Science and politics: Dangerous liaisons

In contrast to the opinion of numerous authors (e.g. R. Rudner, P. Kitcher, L. R. Graham, M. Dummett, N. Chomsky, R. Lewontin, etc.) it is argued here that the formation of opinion in science should be greatly insulated from political considerations. Special attention is devoted to the view that methodological standards for evaluation of scientific theories ought to vary according to the envisaged political uses of these theories.I wish to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for having supported the work on this paper.     

How do conspiratorial explanations differ from non-conspiratorial explanations? A content analysis of real-world online articles

The present research aims to identify unique characteristics of written conspiracy theories. In two pre-registered quantitative human-coded content analyses, we compared 36 pairs of conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial online articles about various events. As predicted, conspiratorial articles—compared to non-conspiratorial articles—contained less factual, more emotional and more threat-related information. Also, we predicted and found that conspiratorial articles presented more argumentation against the opposing standpoint and that they provided explanations that were more dispositional and less falsifiable. Contrary to our predictions, we did not consistently observe that conspiratorial articles presented less argumentation for their own standpoint. Also, we did not find consistent support that conspiratorial articles provided less information about the specific process or more information about the underlying goals of the respective events, or that conspiratorial explanations attributed the events to a lesser extent to situational factors. We discuss the relevance of our findings for the understanding of conspiracy theories.     

“‘WE' AND ‘THEY'”: WHY MUST WE ENGAGE IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONVERSATION?

This article contains the principal ideas that I presented in four different sessions at the IRAS 2022 conference, on the theme “‘We' and ‘They’: Cross-Cultural Conversation on Identity.” Focusing on the central topic, the article begins with (i) the contents of my opening lecture; followed by (ii) a broad outline of the concerns discussed in my book, Cross-Cultural Conversation: A New Way of Learning, intertwined with glimpses of the intellectual journey that led me to CCC, delivered in the Book-discussion session; (iii) a summary of the main ideas about the importance of meeting of religions today, which formed the background for the CCC Panel discussion on religion, where I was in conversation with spokespersons of five world religions; and (iv) my comments on how science–religion dialogue can help promote a sense for human solidarity by combining knowledge with wisdom, in the concluding session.     

Influencing prior knowledge through a short reading impacts curiosity and learning

Curiosity predicts memory performance and it is influenced by prior knowledge. Reading a well-organized text can increase curiosity in a classroom setting, however it is not clear if reading a short text written in an encyclopedic style can increase curiosity and learning without explicit educational goals. We presented participants with a short text and examined if questions related to this reading could elicit higher curiosity ratings and better recall in a thematized version of the trivia task. In the first experiment, participants subjectively judged their prior knowledge of trivia questions. The curiosity of the participants was not influenced by the reading, but the memory effect of curiosity was amplified for the questions related to it. In the second experiment, we objectively verified whether the participants knew the answers. The curiosity ratings were higher for the questions related to the reading, but only the curiosity ratings influenced recall performance. These results show that prior knowledge induced by reading can have an effect on curiosity and learning, but it depends on how this knowledge is assessed by the learner.     

Structuring argumentation in a social constructivist framework: A pedagogy with computer support

What we usually think of as higher order skills in argumentation can be profitably viewed as systematic structures for organizing and representing information. Standard terms like line of argument, synthesis, analysis and draft can be viewed as ways of constructing, storing, and accessing data in a social context — data structures for social communication. What makes argument difficult are the multiple structures that arguers have to construct and negotiate when reading and composing. In this paper, we describe the WARRANT project, a project designed to identify data structures of written argument and to design and implement computer tools to aid in the reading and design of argument.     

孟子的心理学思想研究

该文较系统地论述了孟子的普通心理思想。主要问题是:心理学思想的基本观点,知虑心理思想,情欲心理思想,志意心理思想,智能心理思想,性习心理思想。     

Health behavior, knowledge and attitudes among Swedish university students

A range of health behaviors was related to beliefs concerning health practices and health knowledge. A questionnaire dealing with health-related practices, health beliefs and knowledge of health risk factors was answered by 166 male and 179 female students aged 18–30 years at Stockholm University. Female students reported engaging in better health behavior than males. Beliefs about the importance of health behaviors were closely related to their frequency of occurrence. There was only a weak relationship between health behaviors and knowledge of specific health matters. It is concluded that health attitudes rather than health knowledge determine health behavior.