Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used as dependent variables in studies regarding the effectiveness of clinical interventions. But patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) do not provide intuitively meaningful data. For instance, it is not clear what a five point increase or decrease on a particular scale signifies. Establishing ‘interpretability’ involves making changes in outcomes meaningful. Attempts to interpret PROMs have led to the development of methods for identifying a minimum important difference (MID). In this paper, however, I draw on Charles Taylor’s distinction (...) between weak and strong evaluations to suggest that identifying a MID, specifically, a MID that uses a patient-reported reference group, may not provide an adequate interpretation of these measures. Moreover, I argue that the difficulty with interpreting these measures is tied to a larger problem concerning their validity. If researchers wish to interpret PROMs, they may first need to know more about the constructs they attempt to measure, namely, quality of life. (shrink)

A natural language argument may be valid in at least two nonequivalent senses: it may be interpretationally or representationally valid (Etchemendy in The concept of logical consequence. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990). Interpretational and representational validity can both be formally exhibited by classical first-order logic. However, as these two notions of informal validity differ extensionally and first-order logic fixes one determinate extension for the notion of formal validity (or consequence), some arguments must be formalized by unrelated (...) nonequivalent formalizations in order to formally account for their interpretational or representational validity, respectively. As a consequence, arguments must be formalized subject to different criteria of adequate formalization depending on which variant of informal validity is to be revealed. This paper develops different criteria that formalizations of an argument have to satisfy in order to exhibit the latter’s interpretational or representational validity. (shrink)

By demonstrating the uniformity and universality of the principles of valid interpretation of verbal texts of any sort, this closely reasoned examination provides a theoretical foundation for a discipline that is fundamental to virtually all humanistic studies. It defines the grounds on which textual interpretation can claim to establish objective knowledge, defends that claim against such skeptical attitudes as historicism and psychologism, and shows that many confusions can be avoided if the distinctions between meaning and significance, interpretation and criticism are (...) correctly understood. It provides perhaps the first genuinely comprehensive account of hermeneutic theory to appear in English and the first systematic presentation of the principles of valid interpretation in any language. Mr. Hirsch, associate professor of English at the University of Virginia, is the author of _Wordsworth and Schelling _and _Innocence and Experience: An Introduction to Blake._ “Here is a book that brings logic to the most unruly of disciplines, literary interpretation. Viewing this subject within the tradition of hermeneutics, Mr. Hirsch is able to trace its origins and development with brilliant insight. The result is a lucidly systemic and authoritative account of the premises and procedures applicable to the interpretation of a literary text. Mr. Hirsch has performed a monumental service thereby that of reinstating the credentials of objectivism and defining the limits of the aesthetics of truth. This study is a necessary took for anyone who wants to talk sense about literature.”—_Virginia Quarterly Review_ “Professor Hirsch demonstrates convincingly that objectivity is attainable in humane studies, and that it is not identified with the subject but with the evidence. A valid interpretation is not necessarily a correct one, but one which is more probably than any other on the basis of existing evidence. He makes a subtle and important distinction between a text’s ‘meaning’ and its ‘significance’, and brilliantly relates meaning to understanding and interpretation to explanation…” In short, this is a work which future students of literary theory cannot afford to neglect.”—_Notes and Queries_ E.D. Hirsch, Jr., is professor of English at the University of Virginia. (shrink)

By demonstrating the uniformity and universality of the principles of valid interpretation of verbal texts of any sort, this closely reasoned examination provides a theoretical foundation for a discipline that is fundamental to virtually all humanistic studies. It defines the grounds on which textual interpretation can claim to establish objective knowledge, defends that claim against such skeptical attitudes as historicism and psychologism, and shows that many confusions can be avoided if the distinctions between meaning and significance, interpretation and criticism are (...) correctly understood. It provides perhaps the first genuinely comprehensive account of hermeneutic theory to appear in English and the first systematic presentation of the principles of valid interpretation in any language. Mr. Hirsch, associate professor of English at the University of Virginia, is the author of _Wordsworth and Schelling _and _Innocence and Experience: An Introduction to Blake._ “Here is a book that brings logic to the most unruly of disciplines, literary interpretation. Viewing this subject within the tradition of hermeneutics, Mr. Hirsch is able to trace its origins and development with brilliant insight. The result is a lucidly systemic and authoritative account of the premises and procedures applicable to the interpretation of a literary text. Mr. Hirsch has performed a monumental service thereby that of reinstating the credentials of objectivism and defining the limits of the aesthetics of truth. This study is a necessary took for anyone who wants to talk sense about literature.”—_Virginia Quarterly Review_ “Professor Hirsch demonstrates convincingly that objectivity is attainable in humane studies, and that it is not identified with the subject but with the evidence. A valid interpretation is not necessarily a correct one, but one which is more probably than any other on the basis of existing evidence. He makes a subtle and important distinction between a text’s ‘meaning’ and its ‘significance’, and brilliantly relates meaning to understanding and interpretation to explanation…” In short, this is a work which future students of literary theory cannot afford to neglect.”—_Notes and Queries_ E.D. Hirsch, Jr., is professor of English at the University of Virginia. (shrink)

Using an interpreter in qualitative interviews: does it threaten validity?There is an extensive literature on the problem of translating scales for use across cultures, but very little is published on the problems of conducting qualitative interviews in another language with assistance of an interpreter. The aim of this paper is to describe and discuss threats to validity that arise when conducting qualitative interviews using an interpreter. Ten female student nurses in two cities in Lithuania were interviewed about how (...) they perceived their educational program. All interviews were conducted in English with an interpreter. When using an interpreter to conduct interviews, potential threats to validity arise at various points in the interview process. A threat arises when the researcher, whose first language is Swedish, addresses a question in English to the interpreter, another during the translation by the interpreter from English to Lithuanian, and again when the interpreter translates the interviewee’s Lithuanian responses to English. In the last situation, the researcher may not know whether the interpreter has summarized and/or modified the responses. To mitigate these problems, the interpreter should not only have the required linguistic abilities, but also be trained in the research field. The researcher has to be aware of these threats to validity and make efforts to meet and limit their effects. (shrink)

Adults with chronic pain interpret ambiguous information in a pain and illness related fashion. However, limitations have been highlighted with traditional experimental paradigms used to measure interpretation biases. Whilst ambiguous scenarios have been developed to measure interpretation biases in adolescents with pain, no scenario sets exist for use with adults. Therefore, the present study: sought to validate a range of ambiguous scenarios suitable for measuring interpretation biases in adults, whilst also allowing for two response formats ; and investigate paradigm efficacy, (...) by assessing the effects of recent pain experiences on task responding. A novel ambiguous scenarios task was administered to adults. Participants were presented with 62 ambiguous scenarios comprising 42 that could be interpreted in a pain/pain-illness or non-pain/non-pain illness manner: and 20 control scenarios. Participants generated their own solutions to each scenario, then rated how likely they would be to use two researcher-generated solutions to complete each scenario. Participants also rated their subjective experiences of pain in the last 3 months. Tests of reliability, including inter-rater agreement and internal consistency, produced two ambiguous scenario stimulus sets containing 18 and 20 scenarios, respectively. Further analyses revealed adults who reported more recent pain experiences were more likely to endorse the pain/pain-illness solutions in the Likelihood Ratings Task. This study provides two new stimulus sets for use with adults in pain research and/or interventions. Results also provide evidence for a negative endorsement bias in adults. (shrink)

This paper claims that there is a plausible sense in which validity is a matter of truth preservation relative to interpretations of the sentences that occur in an argument, although it is not the sense one might have in mind. §1 outlines three independent problems: the first is the paradox of the sorites, the second concerns the fallacy of equivocation, and the third arises in connection with the standard treatment of indexicals. §2 elucidates the claim about validity, while (...) §§3-5 show how the three problems outlined can be handled in accordance with it. §6 explains how the claim squares with the traditional idea that validity is related to formality, and in particular with a broadly accepted definition based on that idea, the model-theoretic definition of logical consequence. Unlike other works on the subject, this paper does not focus on necessity. It is not its intention to provide a characterization of necessity that conforms to some ideal of rigour or to some pre-theoretical understanding of validity. What follows can be taken as conditional on the assumption that such a characterization can be provided. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to see whether Robinson and Kajiyama’s critiques of Nāgārjuna’s discourse of catuṣkoṭi, as contradicting formal logic, while following a dialectical formula is plausible. According to them, the 3rd koṭi is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, while the 4th koṭi, a violation of the law of excluded middle. Yet, since catuṣkoṭi can be interpreted as containing different perspectives in its expression of each koṭi, the critique of violating the law of non-contradiction fails. Further, (...) should a proper presupposition be added, the problem of excluded middle is resolved. Owing to the presence of this premise postulated as a real entity possessing intrinsic nature, it becomes perfectly valid, irrespective of all-out refutation of every option, In this context, catuṣkoṭi can be seen as an ‘expedient’, representing different views of separate schools or perspectives without violating the principle of formal logic, nor postulating any hierarchical dialectics elevating into the higher grades among these koṭis. Likewise, catuṣkoṭi in Nāgārjuna can be viewed as revealing the absurdity of postulating any identity or precondition for causal relations in perceiving intrinsic substance. (shrink)

According to the interpretational theory of logical validity (IR), logical validity is preservation of truth in all interpretations compatible with the intended meaning of logical expressions. IR suffers from a seemingly defeating objection, the so-called cardinality problem: any instance of the statement ‘There are n things’ is true under all interpretations, since it can be written down using only logical expressions that are not to be reinterpreted; yet ‘There are n things’ is not logically true. I argue (...) that the cardinality problem is indeed a serious problem for IR, when understood in terms of ‘asymmetry of information’. I then argue that IR can be rehabilitated by making quantifiers context-sensitive: what we do not reinterpret is the Kaplanian character of a quantifier, rather than its content. ‘There are n things’ is false in a context where fewer than n things are relevant, so it is not logically true in IR. I finally discuss some objections and ramifications of my account: I discuss how to make space for the possibility of an explicitly absolutely general quantifier in my framework, how terms can be logical even though context-sensitive, and how to recapture classical logic within my framework. (shrink)

Kajiyama Yuich understands Nāgārjuna’s logics of catuṣkoṭi in terms of Hegelian Dialectics, while interpreting the negation formula of 4th koṭi in tetralemma as the religious truth of Madhyamika, which cannot be negated as an ultimate truth. And Richard Robinson also posits this proposition as dissolving the entire dr̥sti. Examining these approaches, this thesis argues against the dialectical interpretation of catuṣkoṭi with reference to its logical structure. For this, reference will also be made to Piṇgala and Candrakīrti’s commentary comparing them to (...) Robinson’s and Kajiyama’s. Here, focus will be put on the aspect of ‘perspectives.’ Upon further examination, it was determined that a Hegelian dialectical approach is not plausible for interpreting Nāgārjuna’s logic, which is purely negative and skeptical in its character. And through reformulating the structure of catuṣkoṭi in terms of prasaṅga, this paper compares it with a dialectical formula to more clearly evaluate the implication of negative logic for catuṣkoṭi. Thereby, it was seen that Nāgārjuna has neither equated propositions on the basis of identity, nor postulated any hierarchy through classifying the grade of these koṭis. Accordingly, on the strength of various perspectives, any proposition in the catuṣkoṭi can be understood with logical clarity, without positing any metaphysical or dialectical interpretation. Further, the possible reconstruction of Nāgārjuna’s understanding of the tetralemma supports a semantic approach to truth, while revealing the absurdity of perceiving identity or causal relations as possessing intrinsic substance. (shrink)

Plato, in the Phaedrus, expressed forebodings about the written word. And the history of hermeneutics does little to dispel Plato’s prophecy of ills to come. At the present time, observes Professor Hirsch, we are, as regards literary criticism, in the high tide of subjectivism and scepticism. The meaning of Scripture is a new revelation to each generation; the meaning of a literary text is what it means to us today, and whatever meaning the author may have intended is irrelevant. The (...) magisterium of the teacher, as the preserver of a heritage and the conveyor of knowledge, has gone: his reading is no more valid than that of a pupil. On the other hand, to shift the focus of discussion from the text to the author is equally unsatisfactory. This course leads us into a search for influences and an enquiry into authorial habits and experiences. Literary criticism degenerates into futility. We must endeavour to fix on a point between these two extremes, a point where an objectively valid interpretation emerges, an interpretation which links the mind of the reader with the mind of the author. We must presume that the author, when he wrote, meant something determinate by his text. Our task is to discover from the text what he meant. How best to perform this task is the theme of the present book. (shrink)

In this article I defend Freud’s method of dream interpretation against those who criticise it as involving a fallacy—namely, the reverse causal fallacy—and those who criticise it as permitting many interpretations, indeed any that the interpreter wants to put on the dream. The first criticism misconstrues the logic of the interpretative process: it does not involve an unjustified reversal of causal relations, but rather a legitimate attempt at an inference to the best explanation. The judgement of whether or not a (...) particular interpretation is the best explanation depends on the details of the case in question. I outline the kinds of probabilities involved in making the judgement. My account also helps to cash out the metaphors of the jigsaw and crossword puzzles that Freudians have used in response to the ‘many interpretations’ objection. However, in defending Freud’s method of dream interpretation, I do not thereby defend his theory of dreams, which cannot be justified by his interpretations alone. (shrink)

The way in which humans deal with physical objects has been formed by extensive interaction and, according to the theory of embodied cognition, has led to conceptualization and interpretation that is grounded in physical interaction of the body with elements in the environment. Digital objects are immaterial and cannot show similar external properties as physical objects, and further, they are representational in nature. Specific problems related to their immaterial nature are those of permanence, location, and ownership. In this paper the (...) differences between material and immaterial objects are analyzed with respect to human interaction. Three issues are highlighted: the lack of transparency of digital document handling, security of digital information and accessibility of digital information. It is concluded that the importance of the distinction between direct physical objects and immaterial objects has been vastly underestimated, at the cost of usability, trust and security. (shrink)

This explores the role of intention in interpreting designed artefacts. The relationship between how designers intend products to be interpreted and how they are subsequently interpreted has often been represented as a process of communication. However, such representations are attacked for allegedly implying that designers' intended meanings are somehow ‘contained’ in products and that those meanings are passively received by consumers. Instead, critics argue that consumers actively construct their own meanings as they engage with products, and therefore that designers' intentions (...) are not relevant to this process. In contrast, this article asserts the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation by exploring the nature of that relationship in design practice and consumer response. Communicative perspectives on design are thereby defended and new avenues of empirical enquiry are proposed. (shrink)

True beliefs and truth-preserving inferences are, in some sense, good beliefs and good inferences. When an inference is valid though, it is not merely truth-preserving, but truth-preserving in all cases. This motivates my question: I consider a Modus Ponens inference, and I ask what its validity in particular contributes to the explanation of why the inference is, in any sense, a good inference. I consider the question under three different definitions of ‘case’, and hence of ‘validity’: the orthodox (...) definition given in terms of interpretations or models, a metaphysical definition given in terms of possible worlds, and a substitutional definition defended by Quine. I argue that the orthodox notion is poorly suited to explain what's good about a Modus Ponens inference. I argue that there is something good that is explained by a certain kind of truth across possible worlds, but the explanation is not provided by metaphysical validity in particular; nothing of value is explained by truth across all possible worlds. Finally, I argue that the substitutional notion of validity allows us to correctly explain what is good about a valid inference. (shrink)

컬리는 『회의주의자에 대항한 데카르트』(Descartes against the Skeptics)에서 데카르트의 코 키토 명제에 대해 매우 논쟁적인 주장을 제시한다. 그의 논제는 『성찰』(Meditationes de prima philosophia)의 반론과 답변에서 메르센과 데카르트가 주고받은 반론과 답변을 중심으로 이루어 지고 있지만, 그 범위는 데카르트의 형이상학 전반에 미치고 있다. 그는 메르센의 반론에는 논란 의 여지가 있는 해석을, 데카르트의 답변에는 신랄한 비판을 가한다. 나는 이 논문에서 그의 해 석과 비판이 과연 타당한지를 비판적으로 검토하려고 한다. 우선, 메르센에 대한 컬리의 독해는 “quod sis”를 잘못 이해하고, 이와 아울려 “quod sis res cogitans”를 컬리가 (...) 데카르트 코키토 논 증의 소전제로 간주한 “I think”와 동일시한 것이 그의 결정적인 오류라고 생각한다. 그리고 데 카르트에 대한 컬리의 비판은 관점의 편협성과 데카르트의 코키토 명제에 대한 그의 선입견에 서 출발해서, “sed tanquam rem per se notam simplici mentis intuitu agnoscit”에 대한 오독에 서 절정에 도달한다고 생각한다. 이는 메르센과 데카르트가 나눈 문답을 그 자체로 이해하려는 것이 아니라, 자신의 입장에서 재단하려는 그의 접근 태도에 근본적인 원인이 있다고 생각한다. (shrink)

It is widely accepted that classical logic is trivialized in the presence of a transparent truth-predicate. In this paper, we will explain why this point of view must be given up. The hierarchy of metainferential logics defined in Barrio et al. and Pailos recovers classical logic, either in the sense that every classical inferential validity is valid at some point in the hierarchy ), or because a logic of a transfinite level defined in terms of the hierarchy shares its (...) validities with classical logic. Each of these logics is consistent with transparent truth—as is shown in Pailos —, and this suggests that, contrary to standard opinions, transparent truth is after all consistent with classical logic. However, Scambler presents a major challenge to this approach. He argues that this hierarchy cannot be identified with classical logic in any way, because it recovers no classical antivalidities. We embrace Scambler’s challenge and develop a new logic based on these hierarchies. This logic recovers both every classical validity and every classical antivalidity. Moreover, we will follow the same strategy and show that contingencies need also be taken into account, and that none of the logics so far presented is enough to capture classical contingencies. Then, we will develop a multi-standard approach to elaborate a new logic that captures not only every classical validity, but also every classical antivalidity and contingency. As a€truth-predicate can be added to this logic, this result can be interpreted as showing that, despite the claims that are extremely widely accepted, classical logic does not trivialize in the context of transparent truth. (shrink)

Three experiments are reported which show that in certain contexts subjects reject instances of the valid modus ponens and modus tollens inference form in conditional arguments. For example, when a conditional premise, such as: If she meets her friend then she will go to a play, is accompanied by a conditional containing an additional requirement: If she has enough money then she will go to a play, subjects reject the inference from the categorical premise: She meets her friend, to the (...) conclusion: She will go to a play. Other contexts suppress the conditional fallacies. The first experiment demonstrates the effects of context on conditional reasoning. The second experiment shows that the inference suppression disappears when the categorical premise refers to both of the antecedents, such as: She meets her friend and she has enough money. In this case, subjects make both the valid inferences and the fallacies, regardless of the contextual information. The third experiment establishes that when subjects are given general information about the duration of a situation in which a conditional inducement was uttered, such as: If you shout then I will shoot you, they reject both the valid inferences and the fallacies. The results suggest that the interpretation of premises plays an even more central role in reasoning than has previously been admitted. Trois expériences montrent que dans certains contextes les sujets rejettent des instances valides de modus ponens et de modus tollens dans des énoncés conditionnels. Par exemple, quand une prémisse conditionnelle comme: Si elle rencontre son ami, alors elle ira jouer, est accompagnée par une phrase contenant une condition supplémentaire: Si elle a assez d'argent, alors elle ira jouer, les sujets rejettent l'inférence liant la prémisse catégorielle: Elle rencontre son ami, à la conclusion: Elle ira jouer. D'autres contextes éliminent également les inférences conditionnelles fallacieuses. La premiére expérience démontre l'effet du contexte sur la raisonnement conditionnel. La deuxiéme expérience montre que la suppression de l'inférence disparait quand la prémisse catégorielle fait référence aux deux antécédants, comme: Elle rencontre son ami et elle a assez d'argent. Dans ce cas, les sujets font aussi bien les inférences valides et fallacieuses, quelle que soit l'information contextuelle. La troisiéme expérience établit que quand l'on donne aux sujets des informations générales à propos de la durée d'une situation dans laquelle une conditionnelle a été prononcée, comme Si tu cries, alors je te tire dessus, ils rejettent autant les inférences valides que les inférences fallacieuses. Ces résultats suggèrent que l'interprétation des prémisses joue un rŏle encore plus central dans le raisonnement que l'on admettait auparavant. (shrink)

The main purpose of this study was to validate a scale to examine the moral sensitivity of Korean nurses. A pre-existing scale, the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ), developed by Lützén, was used after deletion of three items. The reliability and validity of the scale were examined by using Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis, respectively. According to the results, reliability of the scale was adequate but its construct validity was not fully supported. Through discussion on evidence of validity, (...) five subconstructs emerged. In particular, unlike the factor structure of the MSQ, two subconstructs, patient-oriented care and professional responsibility, were newly extracted. It was assumed that the other three MSQ subconstructs, conflict, meaning and benevolence (expressed as nurses being ethically good), would not be sensitive to cultural background. Given these findings, interpretations about the meaning of moral sensitivity of Korean nurses are discussed. (shrink)

We can distinguish two non-equivalent ways in which a natural language argument can be valid: it can be interpretationally or representationally valid. However, there is just one notion of classical first-order validity for formal languages: truth-preservation in all classical first-order models. To ease the tension, Baumgartner suggests that we should understand interpretational and representational validity as imposing different adequacy conditions on formalizations of natural language arguments. I argue against this proposal. To that end, I first show that (...) Baumgartner’s definition of representational validity is extensionally inadequate. I present a number of natural language arguments that we pre-theoretically hold to be representationally valid, but are not representationally valid according to Baumgartner’s definition. I then point to two further untenable features of Baumgartner’s definitions: according to Baumgartner’s definition of a representationally correct formalization, we cannot arrive at formalizations in a recursive way, and Baumgartner’s definition of representational validity is non-monotonic. I conclude that interpretational and representational validity cannot be understood as merely imposing different adequacy conditions on formalizations. If we want to capture our interpretational and representational intuitions, we need two different formal definitions of validity. (shrink)

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has drawn a great amount of scholarly interest in recent years; however, attempts to measure individual differences in this ability remain controversial. Although the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) remains the flagship test of EI, no study has comprehensively examined the full interpretive argument tying variation in observed test performance to variation in the underlying ability. Employing a modern perspective on validation, this article reviews and synthesizes available evidence and discusses sources of concern at (...) every level of the interpretive argument. It is argued that a focus on causal explanation of observed variation in test performance would significantly improve the validity of the MSCEIT as a measure of EI. (shrink)

In the substitutional framework, validity is truth under all substitutions of the nonlogical vocabulary. I develop a theory where □ is interpreted as substitutional validity. I show how to prove soundness and completeness for common modal calculi using this definition.

In this paper I argue against the commonly received view that Kripke's formal Possible World Semantics (PWS) reflects the adoption of a metaphysical interpretation of the modal operators. I consider in detail Kripke's three main innovations vis-à-vis Carnap's PWS: a new view of the worlds, variable domains of quantification, and the adoption of a notion of universal validity. I argue that all these changes are driven by the natural technical development of the model theory and its related notion of (...) validity: they are dictated by merely formal considerations, not interpretive concerns. I conclude that Kripke's model theoretic semantics does not induce a metaphysical reading of necessity, and is formally adequate independently of the specific interpretation of the modal operators. (shrink)

What makes a measure of well-being valid? The dominant approach today, construct validation, uses psychometrics to ensure that questionnaires behave in accordance with background knowledge. Our first claim is interpretive—construct validation obeys a coherentist logic that seeks to balance diverse sources of evidence about the construct in question. Our second claim is critical—while in theory this logic is defensible, in practice it does not secure valid measures. We argue that the practice of construct validation in well-being research is theory avoidant, (...) favoring a narrow focus on statistical tests while largely ignoring relevant philosophical considerations. (shrink)

"Well over one half of this brilliant new Monograph constitutes a major sequel to Professor Grunbaum's highly influential 1984 book The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique, which was labeled "magisterial" by Frank J. Sulloway, and "the most important book ever written on Freud's status as a scientist" by J. Allan Hobson. The importance of the present Monograph lies in the extent to which the author now goes beyond that earlier volume to offer new original ideas on fundamental themes." "Validation (...) in the Clinical Theory of Psycho-analysis: A Study in the Philosophy of Psycho-analysis contains Adolf Grunbaum's new basic critique of the psychoanalytic theory of transference in its role of an etiologic theory; it turns out that etiologic transference interpretations rest on fallacious causal inferences from so-called "meaning connections" between mental states: moreover, just these unsound inferences are the stock-in-trade of the "hermeneutic" reconstruction of psychoanalysis, which charges Freud with a "scientistic self-misunderstanding."" "This volume joins the issue with Marshall Edelson's defenses of the investigative viability of the single-subject case study method. As a spin-off from the import of the serious placebo challenge to psychoanalysis, this Monograph presents the author's widely recognized new account of the placebo concept across all of medicine and psychotherapy. Whereas Foundations of Psychoanalysis objected that Freud's dream theory was evidentially ill-founded, the burden of the present book is to give two new basic reasons for presuming the theory to be false. It also develops the import of the author's appraisal of psychoanalytic theory for the scrutiny of Freud's triadic psychology of religious belief in theism." "Since Sir Karl Popper's most detailed charge of pseudoscience against psychoanalysis in 1983 could not be examined for inclusion in the 1984 book, the present monograph shows in what ways it is wide of the mark as an incoherent diagnosis of the scientific liabilities of psychoanalytic theory. In addition, four important papers that had antedated Foundations by a few years and were scattered over diverse publications have been updated and integrated with the other chapters herein."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved. (shrink)

Behavior and cognition, once conceived as psychological or interpersonal in origin, are increasingly thought to arise from biology. After investigating the validity of this trend of thinking, the article attempts to interpret what it means to the discipline of psychology. Two main categories of interpretation are discussed. First, this trend could mean that biological factors ultimately underlie traditionally psychological explanations i.e., biological factors are a sufficient condition for understanding behavior and cognition. Second, this trend could indicate that biological factors (...) are important, and perhaps even traditionally overlooked, but are not sufficient in themselves to explain human behavior and cognition i.e., biological factors are necessary conditions among other necessary conditions. The practical and methodological implications of each of these two interpretations are clarified, with a special focus on relevant research limitations. We conclude that the evidence does not bear out a sufficiency thesis and, instead, supports more convincingly a necessity understanding of these trends. (shrink)

A formula is (materially) valid iff all its instances are true sentences; and an axiomatic system is called (materially) sound and complete iff it proves all and only valid formulas. These are 'natural' concepts of validity and completeness, which were, however, in the course of the history of modern logic, stealthily replaced by their formal descendants: formal validity and completeness. A formula is formally valid iff it is true under all interpretations in all universes; and an axiomatic system (...) is called formally sound and complete iff it proves all and only formulas valid in this sense. Though the step from material to formal validity and completeness may seem to be merely an unproblematic case of explication, I argue that it is not; and that mistaking the latter concepts for the former ones may lead to serious conceptual confusions. (shrink)

Tarski's Undefinability of Truth Theorem comes in two versions: that no consistent theory which interprets Robinson's Arithmetic (Q) can prove all instances of the T-Scheme and hence define truth; and that no such theory, if sound, can even express truth. In this note, I prove corresponding limitative results for validity. While Peano Arithmetic already has the resources to define a predicate expressing logical validity, as Jeff Ketland has recently pointed out (2012, Validity as a primitive. Analysis 72: (...) 421-30), no theory which interprets Q closed under the standard structural rules can define nor express validity, on pain of triviality. The results put pressure on the widespread view that there is an asymmetry between truth and validity, viz. that while the former cannot be defined within the language, the latter can. I argue that Vann McGee's and Hartry Field's arguments for the asymmetry view are problematic. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'subjective validation'. An objective validation of a statement can be accomplished by showing that the statement actually matches up to the way the world is; this can be done by comparing the statement to the world itself. Combined with other mistakes, like confirmation bias and availability error, subjective validation can fool people into thinking that psychics can read their minds, predict the future, or even communicate with the (...) dead. Although the subjective validation of Nostradamus's “predictions” doesn't fuel much else besides silly beliefs in the paranormal, falling prey to subjective validation can be much more costly. The same subjective validation “retrodiction” techniques are also used to interpret the prophecies of the Bible, like those that are supposedly in the Book of Revelation. (shrink)

In the seven chapters constituting Khedrup Jé's presentation of mind and awareness, he primarily explains the full range of objects, including all phenomena that can be known, and object possessors, things that engage objects, such as consciousness and persons. In the first chapter, Khedrup Jé starts by explaining objects of knowledge. Chapter 2 gives an explanation of various non-valid awarenesses. Chapter 3 explains what it means to be a valid cognizer and divides valid cognizers into various categories. In chapter 4, (...) the first division, valid direct perceivers, is discussed. Chapter 4 further defines the four main categories of direct perceivers: sense direct perceivers, mental direct perceivers, self-knowing direct perceivers, and yogic direct perceivers. In chapter 5, Khedrup Jé gives a brilliant elucidation of this essential teachings of the Buddha. The realizations of the path, explained in chapter 6, are results of valid cognizers. Direct realization of selflessness can only come about by having realized it in a conceptual manner-that is, by generating a valid inference realizing selflessness-first. How to generate this kind of inference is precisely explained in chapter 7. In order to give readers some sense of the two main authors involved here, Khedrup Jé Gelek Palsang and Purbu Chok Jampa Gyatso, whom we mainly rely on for additional explanations, brief biographies of these two eminent Buddhist scholars are given at the close of this introduction. (shrink)

The notion of validity for modal languages could be defined in two slightly different ways. The first is the original definition given by S. Kripke, for which a formula φ of a modal language L is valid if and only if it is true in every actual world of every interpretation of L. The second is the definition that has become standard in most textbook presentations of modal logic, for which a formula φ of L is valid if and (...) only if it is true in every world in every interpretation of L. For simple modal languages, “Kripkean validity” and “Textbook validity” are extensionally equivalent. According to E. Zalta, however, Textbook validity is an “incorrect” definition of validity, because: (i) it is not in full compliance with Tarski’s notion of truth; (ii) in expressively richer languages, enriched by the actuality operator, some obviously true formulas count as valid only if the Kripkean notion is used. The purpose of this paper is to show that (i) and (ii) are not good reasons to favor Kripkean valid- ity over Textbook validity. On the one hand, I will claim that the difference between the two should rather be seen as the result of two different conceptions on how a modal logic should be built from a non-modal basis; on the other, I will show the advantages, for the question at issue, of seeing the actuality operator as belonging to the family of two-dimensional operators. (shrink)

I raise three related objections to aspects of Katharina Kraus’s interpretation in Kant on Self-Knowledge and Self-Formation. First, I reject her claim that representations count as merely subjectively valid for Kant if they represent objects from the contingent perspective of a particular subject. I argue that Kant in fact describes consciousness of subjectively valid representations as consciousness of one’s own perceptions rather than of the objects perceived, and therefore that it plays a bigger role in his account of self-consciousness than (...) Kraus allows. Second, whereas Kraus argues that the transcendental unity of apperception structures the content of any consciousness that is possible for a subject, I note that Kant also allows for a merely empirical unity of apperception, which he describes as in principle different from transcendental unity. Finally, I raise some worries for Kraus’s suggestion that we can be aware of the activity of thinking through inner sense. (shrink)

In a recent piece in Critical Inquiry E. D. Hirsch devotes himself to the reinterpretation of a distinction that he first made in 1960 between meaning and significance. I suspect that it will be a while before we feel comfortable deciding what significance “Meaning and Significance Reinterpreted” has for us. Indeed, Hirsch seems uncertain as to what significance this reinterpretation has for him. At first he modestly proposes a “revision of that distinction” , implying that he will give us essentially (...) the same distinction in a somewhat different form, and two-thirds into the essay he notes that aside from one change, his account of meaning “has stayed what it was” . Toward the close of the piece, he speaks of his “revised account of meaning” , but in the next paragraph, he opines that this account is “a new and different theory” . Yet this is not the last word, for Hirsch concludes by talking about “this change in my theory” , again giving the reader the impression that it’s still the same old theory, only somewhat different. But as Hirsch himself asks, “How far can an existing theory be adjusted before it loses its self-identity” ? And as I will now ask, how well does “Meaning and Significance Reinterpreted” cohere with the theory of meaning that Hirsch proposes in Validity in Interpretation? The most curious aspect of this reinterpretation of meaning and significance is that Hirsch remains silent about more fundamental changes in his theory of meaning that his revision brings with it. I want to note three such changes, which involve key terms in Hirsch’s thought either dropping out of the argument or finding notably different replacements. Michael Leddy is assistant professor of English at Eastern Illinois University. He has published on William Burroughs and Geoffrey Hill and is currently working on a study of authors, readers, and meaning. (shrink)

According to the ideological surround model of research, a more “objective” psychology of religion requires efforts to bring etic social scientific and emic religious perspectives into formal dialog. This study of 245 Iranian university students illustrated how the dialogical validity of widely used etic measures of religion can be assessed by examining an emic religious perspective on psychology. Integrative Self-Knowledge and Self-Control Scales recorded two aspects of the “Perfect Man” as described by the Iranian Muslim philosopher Mortazā Motahharī. Use (...) of these instruments in correlation and multiple regression procedures identified Intrinsic, Extrinsic Personal, Religious Interpretation, Extrovertive Mysticism, Prayer Fulfillment, Universality, Connectedness, and Religiosity Scales as adaptive in their implications for a Muslim psychology of religion. Religious Crisis had maladaptive and Extrinsic Social, Introvertive Mysticism, and Quest Scales had ambiguous implications. These data illustrated how etic forms of understanding can clarify and can be clarified by emic insights. (shrink)

The validity of the conclusion to the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, accepted widely today as the only reasonable solution to the EPR and Bell issues, is questioned and criticized. Arguments are presented which remove the compelling character of this conclusion and make clear that it is not the most obvious solution. Alternative solutions are developed which are free of the contradictions related with the nonlocality conclusion. Firstly, the dependence on the adopted interpretation is shown, with the conclusion that the (...) alleged nonlocality property of the quantum formalism may have been reached on the basis of an interpretation that is unnecessarily restrictive. Secondly, by extending the conventional quantum formalism along the lines of Ludwig and Davies it is shown that the Bell problem may be related to complementarity rather than to nonlocality. Finally, the dependence on counterfactual reasoning is critically examined. It appears that locality on the quantum level may still be retained provided one accepts a newly proposed principle of nonreproducibility at the individual quantum level as an alternative of quantum nonlocality. It is concluded that the locality principle can retain its general validity, in full conformity with all experimental data. (shrink)

Some philosophers argue that a theory of logical validity should not interpret its own language, because a Russellian argument shows that self-applicability is inconsistent with the ability to capture all the interpretations of its own language. First, I set up a formal system to examine the Russellian argument. I then defend the need for self-applicability. I argue that self-applicability seems to be implied by generality, and that the Russellian argument rests on a test for meaning that is biased against (...) self-applicability. I propose an alternative test which is unproblematic for self-applicability. I conclude that self-applicability can be vindicated and the Russellian argument can be resisted. (shrink)

In this paper, we propose a computational interpretation of the generalized Kreisel–Putnam rule, also known as the generalized Harrop rule or simply the Split rule, in the style of BHK semantics. We will achieve this by exploiting the Curry–Howard correspondence between formulas and types. First, we inspect the inferential behavior of the Split rule in the setting of a natural deduction system for intuitionistic propositional logic. This will guide our process of formulating an appropriate program that would capture the corresponding (...) computational content of the typed Split rule. Our investigation can also be reframed as an effort to answer the following question: is the Split rule constructively valid in the sense of BHK semantics? Our answer is positive for the Split rule as well as for its newly proposed general version called the S rule. (shrink)

Patient requests for “inappropriate” medical treatment based on religious beliefs should have special standing. Nevertheless, not all such requests should be honored, because some are morally disturbing. The trouble lies in deciding which ones count. This paper proposes criteria that would qualify a religious belief as medically valid to help physicians decide which requests to respect. The four conditions suggested are that the belief is shared by a community, is deeply held, would pass the test of a religious interpreter and (...) does not harm others. (shrink)