前、后注意网络的关系--返回抑制和Stroop干扰效应

将IOR范式与Stroop任务相结合,试图从探讨IOR与Stroop干扰效应之间的关系来推测AAN和PAN之间的关系以及IOR与注意之间的关系。结果表明,在控制条件下出现了显著的IOR,在Stroop条件下没有出现明显的IOR;提示和非提示位置上均出现了显著的Stroop干扰效应,但提示位置上的干扰量要显著低于非提示位置。从IOR和Stroop干扰效应之间的关系可推知,PAN和AAN是两个有交互影响的注意网络,AAN对PAN有压制作用,而PAN对。AAN也有一定的影响。最后,作者对返回抑制与注意问的关系进行了深入的讨论。     

Some Hindu Insights on a Global Ethic in the Context of Diseases and Epidemics

As we develop a global ethic in the context of diseases, we need to reconsider the wisdom of the religious traditions, for there is more to ailments than their material causes. In the Hindu framework, aside from the Ayurvedic system, which is based on herbal medicines and a philosophical framework, there is the insight that much of what we experience is a direct consequence of our karma (consequential actions). Therefore, here one emphasizes self–restraint and self–discipline in contexts that are conducive to self–hurting behavior.     

Teaching Genesis: A Present-Day Approach Inspired by the Prophet Nathan

The prophets Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1–15) and John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–28) had comparable tasks before them: to convince their respective kings about the wrongs of taking somebody else's wife and marrying her. Nathan succeeded, while John failed and furthermore lost his life. What made the difference? One possible explanation is that Nathan proceeded in two steps: (1) Tell an interesting, nonthreatening story that nevertheless makes the point at issue; (2) transfer that message to the case at hand. In contrast, John used a direct approach, which raised apprehension, even fear (on the part of Herodias, the woman involved), and led to failure. That lesson has wider applications, as illustrated here for teaching the biblical Genesis narration. The other ingredient in this teaching is relational and contextual reasoning (RCR), the use of which is also indicated for other issues besides teaching Genesis.     

The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation

This paper describes the development of pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentative discourse. First the development of the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is explained, with the rules that are to be complied with in order to avoid fallacies from occurring. Then the integration is discussed of rhetorical insight in the dialectical framework. In this endeavour, the concept of strategic manoeuvring is explained that allows for a more refined and more profoundly justified analysis of argumentative discourse and a better identification of fallacies. The paper ends with a brief overview of current research projects.     

Dialogue in joint activity: Complementarity,convergence and conventionalization

Dialogue is tightly interwoven within everyday joint activities that require moment-by-moment coordination of utterances and actions. A common account of coordination is that it is established via progressive convergence (alignment, entrainment, similarity) of interlocutors' representations and behaviour. In order to examine how coordination is established and sustained, this paper distinguishes between (1) Semantic coordination of referring expressions (2) Procedural coordination of the timing and sequencing of contributions. Drawing on data from a series of maze experiments, this paper shows how both kinds of coordination result in the rapid development of highly elliptical, systematized and normative conventions. Focussing on how these conventions are established, this paper shows how interlocutors exploit partial repetition as an interactive resource, resulting in interlocutors' turns becoming progressively divergent and complementary. Further, this paper develops the claim that since repetition is best conceived as a special case of complementarity, it cannot be the general explanation of coordination.     

BIOMEDICAL ETHICS: MUSLIM PERSPECTIVES ON GENETIC MODIFICATION

Technology pertaining to genetically modified foods has created an abundance of food and various methods to protect new products and enhance productivity. However, many scientists, economists, and humanitarians have been critical of the application of these discoveries. They are apprehensive about a profit‐driven mentality that, to them, seems to propel the innovators rather than a poverty‐elimination mentality that should be behind such innovations. The objectives should be to afford the most benefit to those in need and to prevent hunger around the world. Another major concern is the safety of genetically modified food. Muslims, as well as those in other religious communities, have been reactive rather than proactive. Muslims must connect scientific knowledge and ethical behavior based on faith. In Islam, there is no divide between the two. God has commanded us to seek knowledge and make discoveries to better our lives and our environment. We are trustees of this world and everything in it. The poor, the sick, and the wayfarers have a right to be fed and cared for. God reminds Muslims continuously that the earth and all the heavens belong to God; therefore, no one should feel hunger, no one should suffer or be prevented from sharing this bounty.     

The Rhetoric of Homosexual Practice

Many Protestant denominations have or recently had policies that prohibit “self‐avowed practicing homosexuals” from being ordained. By only prohibiting “practicing” homosexuals, proponents of these policies claim that they do not discriminate against homosexuals as a group since, technically, a homosexual can still be ordained as long as she is “non‐practicing.” In other words, a condemnation of homosexual practice is not the same as a condemnation of homosexual persons. I argue that this is not the case; the rhetoric of homosexual practice does, in fact, amount to a condemnation of gays and lesbians. It does so by conflating the two things it claims to keep separate—homosexual conduct and homosexual identity. I demonstrate this conflation by analyzing the history of this rhetoric and how it has been adjudicated in church court decisions from the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA).