我国市场经济"信用"动力机制分析及其体系建构

现代社会生活的生产实践表明,分工是交换的前提,交换是分工的实现,这就是现代社会活动的全部内容和过程。在此事实基础上构建的市场经济体制,其管理理念内含着丰富的伦理意蕴[1]。本文首先分析阐述了市场经济信用体系的建立是市场经济体制内在规律的必然要求,揭示了“信用”是承诺者之间能量均衡与博弈的结果,既具有丰富的道德理性又具有明显的功利要求。文章进而通过对信用体系维护的动力因素及其与市场主体行为的相关性进行比较研究后指出:政府在参与市场经济活动中要坚持“有所为,有所不为”,应把政府置于经济利益之外,使之具有超脱于市场各成员的地位;同时,信用体系的创立和维护并不必然由政府主导,而是市场经济环境中公共合意选择的必然结果。     

精子介导转基因技术的进展与争论

随着生物医学的不断发展,精子介导转基因技术正成为有希望的转基因方法。与其他基因转移方法相比,精子介导具有简单、高效、低廉、安全的特点。我们探讨精子结合外源DNA和DNA内化的分子模型,介绍精子介导转基因技术的改进方法,并指出存在的问题和伦理学争论,旨在推动该技术在生物技术领域的进一步发展。     

Adaptation, teleology, and selection by consequences

This paper presents and defends the view that reinforcement and natural selection are selection processes, that selection processes are neither mechanistic nor teleological, and that mentalistic and vitalistic processes are teleological but not mechanistic. The differences between these types of processes are described and used in discussing the conceptual and methodological significance of “selection type theories” and B. F. Skinner's radical behaviorist view that “operant behavior is the field of intention, purpose, and expectation. It deals with that field precisely as the theory of evolution has dealt with another kind of purpose” (1986, p. 716). The antimentalism of radical behaviorism emerges as a post-Darwinian extension of Francis Bacon's (and Galileo's) influential view that “[the introduction of final causes] rather corrupts than advances the sciences” (Bacon, 1905, p. 302).     

论学习的基本类型与教学设计──学习双机制理论的教学模式

本文阐述了学习的双机制理论关于学习的基本机制的观点,根据该学习理论对知识分类进行了新的划分,并分析了不同类型知识学习的信息加工过程与特点,然后提出了课堂学习与教学的“七阶段模型”及相应的教学设计。     

职场排斥的作用机制与本土化发展

职场排斥是组织情境中的负面行为,会对员工的心理状态、工作态度和工作行为,以及组织绩效造成严重的影响,近年来得到了学者和管理者的关注。研究主要从职场排斥的概念、测量工具、与其它概念的比较及实证研究四个方面,对国内外相关研究进行了梳理,并探讨中国文化的权变作用。未来研究应从中国的组织情境特点出发,继续完善职场排斥的概念和维度,扩展研究层次,深入分析影响机制,结合中国文化对职场排斥展开本土化研究,丰富研究视角。     

Theology, Science, and Postmodernism: Responding to Stanley Grenz

This article responds to Stanley J. Grenz's Templeton Lecture, “Why Do Theologians Need to Be Scientists?” published in the June 2000 issue of Zygon (Grenz 2000). In the first part I outline my reasons for finding the kind of theological reflections in which Grenz engages worthy of attention by noting my disagreement with the view that a sufficient response to theological issues can be formulated on the basis of an examination of our biological nature. I assert, in that connection, the autonomy of reason as a way of investigating and understanding the world. In the second part I respond directly to Grenz by explaining my disagreement with the postmodern critique of science upon which he relies and his adherence to Christian eschatology as an answer to the conundrums into which, he posits, we are drawn as a result of that critique. I note that I agree with Grenz, however, that the activity of valuing is necessarily a forward‐looking Godlike endeavor that is not derivable from science. In the third part I suggest that we must be open to the investigation of the possible existence of an objective realm of value and that, in any case, rejection of the postmodern critique of science in many cases pro‐vides a sound basis for the disciplined resolution of factual questions that frequently lie at the base of disagreements about values.