Coin trials

According to the JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS principle, if I know that a coin is fair, and I lack justification for believing that it won’t be flipped, then I lack justification for believing that it won’t land tails. What this principle says, in effect, is that the only way to have justification for believing that a fair coin won’t land tails, is by having justification for believing that it won’t be flipped at all. Although this seems a plausible and innocuous principle, in a recent paper Dorr, Goodman and Hawthorne use it in devising an intriguing puzzle which places all justified beliefs about the future in jeopardy. They point out, further, that one very widespread theory of justification predicts that JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS is false, giving us additional reason to reject it. In this paper, I will attempt to turn this dialectic around. I will argue that JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS does not inevitably lead to scepticism about the future, and the fact that it is incompatible with a widespread theory of justification may give us reason to doubt the theory. I will outline an alternative theory of justification that predicts both that JUSTIFIED FAIR COINS is true and that we have justification for believing much about the future.     

Therapists’ perspective on the therapeutic relationship: Examining a tripartite model

The components of a tripartite model of the therapeutic relationship, namely the working alliance, the transference configuration (transference and countertransference), and real relationship, were examined in terms of how they relate to one another and to the outcome of a psychotherapy session, from the therapists’ perspective. Although previous studies have examined these components separately, no study to date has examined the components together in their relation to session outcome. Licensed psychotherapists (n = 249) were recruited from two Divisions of the American Psychological Association. Therapists completed measures for the last session they had with a client. Results revealed that from the therapist’s perspective the real relationship and working alliance related positively to session outcome, and countertransference behavior related negatively to session outcome. The components related to each other mostly as predicted by the tripartite model, and a principal-axis factor analysis revealed the presence of four distinct factors resembling the components theorized to comprise the tripartite model. The components together accounted for 27% of the variance in session outcome and only the real relationship and the working alliance predicted session outcome when all the components were looked at simultaneously in a regression model.     

Activist Theatre: The Effects of Community Performance on System Justification and Willingness to Engage in Activism

System justification is a motivation to legitimize the status quo that disables individuals from changing oppressive social systems. Community performance has long been used as a tool to illuminate and challenge such systems of power. The goal of the present study was to provide an empirical test of the effectiveness of community performance in the context of gender‐based oppression. Specifically, the present study tested whether a community performance could decrease audience members' system justification and increase intentions to engage in collective and virtual action to correct these oppressive systems. The performance consisted of 18 community‐created pieces performed by 11 actresses before an audience of 165 members of the college and local communities across three days. A total of 153 audience members participated in the study. Results indicated that a 50‐min performance reduced system justification while increasing willingness to take collective and virtual‐based action. Limitations and implications are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why Listen to Philosophers? A Constructive Critique of Disciplinary Philosophy

This article articulates a fundamental crisis of disciplinary philosophy—its lack of disciplinary self‐consciousness and the skeptical problems this generates—and, through that articulation, exemplifies a means of mitigating its force. Disciplinary philosophy organizes itself as a producer of specialized knowledge, with the apparatus of journals, publication requirements, and other professional standards, but it cannot agree on what constitutes knowledge, progress, or value, and evinces ignorance of its history and alternatives. This situation engenders a skepticism that threatens the legitimacy of disciplinary philosophy. The article proposes a response to this skepticism, rooted in the conditions that philosophers evince a specific kind of awareness of their own activity and its professional and cultural location, demonstrate this awareness by articulating it in the practice of philosophy itself, and recognize that precisely such articulation lies at the core of the Socratic idea of philosophy as a form of self‐knowledge.     

System‐justifying behaviors: When feeling dependent on a system triggers gender stereotype‐consistent academic performance

Based on system‐justification theory, we hypothesized that men and women would perform in accordance with gender stereotypes mainly when justification of the system is necessary. In this research, system‐justification motivation was triggered using a system‐dependency manipulation. Study 1 shows that when feeling highly (vs. less) dependent on the system, people endorsed system‐justifying beliefs more. In Study 2, men performed better in math than in verbal domains, while women showed the reverse pattern, but only when they felt highly dependent on the system. Similar results were obtained on performance self‐evaluation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The courage to be: Paul Tillich's existentialist theology of the cross in relation to Martin Luther

Paul Tillich is a traditionally rooted, yet progressive, theologian and philosopher who sought to bring the Christian message to the predicament of existential meaninglessness faced by modern people. The present article addresses a scholarly gap by emphasizing Tillich's use of Martin Luther's theology of the cross, in order to demonstrate Tillich's theological relevance for today from a Lutheran lens.     

The marketing of industrial real estate: application of Taguchi loss functions

The marketing of industrial real estate is a resource‐consuming endeavour for all parties involved consisting of many objectives that, in many cases, may be in conflict with one another. One method of minimizing resource requirements, especially time, while increasing the probability of a successful match is to select properties for presentation that maximizes buyer utility. Zionts (1992) indicated one area for future research in multiple criteria decision‐making (MCDM) is in the development of ‘Eclectic Approaches’ using old ideas in a new way to help develop MCDM approaches. In this paper Taguchi loss functions, a procedure commonly used in quality control, is proposed as a tool that can be used by industrial real estate professionals to more efficiently determine the property that most closely matches the buyer's needs. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Justification, Discovery, Reason & Argument

In distinguishing justification from discovery, the logical empiricists hoped to avoid confusing causal matters with normative ones. Exaggerating the virtue of this distinction, however, has disguised from us important features of the concept of a reason as it functions in human practice. Surfacing those features gives some insight into reasoning and argument.     

Paul and the Revisionists: Did Luther Really Get it All Wrong?

Abstract : After the advent of the “new perspective” on Paul as explicated in E. P. Sanders, Krister Stendahl, and N.T. Wright, we need to ask: did Luther get Paul right? In this essay, Donfried analyzes N.T. Wright along with David Brondos on whether Paul—and Luther—properly interpreted concepts such as “law” or “justification” in light of ancient Judaism(s). In contrast to the “new perspective,” Donfried argues that Paul got the Judaisms of his own era right and Luther got Paul right: we are justified or rightwised before God because of the presence of Jesus Christ in the faith of the one who believes.     

Sceptical possibilities? No worries

This paper undermines a paradigmatic form of sceptical reasoning. It does this by describing, and then dialectically dissolving, the sceptical-independence presumption, upon which that form of sceptical reasoning relies.