Scientific Realism and the Meanings of Theoretical Terms

In contemporary philosophy of science, there are many interesting arguments for and against scientific realism with regard to the meaningfulness and truthfulness of theoretical statements. Some anti-realists hold that since many important concepts in scientific theories have no specific referents, the relevant theoretical statements are therefore either false or meaningless. In this essay, I join the debates concerning the plausibility of scientific realism by focusing on two intertwined issues： first, that of how we can we explicate the meaningfulness of theoretical statements, especially statements pertaining to unobservable objects, and second, that of the meaningfulness of theoretical statements for our acceptance of scientific realism.     

基于组织的自尊的情境化与适用性

基于组织的自尊(OBSE)是组织情境下个人对自身能力和价值的评价, 对员工的工作态度、行为和绩效有重要的影响。在回顾最近研究的基础上, 总结了基于组织的自尊的情境化测量与结构。在整合现有相关研究和理论的基础上, 构建了基于组织的自尊情境化研究的法理性框架。针对国内外基于组织的自尊研究的差异, 结合中国情境的特殊性, 对“基于组织的自尊”概念在中国情境下语义差异、语义等值和情境适用性进行了讨论。最后, 对基于组织的自尊未来的情境化研究以及在中国情境下的发展进行了展望。     

The return of the prodigal: the emergence of Jungian themes in post-Freudian thought

Stories about reality and the nature of truth constitute the essence of psychological theory. This paper is an overview of the various Jungian-sounding 'storylines' that have slowly been woven into the fabric of Freudian theory, that is, those broad ranges of therapeutic approaches labelled 'psychoanalytic'. These include: hegemony of subjective experience; centrality of the Subject; the ineffable nature of the Subject and its agency; the role of countertransference as primary data in analysis; autonomous structures in the psyche; the nature and function of symbols; desire and its purposiveness; the nature and transformative aspects of primitive affective states. Speculation on the reasons for this occurrence is not considered as merely a function of enlightened theoretical or fraternal interchange, but of an archetypal dynamic of exclusion and reconciliation inherent in the nature of theory building and illustrated by the biblical myth of the prodigal.     

Incurable suffering from the “hiatus theoreticus”? Some epistemological problems in modern medicine and the clinical relevance of philosophy of medicine

Up to now neither the question, whether all theoretical medical knowledge can at least be described as scientific, nor the one how exactly access to the existing scientific and theoretical medical knowledge during clinical problem-solving is made, has been sufficiently answered. Scientific theories play an important role in controlling clinical practice and improving the quality of clinical care in modern medicine on the one hand, and making it vindicable on the other. Therefore, the vagueness of unexplicit interrelations between medicine's stock of knowledge and medical practice appears as a gap in the theoretical concept of modern medicine which can be described as Hiatus theoreticus in the anatomy of medicine. A central intention of the paper is to analyze the role of philosophy of medicine for the clarification of the theoretical basis of medical practice. Clinical relevance and normativity in the sense of modern theory of science are suggested as criteria to establish a differentiation between philosophy of medicine as a primary medical discipline and the application of general philosophy in medicine.     

Towards a topological philosophy

This article examines the use of mathematical concepts in philosophy, focusing on topology, which may be viewed as a modern supplement to geometry. We show that Plato and Parmenides were already employing geometric ideas in their research, and discuss three examples of the application of topology to philosophical problems: the first concerns the analysis of the Cartesian distinction between res extensa and res cogitans, the second the ontology of possible worlds of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and the third Leibniz's monadology. We also consider the role of topology in mathematical explanations of the sort found in science, arguing that it can perform a role in philosophy that is of comparable importance.     

“讳疾忌医”：健康信息回避的影响因素与理论解释

健康信息回避是指有意识地防止或延迟获取可利用的身体健康信息的行为,对疾病的预防与治疗有着重要影响。本文通过回顾前人文献概述了个体因素、社会因素和信息因素对健康信息回避的影响。风险认知理论、信息处理与决策双加工系统理论和威胁资源管理模型为健康信息回避的产生提供了理论依据。未来研究可以关注健康信息回避的分类研究并扩展健康信息回避的研究范围,加强健康信息回避的实证干预研究并根据我国医疗背景开展健康信息回避的本土化研究。     

Commentaries on “Beyond statistical significance: Five principles for the new era of data analysis and reporting”

Three commentaries below provide different perspectives on data analysis and reporting. They generally focus on how the quality of the measures and manipulations determines the value of the analysis. Norbert Schwarz and Fritz Strack's comment is less on the right statistic and more on “sloppy reasoning, gaps between theoretical concepts and their operationalizations, and blissful ignorance of the situated nature of human thinking, feeling, and doing contribute more to the limited reproducibility of empirical findings than the choice of a particular test statistic.” They propose that particular effects are contextual and inappropriately labeled as true or false. Instead, our job is to focus on general constructs that make sense of the diversity of human experience and psychological reactions. Too often studies replicating psychological effects in the noisy and confounded conditions of the marketplace result in statistical uncertainty of garbage in, garbage out. Researchers instead need to look toward tests of specific interactions, which can clarify the influencing factors based on theoretical considerations. The second comment is by Andrew Gelman, an outstanding psychological statistician. He proposes that “once the data have been collected, the most important decisions have already been done.” He then provides four recommendations that enable the statistics to work appropriately. The first requirement of an effective study is to be sure that the measures address the construct of interest. Similar to the position of Schwarz and Strack, it is important to articulate the relevance of a statistically significant finding. The second recommendation seeks to curb large number of studies with inflated effect sizes built from narrow studies and unwarranted optimism. The third recommendation is to simulate data from a model and consider the distribution of possible results. That is often done to test a new analysis method, but it can be even more important in marketplace studies where novel characteristics of the sample and experimental conditions are included in the analysis. Finally, he recommends that one consider likely analyses needed before getting the data. Such foresight would encourage, for example, thinking about the kind of data needed to defend the equality of the control demographics against the treatment. The final commentary is by Stijn van Osselaer. He agrees that p-values reflect the detailed methods from a given study but do not focus on the problem of generalizability. Like Gelman, he sees designs focused on effect sizes may have generated too many studies that do not replicate. He contrasts broad explorations with narrowly defined existence tests that provide evidence that an effect exists somewhere but are mute on other contexts where they may apply. For theoretical problems relevant to applications, it is important to identify moderators through broad sampling across population characteristics, stimuli, and situations. He proposes that consumer psychologists should not try to do everything in one paper, but to build practically relevant, applicable knowledge across multiple articles. Different articles, authors, and research methods play various roles, with each article focusing on important stages in the process from generating hypotheses, providing existence proofs, and exploring their broad applicability. That pragmatic approach can integrate theoretical silos that seek to resolve complex human problems and has promise as a criterion for relevant publications.     

Troubles with Theoretical Virtues: Resisting Theoretical Utility Arguments in Metaphysics

In this paper we examine theoretical utility arguments in metaphysics. While philosophers claim a procedural continuity with science when using such arguments, we argue that examining famous instances from the history of science expose their fundamental flaws. We find that arguments from theoretical utility invoke considerations that are not truth conducive and that justifications for claims that a theory possesses theoretical virtues often assume the truth of the theory such virtues are supposed to support. We conclude that theoretical utility arguments provide no epistemic grounds for metaphysical inquiry.     

促进型和抑制型建言的差异

本文系统地回顾了促进型和抑制型建言在前因与后果上的差异。这些差异的理论基础包括计划行为理论、调节焦点理论、目标导向理论、社会期望理论、资源保存理论、归因理论、自我损耗理论、认知评价理论以及情感事件理论。与理论相对应, 两类建言前因的差异体现在建言者特质(如人格、动机)、领导风格与行为、领导成员交换和组织层面的因素(如组织政治、组织公平)等方面; 后果的差异体现在建言者工作态度与行为(如绩效、工作满意度)、领导建言采纳和团队绩效等方面。未来可能的研究方向包括:探讨两类建言在团队中的共存、两类建言的文化差异等。