Aristotle,Akrasia, and the Place of Desire in Moral Reasoning

This paper serves both as a discussion of Henry’s (Ethical Theory Moral Practice, 5:255–270, 2002) interpretation of Aristotle on the possibility of akrasia – knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway – and an indication of the importance of desire in Aristotle’s account of moral reasoning. As I will explain, Henry’s interpretation is advantageous for the reason that it makes clear how Aristotle could have made good sense of genuine akrasia, a phenomenon that we seem to observe in the real world, while maintaining non-trivial distinctions between temperance (sôphrosunê), self-indulgence (akolasia), self-control (enkrateia) and akrasia. There are, however, some interpretive challenges that follow from Henry’s account and this paper is intended to explain and resolve those.     

分心抑制和关系整合对学前儿童类比推理的影响

为探究分心抑制和关系整合对学前儿童类比推理的影响,实验一先初步探究分心抑制和关系整合对25名3~4岁和26名5~6岁儿童完成含有知觉分心的类比情景任务的影响。其次,揭示知觉分心与关系整合在类比推理中的具体作用模式。实验二先初步探究分心抑制和关系整合对30名3~4岁和28名5~6岁儿童完成含有语义分心的类比情景任务的影响。其次,揭示语义分心与关系整合在类比推理中的具体作用模式。结果表明,抑制控制能显著预测儿童完成各种类型类比推理成绩,工作记忆能显著预测儿童完成含有语义分心的类比推理成绩而不能显著预测含有知觉分心的类比推理成绩。儿童完成类比情景中的分心抑制是在关系整合中完成的,当类比情景中的关系整合没有超过儿童的工作记忆容量时,知觉或语义分心才能造成对儿童类比推理的影响。     

归纳推理和演绎推理的关系理论及其模型

推理是人类高级认知过程的一种,相关的心理学研究一般将其分为归纳推理和演绎推理两个方面。归纳推理是从特殊到一般的推理过程,与之相对的演绎推理则是从一般到特殊的过程。归纳推理和演绎推理的关系问题是当前心理推理研究领域的一个重点问题。这一问题主要有两种理论解释：一种是单过程理论,该理论认为归纳推理和演绎推理本质上是同一个认知过程,以单过程理论为基础构建的推理模型称为单维模型;另一种是双过程理论,认为归纳推理和演绎推理是两个不同的认知过程,并不同程度地受到启发和分析过程的影响。未来研究可多关注推理的时间进程,以及采用不同的研究方法对各自理论提供数据支持。     

利用游戏log-file预测学生推理能力和数学成绩——机器学习的应用

以360名初中生为被试, 使用推箱子游戏, 结合游戏日志文件(log-file)和机器学习技术预测学生的推理能力和数学成绩。预测变量是从推箱子的过程数据中提取的一系列特征指标, 结果变量是瑞文推理测验成绩和数学成绩, 且均以25%为高低分组的临界值转换为二分变量。结果发现, 训练的模型预测推理能力最高能获得76.11%的查准率、65.72%的精确率、63.10%的查全率以及65.01%的F1得分; 预测数学成绩最高能获得83.07%的查准率、73.70%的精确率、73.33%的查全率以及75.57%的F1得分。研究结果说明, 机器学习建立的区分模型具有较好的预测效果, 利用log-file所记录的游戏过程数据可以对个体的能力进行有效预测。     

假言推理判定标准的发展性研究

以充分条件和必要条件假言推理题目为测验材料,对小学四年级、初中二年级、高中二年级和大学二年级共469名被试进行了测量。结果表明:(1)内容和形式两种判断标准从小学四年级就开始发展了,但是小学生和中学生还是根据经验事实来进行判断,直到大学才摆脱经验事实的束缚。(2)必要条件推理的能力发展要早于充分条件推理的能力,而且最后能够达到的水平也要高。(3)被试对规则掌握的先后顺序是肯定前件式、否认前件式、肯定后件式和否认后件式。(4)被试是否受到信念偏见效应的影响,还要看题目是否符合事实以及是否符合逻辑规则。     

Just Plain "Ought'

Is there any sense to the idea of an ``ought''that is not relative to any particularnormative framework? This ``ought'' would not bea moral, prudential, legal, aesthetic, orreligious ``ought,'' but rather an unqualified or just plain ``ought.'' Thispaper (i) argues for the existence andusefulness of just plain ``ought''; (ii) locatesthe concept of just plain ``ought'' within amajor strand in the history of ethics (namely,the perennial attempt to demonstrate thatmorality and prudence are in harmony); and(iii) challenges David Copp's recent attempt toshow that in fact there is no such thing asjust plain ``ought.'' A theory of just plain``ought'' emerges along the way.     

Moral Reasoning Effects on Political Participation

In this study, respondents who agreed to participate in a computer-administered interview were presented with information and questions about public interest groups, followed by the Defining Issues Test of moral reasoning (DIT). Respondents with high DIT scores stressed morally central over morally peripheral considerations in deciding whether to participate in public interest groups. Less sophisticated reasoners showed the opposite pattern. Morally central considerations also had a much greater impact on the probability that sophisticated respondents would attempt to participate in public interest groups after completing the interview. The analysis included controls for potential confounding variables such as cognitive ability, education, prior political participation, and gender. The findings imply motivational differences between advantaged and disadvantaged population groups. Such differences may help to account for the differing strategies and successes of political organizations mobilizing these groups.     

Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning: How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge

A large body of work shows that reasoning motivated by partisan cues and prior attitudes leads to unreflective decisions and disparities in empirical beliefs across groups. Surprisingly little research, however, has tested the limits of motivated reasoning. We argue that the publicly circulated findings of deliberative minipublics can spark a more reflective motivation in voters when these bodies provide policy-relevant factual information. To test that proposition, we conducted a survey experiment using information generated by one such minipublic during an election. Results showed that exposure to the minipublic's findings improved the accuracy of voters' empirical beliefs regarding a ballot proposition on the regulation of genetically modified seeds. This treatment effect transcended voters' partisan identities and prior environmental attitudes. In some instances, the respondents showing the greatest knowledge gains were those who a directional motivated-reasoning account would have expected to resist the treatment most effectively, owing to party identity or prior attitudes.     

The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Ad Baculum</Emphasis>

Robert Kimball, in “What’s Wrong with Argumentum Ad Baculum?” (Argumentation, 2006) argues that dialogue-based models of rational argumentation do not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats encountered in some ad baculum arguments. We review the dialogue-based approach to argumentum ad baculum, and show how it can offer more than Kimball thinks for analyzing such threat arguments and ad baculum fallacies.