Judgments of mean speed and predictions of route choice

How are driving speeds integrated when speeds vary along a route? In a first study, we examined heuristic processes used in judgments of mean speed when the mean speeds on parts of the trip varied. The judgments deviated systematically from objective mean speeds because the distances driven at different speeds were given more weight than travel time spent on the different distances. The second study showed that when there was a 10–15 min pause during a travel the effect on the mean speed decrease was underestimated for driving speeds of 90 km/h and higher. In the third study, the objective mean speeds and the subjective biased mean speed judgments were used to predict choices between routes with different speed limits. The results showed that subjective judgments predicted decisions to maximize mean speed significantly better than objective mean speeds. Finally, some applied and basic research implications of the results were discussed.     

Inductive systematization: Definition and a critical survey

In 1958, to refute the argument known as the theoretician's dilemma, Hempel suggested that theoretical terms might be logically indispensable for inductive systematization of observational statements. This thesis, in some form or another, has later been supported by Scheffler, Lehrer, and Tuomela, and opposed by Bohnert, Hooker, Stegmüller, and Cornman. In this paper, a critical survey of this discussion is given. Several different putative definitions of the crucial notion inductive systematization achieved by a theory are discussed by reference to the properties of inductive inference. The consequences of the following differences between deductive and inductive inference are emphasized: the lack of simple transitivity properties (even in a modified sense) of inductive inference, and the failure of the inductive analogue of the converse of The Deduction Theorem. The main conclusions are: (i) Hempel's original thesis may very well be right but his argument for it is unsatisfactory, (ii) theoretical terms can be logically indispensable for a non-Hempelian kind of inductive systematization, relative to both Craigian and Ramseyan elimination, (iii) Lehrer's attempt to prove the indispensability of theoretical terms for inductive-probabilistic systematization is, as a modification of Hempelian kind of inductive-deterministic systematization, unsatisfactory, and (iv) there does not seem to be much hope of escaping the conclusion (ii), if it is true, by extending the Craigian replacement programme along the lines suggested by Cornman.The work for this paper was initiated in a research group supported by The Emil Aaltonen Foundation (Emil Aaltosen Säätiö). I am greatly indebted to Professor Raimo Tuomela for many discussions concerning the subject-matter of this paper and earlier drafts of it.     

Kotarbiński As A Scientific Realist

Tadeusz Kotarbiski is widely recognized as a major philosopher of theLvov–Warsaw school. His reism, which is a contribution to semantics andontology, is still discussed and debated, and his most original creation, praxiology,has grown into an entire research field. However, Kotarbiski's philosophy ofscience has not received much attention by later commentators. This paper attemptsto correct this situation by considering the hypothesis that Kotarbiski succeededalready in 1929 in formulating a position that can be regarded as an early version ofscientific realism. Unlike most other ``scientific philosophers' before the mid-thirties,he was able to combine ontological realism (by defending a form of physicalism andnominalism) and semantical realism (by defending the classical correspondence theoryof truth). He was also a critical epistemological realist. Further, in spite of theinstrumentalist flavour of his reductionist programme in eliminating terms apparentlyreferring to abstract entities, Kotarbiski accepted theories as statements with truth values and theoretical entities as long as they can be understood as physical bodies.