The tendency to overestimate what is visible in a planar mirror amongst adults and children

Adults hold several mistaken beliefs about simple mechanical and optical phenomena. In particular, many adults believe that they would be able to see their own image in a mirror before they are in front of it. Similarly, they expect objects to become visible in mirrors before they actually do. This overestimation of what is visible is known as the early error (Bertamini, Spooner, & Hecht, 2003). It has been suggested that incorrect models about mechanics, and therefore erroneous beliefs, develop over time, as evidenced by good performance in young children (Kaiser, McCloskey, & Proffitt, 1986). With respect to knowledge about what is visible in mirrors we report the first developmental data. We confirmed an effect for prospective University students but found no evidence of any early error in children between the age of 5 and 11. This erroneous belief about mirrors develops during the later school years when people develop a system of beliefs based on experience.     

主流心理学科学观的来源与结构——经典物理学与主流心理学科学观比较分析

主流心理学僵化的科学观日益受到批判 ,但在其科学观的来源与结构问题上心理学家并未达成一致。本文通过比较经典物理学与主流心理学的科学观后认为 ,主流心理学的科学观来自于对经典物理学的模仿 ,且这一科学观有其内在的复杂结构。而目前对于主流心理学科学观的批判往往忽视或低估了这一结构的复杂性。     

线索提示对物理问题表征的影响

考察了复杂物理问题解决中图形线索提示和参数线索提示的作用,结果表明,在难度较大的物理问题中,单一的图形线索提示未给学生带来太大的帮助,而参数线索提示有助于学生搜索到有效算子.讨论了专家在物理问题解决过程中的特点,认为专家的优势之一在于比新手更善于发现关键的线索,能够根据关键线索找到合适的原理来完整地表征问题.     

干细胞纠缠

干细胞生物学的研究目前还处于一个“灰箱”的状态,阻止机制阐明的最大障碍之一可能是因为缺少一个行之有效且又不会改变干细胞自然属性的研究平台。这个平台的中心是要有一个像“薛定谔的猫”那样能即时报告干细胞属性的作用角色。目前,主要有两方面阻碍了干细胞研究的进一步深化,一个是干细胞如何不对称分裂,另一个是干细胞巢的结构组成。其实,在微观世界的许多研究中,如物理学中的量子论,都是因为缺少那只“薛定谔的猫”才使研究的钟摆停在原地不动。     

IS PHYSICS FUNDAMENTAL? ROBERT RUSSELL ON DIVINE ACTION

Robert Russell's theological work has been a helpful stimulus to the task of understanding the meaning of divine action and providence in the age of science. He relates God's direct action "fundamentally" to the hidden domain of quantum events, and his theology of nature deserves careful attention. It is questionable, however, whether the term fundamental as applied to quantum events by physical science may be taken over by theology without more careful qualification than Russell offers.     

"形而上"与"形而下"的近代分离--《易》与经学时代中国学者的学术兴趣

近代科学在欧洲的产生,乃得益于"文艺复兴"以来欧洲学术上"形而上"与"形而下"的大规模分离.而汉以来"独尊儒术"的实现,<易>作为儒家主要经籍以其"仰观天文,俯察地理,中知人事"的宏大叙事与终极关怀,影响了经学时代中国学者的学术兴趣,导致他们将绝大多数精力投入到了以史学为主的"人事"中而非自然事物的研究对象与形而下的研究路径.两个相对独立的历史进程与历史体系或无何可比性:近代科学在欧洲产生只有在产生近代科学的欧洲自我历史进程与历史体系中才能得到解释,中国没有产生近代科学亦复如此.至于将中国科学落后的原由单一性地归结于<易>或儒家经学,这未必符合历史的因果真相与思维的有效推理.     

Should physics students take a course in ethics?—Physicists respond

A survey was conducted of a subset of the physics community in order to gain insight into attitudes towards integrating ethics into the physics curriculum. The results indicated significant support among some groups for such an integration yet also revealed significant barriers to this process. Respondents were also asked to suggest topics which should be covered under the heading of ethical issues in physics. The great variety of results indicates both that there are many issues worth investigating and that many in the physics community have given a great deal of thought to these issues.     

THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL REALITY

Abstract. This account of the dynamical theory of chaos leads to a metaphysical picture of a world with an open future, in which the laws of physics are emergent-downward approximations to a more subtle and supple reality and in which there is downward causation through information input as well as upward causation through energy input. Such a metaphysical picture can accommodate both human and divine agency.     

Coauthorship in physics

In a large and detailed survey on the ethics of scientific coauthorship, members of the American Physical Society (APS) were asked to judge the number of appropriate coauthors on his or her last published paper. Results show that the first or second coauthor are more appropriate than later coauthors about whom there is equal and considerable doubt. The probability of any third and subsequent coathors being judged as inappropriate is 23% for the APS guideline, 67% for the tighter guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 59% if the guideline requires “direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention”. Only 3% of respondents report having personally rejected an undeserving scientist who expected to be an author on the last published paper. Respondents seem to be divided into two non-overlapping populations—those who report no inappropriate coauthorship and those who have a more graduated view.