大学生工作记忆容量对图形推理影响的眼动研究

采用眼动技术,选取瑞文图形推理测验作为实验材料,探讨工作记忆对于图形推理过程的影响。实验为2(工作记忆容量:高、低)×2(性别:男、女)×3(题目难度:高、中、低)的混合实验设计。以扫视时间、眼跳幅度、注视次数、扫视次数、瞳孔直径为因变量指标。实验结果表明:第一,不同性别大学生进行图形推理过程的眼动模式有一定差异,但这种差异并非由工作记忆差异所导致,而是图形推理策略不同所引起;第二,工作记忆容量高低影响图形推理过程,由于工作记忆影响注意资源分配,从而工作记忆容量高低不同会导致采用不同的策略进行图形推理,不仅影响工作记忆推理过程,也导致推理成绩的差异。这些结果能为学生选择适合自己的学习策略、因材施教以及考试测评提供依据。     

Into the brain: where philosophy should go from here

The maturation of the cognitive neurosciences will throw light on many central philosophical issues. Among them: semantic theory, perception, learning, social and moral knowledge, and practical reasoning and decision making. As contemporary medicine cannot do without the achievements of modern biology, philosophy would be pitiful if it disregarded the achievements of brain research.     

Lakatos’s Challenge? Auxiliary Hypotheses and Non-Monotonous Inference

Summary  Gerhard Schurz [2001, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32, 65–107] has proposed to reconstruct auxiliary hypothesis addition, e.g., postulation of Neptune to immunize Newtonian mechanics, with concepts from non-monotonous inference to avoid the retention of false predictions that are among the consequence-set of the deductive model. However, the non-monotonous reconstruction retains the observational premise that is indeed rejected in the deductive model. Hence, his proposal fails to do justice to Lakatos’ core-belt model, therefore fails to meet what Schurz coined “Lakatos’ challenge”. It is argued that Lakatos’s distinction between core and belt of a research program is not mapable onto premise-set and consequence-set and that Schurz’s understanding of a ceteris paribus clause as a transfinite list of (absent) interfering factors is problematic. I propose a simple reading of Lakatos’s use of the term ceteris paribus clause and motivate why the term hypothesis addition, despite not being interpretable literally, came to be entrenched.

It is not that we propose a theory and Nature may shout NO; rather we propose a maze of theories and Nature may shout INCONSISTENT. Lakatos (1978, p. 45)

     

SAD as a mathematical assistant—how should we go from here to there?

The System for Automated Deduction (SAD) is developed in the framework of the Evidence Algorithm research project and is intended for automated processing of mathematical texts. The SAD system works on three levels of reasoning: (a) the level of text presentation where proofs are written in a formal natural-like language for subsequent verification; (b) the level of foreground reasoning where a particular theorem proving problem is simplified and decomposed; (c) the level of background deduction where exhaustive combinatorial inference search in classical first-order logic is applied to prove end subgoals.

We present an overview of SAD describing the ideas behind the project, the system's design, and the process of problem formalization in the fashion of SAD. We show that the choice of classical first-order logic as the background logic of SAD is not too restrictive. For example, we can handle binders like Σ or lim without resort to second order or to a full-powered set theory. We illustrate our approach with a series of examples, in particular, with the classical problem .     

The medical research council’s approach to allegations of scientific misconduct

The UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC) introduced a specific policy and procedure for inquiring into allegations of scientific misconduct in December 1997; previously cases had been considered under normal disciplinary procedures. The policy formally covers staff employed in MRC units, but those in receipt of MRC grants in universities and elsewhere are expected to operate under similar policies. The MRC’s approach is stepwise: preliminary action; assessment to establish prima facie evidence of misconduct; formal investigation; sanctions; and appeal. Strict time limits apply at all stages. The procedure will be evaluated after two years. The indications so far are that the procedure is robust, and its clarity and transparency have been an asset to all parties. The MRC is also convinced that it is equally important to achieve a working culture that fosters integrity. Thus education and training in good research practices are fundamental to the prevention of research misconduct. This paper was presented at a symposium, Scientific Misconduct: An International Perspective, organized by The Medical University of Warsaw, 16 November, 1998.     

Explaining Away and the Cognitive Science of Religion

In order to evaluate the claim that theistic belief can be explained away by science, four models of the relationship between science and theism are developed and their relevance to explaining away explored. These models are then used to evaluate an argument against theistic belief based on developments in the cognitive science of religion. It is argued that even if the processes that produce theistic belief are unreliable, this is insufficient to show that explaining away takes place. Indeed, given the difficulty of showing that the conditions for explaining away are met, it is very unlikely that such an argument can succeed.     

时间压力和相似性对类比推理直觉加工的影响

通过两个实验探讨了时间压力对类比推理的直觉加工的影响。实验1采用三因素混合实验设计,以48名大学生为被试,在不同时间压力条件下对不同相似性言语类比推理题进行喜好度判断和类比推理逻辑判断。实验2是在实验1的基础上用图形类比推理题代替语义类比推理题,以56名大学生为被试。结果发现:(1)时间压力下,对跨领域言语类比推理的直觉加工效应显著高于逻辑加工效应;(2)时间压力下,低难度图形类比推理题的直觉加工效应显著高于逻辑加工效应。无时间压力条件下,图形类比推理的逻辑加工效应优势明显;(3)时间压力对类比推理的直觉加工和逻辑加工均有影响     

规则顺序与规则类型对儿童规则推理的影响

学前儿童时期是各种推理能力产生和发展的重要时期。本研究采用Frye和Zelazo等（1996）所设计的“二进二出”装置,设置了规则顺序、规则类型的规则推理任务,采用个别实验法,研究了90名3～4岁儿童规则推理能力的发展。在本研究条件下,结果发现：1．当规则呈现顺序不同时,儿童规则推理成绩差异显著,先呈现哪个规则,则利用这个规则进行推理的成绩就较好;2．不同规则类型下儿童的推理成绩差异极其显著,竖直规则下的推理任务更容易;3．3．5～4岁是儿童二维合取规则推理能力发展的快速期。     

Differential involvement of left prefrontal cortex in inductive and deductive reasoning

While inductive and deductive reasoning are considered distinct logical and psychological processes, little is known about their respective neural basis. To address this issue we scanned 16 subjects with fMRI, using an event-related design, while they engaged in inductive and deductive reasoning tasks. Both types of reasoning were characterized by activation of left lateral prefrontal and bilateral dorsal frontal, parietal, and occipital cortices. Neural responses unique to each type of reasoning determined from the Reasoning Type (deduction and induction) by Task (reasoning and baseline) interaction indicated greater involvement of left inferior frontal gyrus (BA 44) in deduction than induction, while left dorsolateral (BA 8/9) prefrontal gyrus showed greater activity during induction than deduction. This pattern suggests a dissociation within prefrontal cortex for deductive and inductive reasoning.