In recent years, supported by new scientific evidence, the conceptualization of cognitive reserve has been progressively enriched and now encompasses not only cognitive stimulating activities or educational level, but also lifestyle activities, such as leisure physical activity and socialization. In this context, there is increasing interest in understanding the role of psychological factors in brain health and cognitive functioning. In a previous study, we have found that these factors mediated the relationship between CR and self-reported cognitive functioning. In this study, (...) we have confirmed an association between two important constructs included in the psychological wellbeing and salutogenic models, “purpose in life” and “sense of coherence,” CR, as assessed using a questionnaire, and cognitive functioning, as evaluated using a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Results from 888 middle-aged healthy participants from the Barcelona Brain Health Initiative indicate that both sense of coherence and CR were positively associated with verbal memory, reasoning and attention, working memory, and global cognition. Moreover, the relation between CR and cognitive functioning in the different domains is partially mediated by SoC. When we controlled for brain integrity, introducing into the model neurofilament light chain measures, the mediator role of SoC was confirmed for reasoning and attention and global cognition. However, purpose in life was not associated with cognitive functioning. These results reveal the central role of the SoC construct, which mediates the association between classic CR estimates and cognitive functions, potentially representing a modifiable target for interventions that aim to promote brain health. (shrink)

To prevent ordinary people from being harmed by natural language processing (NLP) technology, finding ways to measure the extent to which a language model is biased (e.g., regarding gender) has become an active area of research. One popular class of NLP bias measures are bias benchmark datasets—collections of test items that are meant to assess a language model’s preference for stereotypical versus non-stereotypical language. In this paper, we argue that such bias benchmarks should be assessed with models from the psychometric (...) framework of item response theory (IRT). Specifically, we tie an introduction to basic IRT concepts and models with a discussion of how they could be relevant to the evaluation, interpretation and improvement of bias benchmark datasets. Regarding evaluation, IRT provides us with methodological tools for assessing the quality of both individual test items (e.g., the extent to which an item can differentiate highly biased from less biased language models) as well as benchmarks as a whole (e.g., the extent to which the benchmark allows us to assess not only severe but also subtle levels of model bias). Through such diagnostic tools, the quality of benchmark datasets could be improved, for example by deleting or reworking poorly performing items. Finally, in regards to interpretation, we argue that IRT models’ estimates for language model bias are conceptually superior to traditional accuracy-based evaluation metrics, as the former take into account more information than just whether or not a language model provided a biased response. (shrink)

Representing and Reconstructing: A Hermeneutical Reply to Ian Hacking. Hacking published in 1983 Representing and Intervening which has provoked, particularly in the US, the so called realism/anti-realism debate which is still alive today. He lays claim to anti-realism for theory and to realism for the experiment. Following him, only that which can be used for manipulating something is realistic. H. Putnam is a severe critic of this dualism. In my paper I am going to take the Hacking -Putnam controversy as (...) a starting-point for the problem about the determination of the relation between theory and experiment in the natural sciences. I shall then follow M. Schlick's discussion of this problem and the current solution to the problem as offered by H. Pietschmann. The differing interpretation of Kant according to the three perspectives shall be the guideline for the argumentation. The goal of my argumentation is that theory and experiment do not live their own lives, that in experimenting one always continues traditional chains of action, and that natural science cannot be regarded independently of the life world it takes place in. This insight into the representing and reconstructing overturns in natural science, due to the necessity of human decisions, opens up their hermeneutical dimension. (shrink)

--Vorwort, von W. Schulz.--Der Gottesbegriff der Schellingschen positiven Philosophie, von H. Fuhrmans.--Die Funktion der Abfallslehre in der Gesamtbewegung der Schellingschen Philosophie, von L. van Bladel.--Die Mythopoesie des "Werdenden Gottes," von W. R. Corti.--Das grosse Welttheater, von H. Zeltner.--Über Teilhard de Chardin und die Metaphysik, von W. Schrader.--Die Idee der formalen und transzendentalen Logik bei Kant, Fichte und Hegel, von M. Zahn.--Marx--Kierkegaard--Schelling, von W. Schmied-Kowarzik.--Charles Secrétan--Exemple pour l'influence de Schelling en Suisse Romande, par M. Reymond.

Plato -- Pyrrho -- The academics -- Sextus empiricus -- Augustine -- Erasmus -- Gianfrancesco Pico -- Hervet -- Montaigne -- Charron -- Sanchez -- Bacon -- Gassendi -- La Mothe le Vayer -- Descartes -- Pascal -- Glanvill -- Foucher -- Huet -- Locke -- Bayle -- Leibniz -- Crousaz -- Berkeley -- Ramsay -- Hume -- Voltaire -- Diderot -- Rousseau -- Kant -- Schulze -- Stäudlin -- Hegel -- Kierkegaard -- Nietzsche -- James -- Santayana -- (...) Shestov -- Wittgenstein -- Russell -- Popper -- Feyerabend -- Derrida -- Popkin -- Fogelin. (shrink)

Die "Petrarca-Situation" des heutigen Menschen, von M. Bleibinhaus.--Zum Strukturwandel des abendländischen Menschen, von F. Schulze.--Mensch und Gesellschaft in der deutschen Gegenwartsdichtung, von I. Meidinger-Geise.--Metaphysische Gegenwart, von E. Traugott.--Widerspruch und Gegensatz, von W. Vershofen.--Der Mensch und die Arbeit, von H. Bäcker.--Conservator sanitatis naturae, von P. Beckmann.--Freheit und Selbstverantwortung als Aufgaben, von H. Fleckenstein.--Sinnerfüllung und Lebensglück, von F. Heer.--Bildung im technischen Zeitalter, von H. Dahmen.--Neue Ideale, von K. Bednarik.--Die Einheit der modernen Welt, von H. E. Holthusen.--Nachwort: Biographische Hinweise.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Kant und das Problem des metaphysischen Idealismusby Dietmar H. HeidemannKonstantin PollokDietmar H. Heidemann. Kant und das Problem des metaphysischen Idealismus. Kantstudien Ergänzungshefte 131, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Pp. 268. Cloth, DM 158.00.Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy was controversial from the very beginning. His refutations of idealism played an important part in these debates. Dietmar H. Heidemann’s book on the problem of idealism is an attempt to (...) evaluate Kant’s arguments against metaphysical idealism. Yet Heidemann never takes a position on whether Kant eventually succeeded or failed in refuting idealism. On the one hand, he thinks it is possible “to consider the proof of the existence of the external world as ultimately unsatisfactory” (238). On the other hand he ambiguously talks of Kant’s “solution of the problem of metaphysical idealism, which is, though not satisfactory in all parts, still quite convincing and even plausible” (238). This indecisiveness constitutes a fundamental shortcoming in an otherwise interesting discussion of a central Kantian problem. The book is distinguished by its close reading of the relevant Kantian texts between 1781 and 1800 and its scrupulous rendering of the respective steps of Kant’s argumentation.Heidemann’s well written investigation consists of an introduction, dealing with the pre-Kantian discussion of that problem, followed by three chapters that present Kant’s criticism of “metaphysical idealism” (3). The author lumps together the theories of Descartes’s ‘skeptical’ or ‘problematic’ idealism and Berkeley’s ‘dogmatic’ idealism with this non-Kantian term. The three chapters correspond to different chronological stages in Kant’s attempts at refuting idealism. First, Heidemann analyzes the structure of the Fourth Paralogism of the Critique of Pure Reason, which was directed against Descartes. This argument was intended to prove that our knowledge of the external world is [End Page 175]immediate. Kant appeals to a radical difference between transcendental and empirical idealism on the one hand and transcendental and empirical realism on the other, and he claims that doubts about the external world that are based on discursive argumentscan be dismissed as illegitimate in principle. Heidemann criticizes Kant’s argumentation. In particular, he thinks that the immediacy of our perceptions alone cannot prove the necessity of outer objects, which could instead be imaginations of immediate objects.In the second chapter, which is unquestionably the center of Heidemann’s study, he analyzes the Refutation of Idealismin the second edition of the Critique. Beginning from its external occasion—the ‘Göttingen review’ by Garve, edited by Feder— Heidemann tries to show that Kant’s refutation of idealism is compelling. He sees Kant’s arguments as implicitly or explicitly informed by the postulate of actuality and the consciousness of one’s existence in time. It is this consciousness that makes necessary the presupposition of something permanent in intuition and thus of substance as matter. In supporting Kant’s sometimes elliptical argumentation with other passages from the Critique, Heidemann tries to improve on Kant’s text. Yet, he is doubtful as to whether the argument succeeds. He thinks that the refutation of idealism would remain insufficient, unless the “theory of self-affection ( Selbstaffektion)” (127), added in 1787, is taken into consideration. In other words, the refutation depends on Kant’s revision of the relationship between the inner and the outer sense in the B-Deduction.The third chapter examines Kant’s occupation with the refutation of idealism after 1787. Heidemann finds that Kant continues to be preoccupied with this subject because of Eberhard’s articles in his Philosophisches Magazin, G. E. Schulze’s Aenesidemus, and D. Tiedemann’s Theaetet. Using Kant’s Reflexionsbetween 1788 and 1800, Heidemann argues that Kant’s new approach is characterised mainly by a decreasing importance of the permanent in the determination of time and a new emphasis of the coexistence argument. But this is questionable for Kant relies on the synthetic connection between the categories of coexistence and substance in the Critique. Heidemann pays a great deal of attention to Kant’s Reflexion “On inner sense” because of its explicit consideration of the relationship between the inner and the outer sense. Heidemann views this passage as “Kant’s... (shrink)

This volume examines modern scepticism in all main philosophical areas: epistemology, science, metaphysics, morals, and religion. It features sixteen essays that explore its importance for modern thought. The contributions present diverse, mutually enriching interpretations of key thinkers, from Montaigne to Nietzsche. -/- The book includes a look both at the relationship between Montaigne and Pascal and at Montaigne’s criticism of religious rationalism. It turns its attention to an investigation into the links between ancient scepticism and Bacon’s Doctrine of the Idols, (...) as well as into the ancient problem of the criterion in Cartesian philosophy. Next, three essays focus on more general topics, like modern sceptical disturbances, clandestine literature and irreligion. Two essays investigate the role of scepticism in Bayle’s moral thinking and his theory of religious toleration. Hume’s sceptical philosophy is the subject of two papers by distinguished scholars. In addition, many contributors address the presence of scepticism in Kant and in the German Idealism, such as the role of Schulze's scepticism in the works of the young Hegel. The book closes with a paper on Nietzsche and scepticism, and an essay on the role of Popkin’s and Schmitt’s works on modern scepticism. -/- This collection continues along a rich, fruitful path opened by Richard H. Popkin and pursued by many important scholars, like Gianni Paganini, John-Christian Laursen, and José Raimundo Maia Neto. It re-establishes that necessary dialogue between researchers of scepticism from all over the Americas, which began with Popkin, Oswaldo Porchat and Ezequiel de Olaso long ago. This insightful reflection on modern European scepticism will also serve as an important resource in the history of modern philosophy. (shrink)

This volume examines modern scepticism in all main philosophical areas: epistemology, science, metaphysics, morals, and religion. It features sixteen essays that explore its importance for modern thought. The contributions present diverse, mutually enriching interpretations of key thinkers, from Montaigne to Nietzsche. The book includes a look both at the relationship between Montaigne and Pascal and at Montaigne's criticism of religious rationalism. It turns its attention to an investigation into the links between ancient scepticism and Bacon's Doctrine of the Idols, as (...) well as into the ancient problem of the criterion in Cartesian philosophy. Next, three essays focus on more general topics, like modern sceptical disturbances, clandestine literature and irreligion. Two essays investigate the role of scepticism in Bayle's moral thinking and his theory of religious toleration. Hume's sceptical philosophy is the subject of two papers by distinguished scholars. In addition, many contributors address the presence of scepticism in Kant and in the German Idealism, such as the role of Schulze's scepticism in the works of the young Hegel. The book closes with a paper on Nietzsche and scepticism, and an essay on the role of Popkin's and Schmitt's works on modern scepticism. This collection continues along a rich, fruitful path opened by Richard H. Popkin and pursued by many important scholars, like Gianni Paganini, John-Christian Laursen, and José Raimundo Maia Neto. It re-establishes that necessary dialogue between researchers of scepticism from all over the Americas, which began with Popkin, Oswaldo Porchat and Ezequiel de Olaso long ago. This insightful reflection on modern European scepticism will also serve as an important resource in the history of modern philosophy. (shrink)