孤独症个体的谎言理解及其与对自我/他人错误信念理解的关系

选取言语智力匹配的孤独症个体（19名）、典型发展个体（20名）、智力迟滞个体（19名）为被试,动画呈现以言语和非言语信息为线索的两个谎言情景,考察了孤独症个体谎言理解中的谎言行为判断、真假信息辨别、谎言意图理解及其与自我/他人错误信念理解的关系。结果表明：（1）孤独症个体能够进行谎言行为判断,其困难主要表现在辨别真假信息及对谎言意图的理解上;（2）孤独症个体对他人错误信念理解越好,对真假信息辨别也越准确,而谎言意图理解则与对自我错误信念的理解有关;（3）谎言线索以言语或非言语方式呈现对孤独症谎言理解并无影响。     

知识验证信念对于多文本阅读理解的影响机制:阅读策略的中介效应和主题知识的调节效应

为厘清知识验证信念对于多文本阅读理解的影响机制,本研究构建了有调节的中介模型。采用知识验证信念量表、主题知识问卷和阅读策略量表,对于173名大学生进行调查,并要求其在多文本阅读理解之后进行开放问题回答。结果显示：精致化策略和信息收集策略在知识验证信念对于多文本阅读理解的影响中起部分中介作用;知识验证信念对于精致化策略的预测作用受到主题知识的调节。该结果不但展示了知识验证信念对于多文本阅读理解的间接影响机制,也提示了主题知识的作用在于提供了选择复杂策略的自由。     

Privacy and Justification*

In this paper, I aim to demonstrate the importance of liberal engagement in public debate, in the face of Nagel’s claim that respect for privacy requires liberals to withdraw from their ‘control of the culture’. The paper starts by outlining a pluralist conception of privacy. I then proceed to examine whether there really is liberal cultural control, as Nagel affirms it, and whether such control truly involves a violation of privacy. Moreover, I argue that Nagel’s desire to leave the social and cultural space radically neutral is incompatible with Rawls’ conception of public reason and clashes with the need to justify liberal institutions.*Winner of the inaugural Res Publica Postgraduate Essay Prize, 2005.     

The Indicative of Grace & The Imperative of Freedom: An Invitation to the Theology of Eberhard Jüngel

Abstract :  This essay offers a comprehensive introduction to German theologian Eberhard Jüngel's theology and philosophy of religion. It traces his intellectual development, beginning with his formation studies in New Testament with Ernst Fuchs, and ends with his controversial position in matters of church unity and ecumenism. Special attention is paid to his theological anthropology, and the potential contributions his theology could make in the North American context are assessed.     

Towards a Critical Theory of Transnational Justice

This paper argues for a conception of transnational justice that provides an alternative to globalist and statist views. In light of an analysis of the transnational context of justice, a critical theory is suggested that addresses the multiple relations of injustice and domination to be found in this context. Based on a universal, individual right to reciprocal and general justification, this theory argues for justifiable social and political relations both within and between states. In both of these contexts, it distinguishes between minimal and maximal justice and stresses the interdependence of domestic and transnational justice. On both levels, minimal justice calls for a discursive structure of justification, whereas maximal justice implies a fully justified basic social structure.     

Response to restrictive policies: Reconciling system justification and psychological reactance

Here we propose a dual process model to reconcile two contradictory predictions about how people respond to restrictive policies imposed upon them by organizations and systems within which they operate. When participants’ attention was not drawn to the restrictive nature of the policy, or when it was, but their cognitive resources were restricted, we found evidence supporting a prediction based on System Justification Theory: Participants reacted favorably to restrictive policies, endorsing them and downplaying the importance of the restricted freedom. Only when we cued participants to focus their undivided attention on the restrictive nature of the policy did we find evidence supporting a prediction based on psychological reactance: Only then did participants display reactance and respond negatively to the policies.     

Hume on presentation and philosophy

Most philosophers agree that an argument's presentation is relevant to its philosophical merit. This paper explains why David Hume considered presentation philosophically important. On Hume's epistemology, presentation is closely connected with two principal aims of philosophical arguments: persuasion and epistemic justification. Hume's views imply that presentation is a factor determining an argument's persuasiveness and that, by philosophical standards of justification, presentation is also a factor determining the extent to which an argument's conclusion is justified.     

Actuality, Necessity, and Logical Truth

The traditional view that all logical truths are metaphysically necessary has come under attack in recent years. The contrary claim is prominent in David Kaplan’s work on demonstratives, and Edward Zalta has argued that logical truths that are not necessary appear in modal languages supplemented only with some device for making reference to the actual world (and thus independently of whether demonstratives like ‘I’, ‘here’, and ‘now’ are present). If this latter claim can be sustained, it strikes close to the heart of the traditional view. I begin this paper by discussing and refuting Zalta’s argument in the context of a language for propositional modal logic with an actuality connective (section 1). This involves showing that his argument in favor of real world validity his preferred explication of logical truth, is fallacious. Next (section 2) I argue for an alternative explication of logical truth called general validity. Since the rule of necessitation preserves general validity, the argument of section 2 provides a reason for affirming the traditional view. Finally (section 3) I show that the intuitive idea behind the discredited notion of real world validity finds legitimate expression in an object language connective for deep necessity. Earlier versions of this paper were read at the universities of Graz, Maribor, and Salzburg, and at a workshop on the philosophy of logic at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in Mexico City. My thanks to those present at these events for many helpful suggestions. Thanks are also due to an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎试验性治疗的伦理辩护

虽已开展瑞德西韦、抗疟药磷酸氯喹、血浆疗法等临床研究,但迄今无任何新型冠状病毒肺炎的特效疗法。为最大程度确保患者及时获得治疗的权利,可借鉴抗击埃博拉疫情经验,新型冠状病毒肺炎患者的试验性治疗可在伦理上得到辩护。应确保试验性治疗的科学性,包括前期安全性和有效性数据,不同治疗方案的优先次序及持续评估。也从透明性、公平分配、知情同意和评估风险受益等考虑其伦理性。可从利益冲突管理、严密监测、确保数据完整性和社会参与等方面监管试验性治疗。以期为未来突发传染病的疫情防控提供借鉴意义。