The ad Hominem argument as an informal fallacy

This article outlines criteria for the evaluation of the argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person, or personal attack in argument) that is traditionally a part of the curriculum in informal logic. The argument is shown to be a kind of criticism which works by shifting the burden of proof in dialogue through citing a pragmatic inconsistency in an arguer's position. Several specific cases of ad hominem argumentation which pose interesting problems in analyzing this type of criticism are studied.     

Predictors for relapse and chronicity in eating disorders: A review of follow-up studies

Abstract: Eating disorders have been known to be intractable. Yet, their long-term consequences have received relatively little attention in the literature. In this paper, the outcome and follow-up studies of anorexia nervosa and bulimia are reviewed and the current knowledge of the predictors and correlates of relapse and chronicity in each disorder is summarized. Based on the problems and limitations of the extant studies, suggestions for future research are offered, especially from a developmental perspective, to understand better the mechanisms underlying long-term prognosis and relapse.     

Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: A comparison of choice and matching

Impulsive and myopic choices are often explained as due to hyperbolic discounting, meaning that people are impatient for outcomes available immediately, and become increasingly more patient the more the outcome is delayed. Recent research, however, has suggested that much experimental evidence for increasing patience is actually due to subadditive discounting: people are less patient (per-time-unit) over shorter intervals regardless of when they occur. Because previous research into subadditive discounting has used a choice elicitation procedure, the present paper tests whether it generalises to matching. We find strong evidence that it does, but also find weak evidence of increasing patience for matching. We suggest, however, that subadditive discounting alone may be sufficient to account for all of our results. We conclude by questioning the contribution that hyperbolic discounting makes to our understanding of time preference.     

Lay rationalism and inconsistency between predicted experience and decision

Decision‐makers are sometimes depicted as impulsive and overly influenced by ‘hot’, affective factors. The present research suggests that decision‐makers may be too ‘cold’ and overly focus on rationalistic attributes, such as economic values, quantitative specifications, and functions. In support of this proposition, we find a systematic inconsistency between predicted experience and decision. That is, people are more likely to favor a rationalistically‐superior option when they make a decision than when they predict experience. We discuss how this work contributes to research on predicted and decision utilities; we also discuss when decision‐makers overweight hot factors and when they overweight cold factors. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Remarks on the Absentminded Driver

Piccione and Rubinstein (1997) present and analyse the sequential decision problem of an “absentminded driver”. The driver's absentmindedness (imperfect recall) leads him to time-inconsistent strategy evaluations. His original evaluation gets replaced by a new one under impact of the information that the circumstances have changed, notwithstanding the fact that this change in circumstances has been expected by him all along. The time inconsistency in strategy evaluation suggests that such an agent might have reason to renege on his adopted strategy. As we shall see, however, this danger is only apparent. There is no serious problem of dynamic inconsistency in this case. My diagnosis of the case under consideration is in many respects similar to the one provided by Aumann, Hart and Perry (1997), but the analysis leading to this diagnosis is not quite the same. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

REACTING TO CONSECRATING SCIENCE: WHAT MIGHT AMATEURS DO?

In Consecrating Science: Wonder, Knowledge, and the Natural World, Lisa H. Sideris makes a compelling case that a new cosmology movement advocates for a new, universal, creation story grounded in the sciences. She fears the new story reinforces elite power structures and anthropocentrism and thus environmental degradation. Alternatively, she promotes genuine wonder which occurs in experiences of the natural world. As Sideris focuses on the likely logical outcome of the assumptions and arguments of the new cosmologies, she does not investigate whether and how people react to these new myths. I suggest that methods of documentary studies, applied to popular book reviews on Amazon and Goodreads, shed light on the ramifications of the new cosmologies among the general public. While many reviewers exhibit attitudes and behaviors that would concern Sideris, responses are far from univocal. Using this case as a guide, I suggest that attention to the experience of laypeople could contribute productively to religion and science research in general.     

权重望寡：如何化解低地位领导的补偿性辱虐管理行为?

权力与地位来源不同且体验有别, 二者分离是常态。如果领导者手握权柄却缺乏相应的地位威望, 将限制其控制力, 产生潜在不良后果。基于低地位补偿理论, 构建一个两阶段调节的中介模型, 设计两项研究, 旨在探索领导者“权重望寡” (即权力高, 地位低)所诱发的负面领导行为及其干预机制。研究1揭示: 相对于权力与地位匹配, 领导者权重望寡诱发辱虐管理。研究2探索其成因, 显示: (1)自我损耗中介权重望寡与辱虐管理的关系; (2)领导者正念以及更高层领导信任联合调节自我损耗的中介效应。研究表明, 低地位领导在维护地位过程中产生的自我损耗是引发辱虐管理的主因, 同时辱虐管理强度因人而异, 适可而止, 自身正念和高层信任有助于限制其作为不良补偿手段的蔓延。研究拓展了低地位补偿理论的应用领域, 也为化解权力与地位分离带来的组织冲突提供管理启示。     

Can including pros and cons increase the helpfulness and persuasiveness of online reviews? The interactive effects of ratings and arguments

One guideline given to online reviewers is to acknowledge a product's pros and cons. Yet, I argue that presenting two sides is not always more helpful and can even be less persuasive than presenting one side. Specifically, the effects of two- versus one-sided arguments depend on the perceived consistency between a reviewer's arguments and rating. Across a content analysis and three experiments that vary the information provided in the online review and whether the ratings are positive or negative, the results support these predictions. Furthermore, beliefs that the reviewer is able (vs. willing) to tell the truth mediated the effects.     

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEWING BOOKS

Abstract: The quality of peer‐reviewed journals is vulnerable to the absence of declared standards for book reviews. Reviewers should agree to several simple rules before undertaking to review books and while writing them. Sensitivity to an author's aims is one requirement; familiarity with an author's previous and relevant publications is another. Critical judgment is always appropriate, but it can be set apart from an account of the ideas reviewed.