoubtedly, understanding how various individual risk factors such as smoking and obesity affect the health of people does contribute to this goal. However, what is distinctive of much on-going work in social epidemiology is the view that analyses making use of individual-level variables is not enough. In the spirit of Durkheim and Weber, S. Leonard Syme makes this point by writing that just “as bad water and food may be harmful to our health, unhealthful forces in our society may be detrimental to our capacity to make choices and to form opinions” conducive to health and well-being. Advocates of upstream (distal) causes of adverse health outcomes propose to identify the most important of these “unhealthful forces” as the fundamental causes of adverse health outcomes. However, without a clear, theoretically precise and well-grounded understanding of the characteristics of fundamental causes, there is little hope in applying the statistical tools of the health sciences to hypotheses about fundamental causes, their outcomes, and policies intended to enhance the health of populations. This paper begins the process of characterizing the social epidemiological concept of fundamental cause in a theoretically respectable and robust way.

婴儿期外显问题行为的发生与表现及成因分析

外显问题行为是指一组表现在外的、反映了儿童对外部环境消极反应的行为。研究表明婴儿最早于8个月时便已出现外显问题行为,且婴儿期这类行为主要表现为愤怒/发脾气、不顺从/反抗、攻击、破坏性、过度活跃、注意力不集中等,其成因可从早期经验因素、遗传与环境的交互作用等方面解释。此外,外显问题行为的干预研究可从差别易感性理论入手,从而为特定气质类型以及携带可塑性基因的婴儿提高了外显问题行为的干预效果。本文在梳理上述研究的基础上,对该领域研究的局限性进行了小结并对未来研究的方向进行了展望。     

A priori causal laws

Sober and Elgin defend the claim that there are a priori causal laws in biology. Lange and Rosenberg take issue with this on Humean grounds, among others. I will argue that Sober and Elgin don’t go far enough – there are a priori causal laws in many sciences. Furthermore, I will argue that this thesis is compatible with a Humean metaphysics and an empiricist epistemology.     

不当出生损害赔偿诉析

因不当出生(wrongful birth)使父母因缺陷儿童多支付了大量的医疗、人力照顾以及特殊教育的费用,同时受到身心痛苦,如果不给予一定的救济是很不公平的,承认该类诉讼是各国共同趋势.在我国应以契约法来处理这类诉讼.     

妊娠期肝内胆汁淤积症研究中的因果论

妊娠期肝内胆汁淤积症是一种常见的妊娠晚期并发症,对围产儿的危害极大,其确切的病因及发病机制尚未十分清楚。只有了解了疾病的起因,才能更好地进行防治。凡病必有其因,以果推因,再取因治果,这是典型的因果论的应用。     

亚里士多德物理学中的“原因”和“运动”概念——从库恩的观点看

在库恩“范式”理论的发展中,“类比”对于塑形知识范式的基本作用被越来越多地强调。与此相应,亚里士多德亦将“类比”作为认识得以形成和扩展的基本方法。正是凭借对“人间”领域中较熟悉事物的观察,亚里士多德才得以形成对“天”进行论说的概念基础。正因如此,亚式物理学中那些诸多不同于现代物理学的特质,似都可以通过这种独特的类比模式得到说明。     

系统科学原理是心理病因研究的方法论基础--科学审视当代心理治疗理论的缺陷

各种心理治疗理论与当代神经科学和遗传学存在不一致和冲突,三大心理治疗流派存在盲人摸象式缺陷.近些年专业领域心理病因的探索,似乎也是只见树木,不见森林.应用系统科学原理,使其成为心理病因研究的方法论基础.     

Argumentation Schemes in Persuasive Brochures

Many public information documents attempt to persuade the recipients that they should engage in or refrain from specific behaviour. This is based on the assumption that the recipient will decide about his or her behaviour on the basis of the information given and a rational evaluation of the pros and cons. An analysis of 20 public information brochures shows that the argumentation in persuasive brochures is often not marked as such. Argumentation is presented as factual information, and in many instances the task of making argumentational links and drawing conclusions is left to the reader. However, since the information offered does follow familiar argumentational schemes, readers can, in principle, reconstruct the argument. All the brochures make use of pragmatic argumentation (argumentation from consequences),i. e.,they formulate at least certain benefits of the desirable behaviour or disadvantages of the undesirable behaviour. In addition, they make regular use of argumentation from cause to effect and argumentation from example. Argumentation from rules and argumentation from authority are less frequently used. This empirical analysis of the use of argumentation schemes is a solid base for interesting and rich hypotheses about the cognitive processing of persuasive brochures. Central processing requires the reader to be able to reconstruct argumentation from informational texts and to identify and evaluate various types of argumentation.