Mental Manipulations and the Problem of Causal Exclusion

Leibniz has long faced a challenge about the coherence of the distinction between necessary and contingent truths in his philosophy. In this paper, I propose and examine a new way to save genuine contingency within a Leibnizian framework. I conclude that it succeeds in formally solving the problem, but at unbearable cost. I present Leibniz's challenge by considering God's choice of the best possible world (Sect. 2). God necessarily exists and necessarily chooses to actualize the best possible world. The actual world therefore could not be different, for if it were different it would be a distinct and inferior world and hence would not be created. In Section 3, I defend Leibniz from this challenge. I argue that, while it is necessary for God to choose to create the best possible world, it is not necessary for any world to be the best possible. This is because the criterion for judging perfection can itself be contingent. Different criteria will judge different worlds as the best. Thus it is necessary for God to create the best, but not necessary which is the best. Distinguishing between possible worlds in Leibniz's sense and in the modern sense allows a fuller exposition of this position. There are worries that can arise with the claim that the criterion of perfection is contingent. I consider two of the most pressing (Sect. 4). The first argues that the criterion is in God's understanding and hence is necessary; the second alleges that a contingent criterion of perfection violates Leibniz's cherished Principle of Sufficient Reason. These worries are well grounded, and examining them reveals a deep incompatibility between this solution and Leibniz's metaphysical views. I conclude that there is a real solution available, but that it is unacceptable to Leibniz or a Leibnizian. The search for a genuine solution that is genuinely Leibnizian goes on.     

说明文阅读中因果推理的意识性

采用独立记得-知道范式(IRK)和加工分离范式(PDP)探讨说明文阅读中因果推理的意识性。根据关系部分的描述与目标句是否存在逻辑冲突,创设推理成功和推理失败两种实验条件。实验1和2分别使用独立记得-知道范式和加工分离范式进行研究。两个实验的结果都发现推理成功和推理失败在有意识和无意识加工指标上都差异显著,表明说明文阅读中因果推理既影响有意识加工也影响无意识加工,该结果支持和完善了文本阅读双加工理论。     

取样大小对因果强度推理的影响研究

摘 要：使用纸笔测验探讨表格集中呈现信息条件下取样大小对单一因果关系强度推理的影响,并比较五种模型ΔP、效力PC、SS效力、Support和χ2的预测与实验数据的相关。结果显示：（1）取样大小对不同的问题有不同的影响：高取样在ΔP=0时导致了低估计值,在0<|ΔP|=PPC时没有效果,在|ΔP|相似文献   

Susanna Newcome's cosmological argument

ABSTRACT

Despite its philosophical interest, Susanna Newcome's Enquiry into the Evidence of the Christian Religion (1728, revised 1732) has received little attention from commentators. This paper seeks to redress this oversight by offering a reconstruction of Newcome's innovative argument for God's existence. Newcome employs a cosmological argument that differs from Thomist and kalām version of the argument. Specifically, Newcome challenges the idea that the causal chains observed in nature can exist independently. She does this through an appeal to findings from Newtonian natural philosophy that suggest that the universe has entropic tendencies. This suggests the the continued operations of nature are dependent on a cause external to the universe. Newcome identifies this external cause with God. Various strengths and weaknesses of Newcome's argument are discussed and an attempt is made to situate the argument within her broader epistemic framework and the larger context of Newtonian physico-theology. The paper also explores what is known of Newcome's biography and intellectual milieu.     

Estimation of Controlled Direct Effects in Longitudinal Mediation Analyses with Latent Variables in Randomized Studies

Abstract

In a randomized study with longitudinal data on a mediator and outcome, estimating the direct effect of treatment on the outcome at a particular time requires adjusting for confounding of the association between the outcome and all preceding instances of the mediator. When the confounders are themselves affected by treatment, standard regression adjustment is prone to severe bias. In contrast, G-estimation requires less stringent assumptions than path analysis using SEM to unbiasedly estimate the direct effect even in linear settings. In this article, we propose a G-estimation method to estimate the controlled direct effect of treatment on the outcome, by adapting existing G-estimation methods for time-varying treatments without mediators. The proposed method can accommodate continuous and noncontinuous mediators, and requires no models for the confounders. Unbiased estimation only requires correctly specifying a mean model for either the mediator or the outcome. The method is further extended to settings where the mediator or outcome, or both, are latent, and generalizes existing methods for single measurement occasions of the mediator and outcome to longitudinal data on the mediator and outcome. The methods are utilized to assess the effects of an intervention on physical activity that is possibly mediated by motivation to exercise in a randomized study.     

因果信息和提示指导语对大学生贝叶斯推理的影响

基于三重加工心智模型，以大学生为被试，采用经典贝叶斯推理的文本范式，通过操纵自变量：因果信息（有或无）与提示指导语（提供或不提供），试图探讨激发反省心智，消解理性障碍的情况下，因果贝叶斯框架的作用机制。估计正确率和准确性的结果都表明因果信息显著提高了贝叶斯推理成绩，准确性的结果也说明指导语可以提示被试放下既有观念，以无偏见的方式进行推理，从而有效促进了贝叶斯推理表现。而在提示条件下增加因果信息并没有促进作用，表明对于较高元认知的被试因果信息作用是有限的。     

The distinct contributions of cause–effect order and reasoning type in judgments of causality

ABSTRACT

People generally perceive a stronger link between smoking and cancer than between cancer and smoking. Generally, prior research on asymmetrical causal reasoning has not distinguished predictive (searching for effects) and diagnostic reasoning (searching for causes) from the order in which causes and effects are presented. Across 6 studies (overall N = 627), we show that order and reasoning have an additive influence on the causality perception: causes, spatially or temporally presented before the effect, strengthen the causality attribution associated to predictive (vs. diagnostic) frames. Moreover, we show that order and reasoning frame are bi-directionally related, as the cause-first order triggers predictive reasoning and vice versa, and people mentally maintain the cause-first order when envisaging a causal relation. Besides its methodological contribution to the causal reasoning literature, this research demonstrates the powerful role of word order in causal reasoning. Implications for the role of word order in communication and risk prevention are discussed.