La classification des exemples d'après Aristote (Rhétorique 2,20)

Aristotle considers all examples, as far as they are used as rhetorical arguments, to be inductions (Rhetoric 1, 2, 8). On the other hand, he finds it worthwhile to distinguish different kinds of examples (viz., historical example, comparison, and fable). Moreover, comparisons and fables are said to be made by the orator, whereas historical examples are not (Rhetoric 2, 20, 2s). The present article attempts to explain this opposition.A close examination of what can be meant by induction reveals that this term applies differently to historical examples and to comparisons and fables. In a broader sense, all examples can be called inductions, insofar as a certain logical relation, different from the syllogistic one, obtains between conclusion and premises. This relation, however, is unable to explain why examples can serve as arguments. Applied to historical examples only, the term induction preserves its original meaning of checking samples in a number sufficient to yield generalization. In its narrow sense, induction gives a satisfactory account of how historical examples work. As for comparisons and fables — to which induction applies in a broader sense only — Aristotle fails to explain what makes them arguments. The explanation, missing in Rhetoric 2, 20, can, however, be given according to the general lines of Aristotelian dialectics and rhetorics. The main task of comparison and fable is to elaborate a so far unconsidered middle term (M) meeting the following conditions: the hearer is prepared to agree that M applies to the subject of the conclusion and that the predicate of the conclusion applies to M. All examples make use of a general proposition from which their conclusion can be inferred. Historical examples (like real inductions) produce instances, in order to confirm a proposition previously admitted as suitable premise, provided that its truth can be proved. Comparison and fables, by introducing a new middle term, try to form a premise susceptible of being admitted without proof.

---

La classification des exemples d'après Aristote (Rhétorique 2,20)

     

Aristotle and the tradition of rhetorical argumentation

The first part of this paper contends that argumentation is central and essential to Aristotle's Rhetoric, and recounts a number of arguments in support of that view, particularly the recognition that deliberative rhetoric or the rhetoric of counsel is the primary concern of Aristotle's work. The second part of the paper reviews the work that follows in this present volume to show that the other writers' views fit in perfectly with this thesis.     

样例类型与解释方式对初中生数学概率问题解决的效果

为考察样例类型与解释方式对初中生数学概率问题解决的促进作用,实验1随机选取初中生90名,比较正确样例组、正误样例组、对照组的学习效果,实验2随机选取另外90名初中生,比较有教学解释、有自我解释与无解释的正误样例组的即时与延时测试学习效果,研究发现:(1)正误样例学习效果显著好于正确样例;(2)有解释的正误样例学习效果显著好于无解释的正误样例;(3)与有教学解释的正误样例学习效果相比,有自我解释的正误样例学习效果显著且更持久。     

关于两项样例学习心理实验研究报告的分析与评论

对两项关于样例学习心理实验研究的报告进行了逻辑分析,指出了Ross的研究设计的合理性以及莫雷等的 “表面概貌对原理运用的影响的实验研究”中的逻辑欠缺,进而给出了莫雷等的结论“样例与作业问题表面概貌的相似性,不仅会影响原理的通达,而且也会影响原理的运用” 尚不足信的断言,所以只能继续维持Ross的“表面概貌是否相似不影响原理的运用”的结论。最后明确了莫雷等实验研究应该采取的正确设计思路和方法。     

The Moral Philosophy of Raimond Gaitaand Some Questions of Methodin the Philosophy of Religion

Raimond Gaita's moral philosophy is distinguished by, among other things, its attention to the role of embodied, enacted witness in disclosing certain moral values, and its understanding of the emotions as forms of thought. In this paper, I consider how Gaita's insights on these matters may be applied to certain questions in the philosophy of religion, paying particular attention to the nature of religious experience and 'the problem of evil'. I suggest that Gaita's discussion of how we come to recognise moral values or 'meanings' can be extended to the question of how we might recognise religious meanings. On this view, religious experience may take the form of an appreciation of the meaning borne by a material context (rather than, for example, some supra-sensory encounter with a supernatural agent), and our sense of the goodness or otherwise of the world may be answerable to the authoritative example of particular lives.     

表面概貌对原理运用的影响的实验研究

探讨样例与作业问题的表面概貌相似性对原理运用的影响作用。实验１扩大了Ｒｏｓｓ的研究材料中样例与测题表面概貌方面的差异程度,探讨两者的表面概貌相似性对原理运用的影响。实验２探讨样例与测题在表面概貌的事件类型方面发生改变的条件下,两者的表面概貌相似性对原理运用的影响。实验３探讨在样例与测题表面概貌有两个级别差异的条件下,两者的表面概貌相似性对原理运用的影响。３个实验均采用被试内设计,要求被试学习原理及样例后完成与样例的表面概貌有不同相似关系的测题。结果表明：（１）样例与问题的表面概貌对原理运用有影响,当两者表面概貌发生较大的变化尤其是在表面概貌的事件类型方面发生变化时,其表面概貌相似性对原理运用的影响就会明显地表现出来;（２）样例与问题的表面概貌对原理运用的影响作用,受到两者对象对应性质的制约,当对象对应相似时,其表面概貌相似就会促进解答测题时运用原理,而当两者的对象对应相反时,其表面概貌相似就会对原理运用产生干扰作用。据此可以认为,样例与作业问题表面概貌的相似性,不仅会影响原理的通达,而且也会影响原理的运用。Ｒｏｓｓ关于表面概貌相似与否不影响原理运用的结论应该予以修正。     

机器学习在解决过拟合现象中的作用

过拟合现象是心理学走向预测科学的重要阻碍。文章综述了机器学习在解决过拟合现象中的价值和实现途径：（1）介绍了过拟合的两种表现形式和现状;（2）分析过拟合的根因,即“高解释力≠高预测力”;（3）厘清机器学习的建模逻辑与核心技术在解决过拟合中的作用;（4）利用样例数据和代码说明机器学习统计思想在模型拟合中的具体应用过程。文章指出心理学应从解决实际问题的角度出发,借鉴机器学习的分析思想,避免过拟合,进而提供更准确更稳定的结论和预测模型。     

类比比较样例对物理综合题学习迁移效果的影响

研究通过三个实验,比较了普通样例和类比比较样例在学习物理综合题中的效果,并在此基础上,进一步分析两种不同类型的类比比较样例对物理综合题学习的迁移效果以及“提示”这一样例设计方法的促进作用。结果发现:(1)通过类比比较样例学习物理综合题的效果优于普通样例;(2)相比于单综概念类比比较样例,综合概念类比比较样例能更好地提高物理综合题学习的近迁移成绩,但未提高其远迁移成绩;(3)提示能明显促进类比比较样例在物理综合题学习中的作用,但不同提示类型的影响无显著差异。该结果表明:类比比较样例是学习物理综合题的有效样例形式,而其中综合概念类比比较样例效果最佳;开放式提示和支架式提示均能较好地促进类比比较样例的学习。     

人际间情绪预测过程中的样例锚定效应

以教师预测学生的情绪为例,考察人际间情绪预测中是否存在样例锚定效应。两个实验分别采取自由回忆和样例启动范式操纵样例锚,并请教师预测典型教育情境中学生的情绪反应。结果发现,样例中学生的情绪越强烈,教师预测学生的情绪也越强烈,预测的准确性越低。可见,在教师预测学生情绪这样的人际间情绪预测过程中,存在样例锚定效应,但只有典型的样例锚才能促进情绪预测的准确性。