Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective

Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses.     

整形外科的临床治疗决策分析

在生物心理社会医学模式下,以循证医学为基础的共享型临床决策成为主导.整形外科疾病有着诊断容易、治疗方法多样、效果不一、患者年龄小、心理脆弱、大众认知有一定误区等特点,更需要在情感和实践上体现对患者的理解和尊重,真正实现医生患者共同参与的共事型临床决策.     

Conditional relations with compound abstract stimuli using a go/no-go procedure

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether emergent conditional relations could be established with a go/no-go procedure using compound abstract stimuli. The procedure was conducted with 6 adult humans. During training, responses emitted in the presence of certain stimulus compounds (A1B1, A2B2, A3B3, B1C1, B2C2, and B3C3) were followed by reinforcing consequences (points); responses emitted in the presence of other compounds (A1B2, A1B3, A2B1, A2B3, A3B1, A3B2, B1C2, B1C3, B2C1, B2C3, B3C1 and B3C2) were not (i.e., extinction). During subsequent tests of emergent relations, new configurations (BA, CB, AC, and CA relations) were presented, formed by the recombination of training stimuli and structurally resembling tests usually employed in stimulus equivalence studies. Results showed that all 6 participants displayed immediate emergence of relations consistent with symmetry. Four participants exhibited emergent relations consistent with both transitivity and equivalence. These results indicate that a go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli can establish emergent conditional relations, thus providing a procedural alternative to the matching-to-sample procedures commonly used in studies of stimulus equivalence.     

整字和部件的语义关系对汉字认知的影响

等级汉字是指由小汉字组成的大汉字。依据Navon的复合刺激范式,实验1选取“生物和非生物范畴”的汉字构建等级汉字,探索语义范畴是否一致对刺激认知的影响。实验2选取“意义相反或无关”的汉字组成等级汉字,采用真假字判断任务探索语义关系对刺激加工的影响。实验结果发现,等级汉字加工受大小汉字语义范畴关系和语义关系的影响,同时,任务类型影响汉字认知。     

A Theory of Providence for Distributive Justice

Distributive justice assumes a morally critical judgment of nature, which typically contradicts providential conceptions. Hence, simple conceptions of divine Providence cannot support distributive justice. This essay analyzes and develops a complex strand of theorizing about Providence within Jewish philosophy that is compatible with distributive justice. According to this conception, the actions of divine Providence express different and mutually exclusive considerations of justice. Therefore, the moral value of outcomes is intransitive between the situations of different people. And while each providential action is justified from an ethical perspective, the total outcome is distinct from God's ultimate desire. Human ethics responds to this disparity by redistribution. This conception of Providence also contributes to the additional issue of intergenerational justice through the concomitant idea of life missions. The classical rendering of missions creates problems, however, for distributive justice. I conclude by formulating a conception of life missions that is compatible with both distributive and intergenerational justice.     

EXTINCTION,NATURAL EVIL,AND THE COSMIC CROSS

Did the God of the Bible create a Darwinian world in which violence and suffering (disvalue) are the means by which the good (value) is realized? This is Christopher Southgate's insightful and dramatic formulation of the theodicy problem. In addressing this problem, the Exeter theologian rightly invokes the Theology of the Cross in its second manifestation, that is, we learn from the cross of Jesus Christ that God is present to nonhuman as well as human victims of predation and extinction. God co‐suffers with creatures in their despair, abandonment, physical suffering, and death. What I will add with more force than Southgate is this: the Easter resurrection is a prolepsis of the eschatological new creation, and it is God's new creation which retroactively determines past creation. Although this does not eliminate the theodicy question, it lessens its moral sting.     

SOUTHGATE'S COMPOUND ONLY‐WAY EVOLUTIONARY THEODICY: DEEP APPRECIATION AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS

Christopher Southgate offers a remarkable evolutionary theodicy that includes six affirmations and arguments; together they form a unique and very persuasive proposal which he terms a “compound evolutionary theodicy.” Here I summarize the arguments and offer critical reflections on them for further development, with an emphasis on the ambiguity in the goodness of creation; the role of thermodynamics in evolutionary biology; the challenge of horrendous evil in nature; and the theological response to theodicy in terms of eschatology, with its own severe challenge from cosmology.     

Malebranche and the General Will of God

Central to Nicolas Malebranche’s theodicy is the distinction between general volitions and particular volitions. One of the fundamental claims of his theodicy is that although God created a world with suffering and evil, God does not will these things by particular volitions, but only by general volitions. Commentators disagree about how to interpret Malebranche’s distinction. According to the ‘general content’ interpretation, the difference between general volitions and particular volitions is a difference in content. General volitions have general laws as their content and particular volitions have particular contents. The ‘particular content’ interpretation holds that all of God’s volitions have particular contents. The difference between general and particular volitions is whether the content of the volition is in accordance with the laws that God has established. A proper interpretation of this distinction is essential to understanding Malebranche’s theodicy, as well as his account of occasionalism and God’s causal activity in the world. In this paper, I defend the ‘particular content’ interpretation of the distinction.     

Reconsidering the concept of theodicy in the context of the post-2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami

Has the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake given rise to theodicy in Japan? This question would puzzle many scholars of religion for two major reasons. First, theodicy has generally been regarded as an outdated concept, and it is rare to see a lively discussion of it in today's academia except for in theology. Second, typical theodicean questions are unlikely to be asked publicly in Japan, where less than 2 percent of the population follow monotheistic traditions. Despite these assumptions, this article not only reports that ‘apparently’ theodicean public discourses have emerged since the 11 March earthquake, but also attempts to employ the typology of theodicy to analyze them in a thought-provoking and critical manner. It argues that the post-3/11 Japanese voices, which regard the disaster as a divine punishment, use a reverse logic of traditional Western theodicy. Rather than signaling a sudden turn to monotheism, the voices are inclined to imply nativism.     

A RANDOMNESS‐BASED THEODICY FOR EVOLUTIONARY EVILS

We develop and knit together several theodicies in order to find a more complete picture of why certain forms of (nonhuman) animal suffering might be permitted by a perfect being. We focus on an especially potent form of the problem of evil, which arises from considering why a perfectly good, wise, and powerful God might use evolutionary mechanisms that predictably result in so much animal suffering and loss of life. There are many existing theodicies on the market, and although they offer helpful resources, we combine and further develop several proposals to produce a composite theodicy that avoids certain shortcomings of the individual theodicies. An important element of our project is locating a role for randomness in cosmic and biological evolution. In particular, we show how randomness might enhance or enable certain goods, including everlasting goods, at the risk of temporary evils.