Adaptive Memory: Remembering With a Stone-Age Brain

ABSTRACT— If memory evolved, sculpted by the processes of natural selection, then its operating characteristics likely bear the "footprints" of ancestral selection pressures. Psychologists rarely consider this possibility and generally ignore functional questions in their attempt to understand how human memory works. We propose that memory evolved to enhance reproductive fitness and, accordingly, its systems are tuned to retain information that is fitness-relevant. We present evidence consistent with this proposal, namely that processing information for its survival relevance leads to superior long-term retention—better, in fact, than most known memory-enhancement techniques. Even if one remains skeptical about evolutionary analyses, adopting a functional perspective can lead to the generation of new research ideas.     

The Relevant Equivalence Property

The pure implicational and the multiplicative fragments of arange of propositional relevant (and other) logics are shownto have the property that any two formulas equivalent in sucha logic are constructed from exactly the same propositionalvariables – as opposed to merely having (as the definitionof relevance itself would require) some propositional variablein common.     

对归纳推理贝叶斯模型的检验

作者用实验比较检验特征归纳的贝叶斯模型、关联相似性模型、基于特征的归纳推理模型和相似性覆盖模型这四种模型。以大学生为被试的实验结果表明：1）在强关联强度一致时,被试的归纳推理基本符合贝叶斯模型和关联相似性模型的预测,在弱关联强度一致时,不符合这四种模型预测;2）在关联强度不一致时,关联强度效应不符合贝叶斯模型的预测;3）在关联强度一致时,贝叶斯模型和关联相似性模型的预测结果是一致的,不能区分两个模型。实验结果较多地支持贝叶斯模型和关联相似性模型。     

惯用语理解的多种心理机制

惯用语是比喻性表达的一种。对惯用语句法分析导致其字面意义的通达,对惯用语语义分析导致其比喻意义的通达,两种加工存在矛盾。针对这种矛盾,研究者提出惯用语理解的非建构观点、建构观点和关联理论假说。非建构观点认为对惯用语的理解是比喻意义的直接提取;建构观点认为对惯用语的理解词素发挥重要作用;关联理论假说认为对惯用语的理解是寻求词素和整词最大程度的语义关联,以及语用过程中信息交流的最优功效。大量研究表明,不能简单的将惯用语加工的心理机制纳入统一模型内,惯用语加工受到材料和语用等诸多因素的影响,惯用语理解遵循多种心理加工机制。     

Using logical relevance for question answering

We propose a novel method of determining the appropriateness of an answer to a question through a proof of logical relevance rather than a logical proof of truth. We define logical relevance as the idea that answers should not be considered as absolutely true or false in relation to a question, but should be considered true more flexibly in a sliding scale of aptness. This enables us to reason rigorously about the appropriateness of an answer even in cases where the sources we are getting answers from are incomplete or inconsistent or contain errors. We show how logical relevance can be implemented through the use of measured simplification, a form of constraint relaxation, in order to seek a logical proof than an answer is in fact an answer to a particular question. We then give an example of such an implementation providing a set of specific rules for this purpose.     

Relevance and argumentation: How bald can you get

This paper is concerned with vagueness in language, its relation to logico-philosophical questions on the one hand, and to so-called syncategorematic terms and their linguistic use on the other hand. It attempts to show that it is not language itself which is vague but rather the way we use it.     

Which of the fallacies are fallacies of relevance?

This paper looks around among the major traditional fallacies — centering mainly around the so-called gang of eighteen — to discuss which of them should properly be classified as fallacies of relevance. The paper argues that four of these fallacies are fallacies primarily because they are failures of relevance in argumentation, while others are fallacies in a way that is more peripherally related to failures of relevance. Still others have an even more tangential relation to failures of relevance. This paper is part of a larger research project on dialecical relevance in argumentative discourse, currently underway in collaboration with Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst.     

Argumentation in ethics, legal dogmatics and legal practice

The author adopts a coherentist approach to legal argumentation.Ceteris paribus, the degree of coherence of argumentation depends on answers to such questions as: How many statements belonging to the justification are supported by reasons, that is, not arbitrary?, How profound is the justification, that is, how long are the chains of reasons it contains?, How closely interconnected are the reasons, for example in such a way that the same conclusion follows from various independent reasons?, How relevant are the reasons in the context in question?, etc.A reasonable legal argumentation is a special case of a reasonable moral argumentation. Both contain moral substantive reasons and legal authority reasons. On the other hand, some particularities of legal argumentation must be noticed, as well. Among other things, the lawyers take for granted that legal reasoning is based on valid law and that some sources of law, such as statutes, are binding.There exist various juristic roles and corresponding types of argumentation, e.g., judicial and doctrinal ones. Yet, all kinds of legal argumentation must use weighing and balancing in order to make the law coherent and morally acceptable. Consequently, all general principles and criteria of coherence are applicable to all these types but their weight varies between them.     

Creative reasoning in formal discussion

Systems of formal dialectics articulate methods of conflict resolution. To this end they provide norms to regulate verbal exchanges between the Proponent of a thesis and an Opponent. These regulated exchanges constitute what are known as formal discussions.One may ask what moves, if any, in formal discusions correspond to arguing for or against the thesis. It is claimed that certain moves of the Proponent's are properly designated as arguing for the thesis, and that certain moves of the Opponent purport to criticize the tenability or the relevance of the reasons advanced. Thus the usefulness of formal dialectic systems as models for reasonable argument is vindicated.It is then proposed to make these systems more realistic by incorporating in them a norm of Creative Reasoning that removes the severe restrictions to which the Proponent's arguing was hitherto subject. As a consequence, a certain type of irrelevant reason is no longer automatically excluded. Therefore, it is proposed to extend the Opponent's rights to exert relevance criticism. The new dialectic systems are shown to be strategically equivalent to the original ones. Finally, it is stressed that the Opponent's criticism should not be designated as arguing against the thesis. The Opponent criticizes, but does not argue.     

How Discrimination Impacts Sociopolitical Behavior: A Multidimensional Perspective

The conventional wisdom regarding the impact of discrimination on political behavior is that the perception of prejudiced treatment motivates individuals to take political action. This study challenges this common conception by demonstrating that the source of discrimination can play a significant role in whether perceived or experienced injustice leads to activism or withdrawal from sociopolitical life. Drawing from political science and social psychology literature, this study provides a new perspective on the potential effects of discrimination on a relatively new marginalized group in the United States. Specifically, an important distinction is drawn between political (systematic) and societal (interpersonal) discrimination in analyzing the sociopolitical behavior of American Muslims in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The results will hopefully encourage scholars to take a deeper look at the nexus between discrimination and democratic engagement, which is an important, complex, multidimensional, and understudied topic.