The Enlightenment That Won't Go Away: Modernity's Crux

The Critical Process unleashed by the Enlightenment and endlessly resharpening itself to this day has mortally wounded the God of Deism, maybe also of theism, even of Christianity. A temptation of Christian theology is to retreat in denial into an updated version of Deism, seemingly granting full license to modern science but only so long as it does not impugn God's love. The alternative here proposed is to ride out The Critical Process, in fact to encourage it, all the way into modernity's crux: How can a design that is not benign still be divine? The Christian reply is: through a real death of God and of ourselves as well, and through resurrections beginning now, thus freeing The Critical Process from the illusion of insuring our survival and, instead, for the honest Enlightenment task of merely telling the truth.     

Reviews

Rottschaefer, William A. The Biology and Psychology of Moral Agency
Mccutcheon, Russell T. Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia
Drengson, Alan The Practice of Technology: Exploring Technology,Ecophilosophy, and Spiritual Disciplines for Vital Links
Burrell, David B. and Mcginn, Bernard (eds.) God and Creation: An Ecumenical Symposium     

听障大学生汉语阅读中的绕口令效应：口语经验和阅读能力的影响

听障者阅读时是否激活语音信息是听障者阅读研究领域的热点问题之一。本研究使用眼动技术,采用绕口令材料,考察口语经验和阅读能力对听障大学生汉语阅读中语音激活的影响。结果发现,口语经验较多且阅读能力较高(OHRH)的听障大学生的绕口令效应大于口语经验较少但阅读能力较高(OLRH)的听障大学生,OLRH组的绕口令效应大于口语经验较少且阅读能力较低(OLRL)的听障大学生。局部指标分析发现OHRH和OLRH组在早期和晚期指标上均存在绕口令效应,OLRL组只在晚期指标上才出现绕口令效应。结果表明,口语经验和阅读能力影响听障大学生汉语阅读中的语音激活。     

Does the philosophy of medicine exist?

There has been a great deal of discussion, in this journal and others, about obstacles hindering the evolution of the philosophy of medicine. Such discussions presuppose that there is widespread agreement about what it is that constitutes the philosophy of medicine.Despite the fact that there is, and has been for decades, a great deal of literature, teaching and professional activity carried out explicitly in the name of the philosophy of medicine, this is not enough to establish that consensus exists as to the definition of the field. And even if consensus can be obtained as to what constitutes the philosophy of medicine, this does not mean that it exists as a field.     

论心理测验项目编写的科学性

本文以作为心理测验科学性最基本保证的项目编写为核心,论证了心理测验编制的前提、方法,心理测验项目编写的依据、项目的来源以及项目的分析指标等方面的科学性问题。     

一个参与者眼中的行为遗传学史上的里程碑

行为遗传学的历史,从横切面看,就好似一个由心理学、遗传学、生物学、进化论、人类学、人口学、生物统计、社会学以及法哲学等学科组合成的万花筒。任何一对学科的演进都呈正相关。虽然任何一对学科都不至于相互否定,但是,他们各自独特的历史和人物,又使得每一对学科并不完全相似     

Carnap,Kuhn, and revisionism: on the publication of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Structure</Emphasis> in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Encyclopedia</Emphasis>

In recent years, a revisionist process focused on logical positivism can be observed, particularly regarding Carnap’s work. In this paper, I argue against the interpretation that Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions having been published in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, co-edited by Carnap, is evidence of the revisionist idea that Carnap “would have found Structure philosophically congenial”. I claim that Kuhn’s book, from Carnap’s point of view, is not in philosophy of science but rather in history of science (in the context of a sharp discovery–justification distinction). It could also explain the fact that, despite his sympathetic letters to Kuhn as editor, Carnap never refers to Kuhn’s book in his work in philosophy of science.     

孔门三弟子比较论说

孔门十哲,出类拔萃者莫若颜回、子贡、子路,且此三人之身世、性情、才具、道德修为和成就各有风华,但又殊途同归：共同维护了孔门。光大了儒家。孔子称得上是中华民族几千年来最为伟大的教育家,颜回、子贡、子路三人各方面的修为和成就,莫不大大受惠于夫子有教无类、因材施教的卓越的教育理论和教育方式。三人也没有辜负孔子的教导,以身垂范,较好地诠释了孔子儒家所宣扬的“仁、智、勇”;并与其师一道,在乱世中矢志不渝,坚守道义,追求理想,为儒学的传播和繁荣做出了重要的贡献。     

宗教研究的认知科学新取向

宗教认知科学是新近出现的从认知和进化的角度研究宗教的分支学科。主要有认知副产物和社会适应两种理论。认知副产物理论认为宗教信仰是人类认知倾向的副产物;社会适应理论认为宗教信仰促进群体的团结合作,是一个精巧的社会适应机制,有助于群体的自然选择。两种理论引发了系列的实验研究,由于宗教认知科学仍处于理论研究向实证研究的过渡阶段,未来需统一概念,加强实验范式的建立,更多地借助认知科学的方法和工具开展实证研究。     

Why and how we should care about the General Data Protection Regulation

Abstract

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the new European Union-wide (EU) law on data protection, which is a great step towards more comprehensive and more far-reaching protection of individuals' personal data. In this editorial, we describe why and how we – as researchers within the field of health psychology – should care about the GDPR. In the first part, we explain when the GDPR is applicable, who is accountable for data protection, and what is covered by the notions of personal data and processing. In the second part, we explain aspects of the GDPR that are relevant for researchers within the field of health psychology (e.g., obtaining informed consent, data minimisation, and open science). We focus on questions that researchers may ask themselves in their daily practice. Compliance with the GDPR requires adopting research practices (e.g., data minimisation and anonymization procedures) that are not yet commonly used, but serve the fundamental right to protection of personal data of study participants.