This book offers a close-up look at theological education in the U.S. today. The authors' goal is to understand the way in which institutional culture affects the outcome of the educational process. To that end, they undertake ethnographic studies of two seminaries-one evangelical and one mainline Protestant. These studies, written in a lively journalistic style, make up the first part of the book and offer fascinating portraits of two very different intellectual, religious, and social worlds. The authors go on to (...) analyze these disparate environments, and suggest how in each case corporate culture acts as an agent of educational change. They find two major consequences stemming from the culture of each school. First, each culture gives expression to a normative goal that aims at shaping the way students understand themselves and from issues of ministry practice. Second, each provides a "cultural tool kit" of knowledge, practices, and skills that students use to construct strategies of action for the various problems and issues that will confront them as pastors or in other forms of ministry. In the concluding chapters, the authors explore the implications of their findings for theories of institutional culture and professional socialization and for interpreting the state of religion in America. They identify some of the practical dilemmas that theological and other professional schools currently face, and reflect on how their findings might contribute to their solution. This accessible, thought-provoking study will not only illuminate the structure and process by which culture educates and forms, but also provide invaluable insights into important dynamics of American religious life. (shrink)

Wallace's contributions to biological thought tend to be overlooked or overly praised, neither of which produces a satisfactory assessment. Examples of the latter tendency are the recent expositions by Brackman and Brooks; although both books contain much worthwhile material, both are flawed. At critical points their theories fail to measure up, Brackman's because of his misinterpretations of events in the month of June 1858, and Brooks's Darwin's September 5 letter to Gray could, and probably did, represent an ordering of his (...) ideas in response to a felt challenge.A fruitful way to characterize the relationship between Darwin and Wallace may be found in terms of game theory. Most scholars look upon the relationship as a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser, the matter of priority being considered as a “single event.” Another approach would be to look upon it as a non-zero-sum game with each man influencing the other. In this case, the productivity of one is stimulated by the contributions of the other, resulting in a net gain in knowledge overall, and both men become winners, or codiscoverers. This approach is possible if Wallace's contributions to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection are recognized. (shrink)

Shame and shame reactions are two of the most delicate and difficult issues of psychotherapy and are among the most likely to defy our usual dynamic, systemic, and behavioral theories. In this groundbreaking new collection, _The Voice of Shame_, thirteen distinguished authors show how use of the Gestalt model of self and relationship can clarify the dynamics of shame and lead us to fresh approaches and methods in this challenging terrain. This model shows how shame issues become pivotal in therapeutic (...) and other relationships and how healing shame is the key to transformational change. The contributors show how new perspectives on shame gained in no particular area transfer and generalize to other areas and settings. In so doing, they transform our fundamental understanding of psychotherapy itself. Grounded in the most recent research on the dynamics and experience of shame, this book is a practical guide for all psychotherapists, psychologists, clinicians, and others interested in self, psychotherapy, and relationship. This book contains powerful new insights for the therapist on a full-range of topics from intimacy in couples to fathering to politics to child development to gender issues to negative therapeutic reactions. Filled with anecdotes and case examples as well as practical strategies, _The Voice of Shame_ will transform your ideas about the role of shame in relationships - and about the potential of the Gestalt model to clarify and contextualize other approaches. (shrink)

Few diagnoses present as great a challenge to one's life as cancer. Many men each year are confronted with a diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer and find themselves making decisions about treatment in the face of side effects that present often devastating effects, including problems controlling one's urine and an inability to perform sexually. In this paper, we explore the narratives of men who, having chosen and undergone treatment for early stage prostate cancer, are living with the consequences. Faced (...) with what Charmaz calls an ‘identity dilemma’, how do these men linguistically construct their identities in the face of challenges to their bodily, personal, and social integrity? Drawing upon theories of social languages and Discourses, we examine how men linguistically resolve the identity dilemmas they encounter and in turn construct an identity in response to a question about the quality of their lives in the face of the adverse event of prostate cancer. We present an analysis of the interview narratives of two men and show how they ‘re-collage’ an identity in the face of fundamental changes in their functioning as men. We argue that these men draw upon alternative discourses to construct themselves as whole, competent, and ‘no less a man'. (shrink)

To understand better why evidence of student cheating is often ignored, a national sample of psychology instructors was sampled for their opinions. The 127 respondents overwhelmingly agreed that dealing with instances of academic dishonesty was among the most onerous aspects of their profession. Respondents cited insufficient evidence that cheating has occurred as the most frequent reason for overlooking student behavior or writing that might be dishonest. A factor analysis revealed 4 other clusters of reasons as to why cheating may be (...) ignored. Emotional reasons included stress and lack of courage. Difficult reasons included the extensive time and effort required to deal with cheating students. Fear reasons included concern about retaliation or a legal challenge. Denial reasons included beliefs that cheating students would fail anyway and that the worst offenders do not get caught. The reasons why instances of academic dishonesty should be proactively confronted are presented. (shrink)

A national survey sent to 450 female and 450 male licensed psychologists (return rate = 42%) found that about 73% of the participants reported encountering at least one patient who claimed to recover previously forgotten memories of childhood sex abuse. About 21% of the therapists concluded that, for at least one patient, the memory was false; about 50% of the therapists reported that at least one patient had found external validation for the abuse; about 12% of the therapists reported at (...) least one client who later decided that the memory was false; and about 15% of the therapists reported that at least one client who recovered memories filed a civil or criminal complaint. About 15% of the therapists reported encountering at least one patient alleged to have sexually abused a child who later recovered previously forgotten memories of the abuse. About 21% of these therapists concluded that, in at least one case, the memory was false; about 6% of the therapists concluded that, in at least one case, there appeared to be external validation for the memories; about 1% reported that, in at least one case, the person recovering the memories concluded that the memories had been false; and about 6% of these therapists reported at least one case in which a civil or criminal complaint had been filed against their client. Findings were analyzed in terns of therapist gender, patient gender, and theoretical orientation. (shrink)

Comprehensive, baseline data concerning college-level students' opinions about the ethical conduct of their teachers is lacking. Because they are role models and service providers to students, psychologists who teach can benefit from such information. Four hundred eighty-two students from large, comprehensive universities rated the ethical acceptability of 107 acts in which professors might engage. Students rated professors who give some students unearned advantage and who act in ways that embarrass students to be the most unethical. Virtually no differences were found (...) between Midwest and West Coast students or between freshmen and higher level students. There were few sex differences. Comparisons with professors' self-ratings on some of the same behaviors suggest that students and professors are generally similar in their views of what constitutes ethical and unethical conduct for professors. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show that if one adopts conditional probabilities as the primitive concept of probability, one must deal with the fact that even in very ordinary circumstances at least some probability values may be imprecise, and that some probability questions may fail to have numerically precise answers.

Scientists seeking hard evidence of prayer's curative powers misunderstand the nature of prayer in the Western theistic traditions. Yet theistically consonant ways in which religious belief may influence health do not figure as they should in current professional practice.

According to the extended cognition hypothesis (henceforth ExC), there are conditions under which thinking and thoughts (or more precisely, the material vehicles that realize thinking and thoughts) are spatially distributed over brain, body and world, in such a way that the external (beyond-the-skin) factors concerned are rightly accorded fully-paid-up cognitive status.1 According to functionalism in the philosophy of mind, “what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way (...) it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part” (Levin 2008). The respective fates of these two positions may not be independent of each other. The claim that ExC is in some way a form of, dependent on, entailed by, or at least commonly played out in terms of, functionalism is now pretty much part of the received view of things (see, e.g., Adams and Aizawa 2008; Clark and Chalmers 1998; Clark 2005, 2008, this volume a, b, forthcoming; Menary 2007; Rupert 2004; Sprevak manuscript; Wheeler forthcoming). Thus ExC might be mandated by the existence of functionally specified cognitive systems whose boundaries are located partly outside the skin. This is the position that Andy Clark has recently dubbed extended functionalism (Clark 2008, forthcoming; see also Wheeler forthcoming). (shrink)

IntroductionMany thanks to Greg Bryant (2015) for keeping the conversation lively, and engaging in further debate on our paper (Barrett et al. 2014). Although Bryant raises several interesting points, as with our previous commentators, there was also some misunderstanding of our aim, which simply was to answer the question posed: does evolutionary psychology represent an alternative to computational theories of mind? To reiterate, we suggested that Santa Barbara-style EP already is a computational theory of mind and hence not an (...) alternative. Bryant (2015) apparently considers this question ill-posed, given his assertion that viewing “the mind as a case of digital computation” is “the only game in town”. Our friendly suggestion here is that perhaps he needs to get out a little more, and sample more fully the alternatives on offer. Not the Only Metaphor in TownTo assert that there is no alternative to digital computation is a philosophically weak position, not least because the history of science provides ample evidence of prominent ideas eventually shown to be wrong: phlogiston and the luminiferous aether were once “the only game in town”. Bryant also seems to forget that the brain has been likened to many other cultural tools that were, unsurprisingly, considered to be of great significance in their time; the computational metaphor is one in a long line of metaphors that reflect the most advanced technology of their day. There is no reason to imagine that we have finally managed to hit on the correct one, as opposed to the one that just reflects something about the times in which we live (Barrett 2011). Our main point, though, is that digital computation really isn’t the only game in town. Among other work cited in our original paper, Chemero (2009) provides the most recent and comprehensive treatment of a non-computational-representational approach to mind (see also Anderson (2014, 2015) for a more neuroscientifically-focused account that similarly concludes the best way to understand the brain may be in enactive and ecological terms). Furthermore, this approach is not restricted to philosophical theorizing but also includes empirical work (see e.g., Dotov et al. 2010, as well as the examples given in Chemero 2009). There have also been earlier incarnations of a non-representational approach to cognition (e.g., Rosch, Thompson & Varela 1990; Thelen and Smith 1994; Kelso 1995) along with Gibson’s (1979) anti-representational theory of perception (see Barrett 2011 for a review). Given Bryant’s (2015) assertion of no scientific alternative to computation, he implies either that such genuinely non-computational-representational approaches do not qualify as science, or else he has misunderstood them. Although all we need do to counter Bryant’s position is point to these scientifically credible alternatives, in what follows we consider briefly some of the arguments against a strong computational position. We then go on to discuss his other assertions regarding the relationship between culture and cognition.It is telling that Bryant (2015) adopts a rather “Hegelian” approach in his commentary (see Chemero 2009, and our original article), asserting the necessity of digital computation and information processing (conceived in terms of Shannon information theory: G. Bryant, Pers. Comm.), rather than providing arguments or evidence for it. As Wallace (2007) discusses, echoing John Searle (1990) before him, the notion of the brain as engaged in digital computation is not a scientific discovery, like the moons of Saturn, but is instead a claim: a claim that looking at the brain in this particular way is useful. As Wallace (2007) argues, Shannon’s theory was a pragmatic solution to an explicitly human engineering problem, and was never intended as a scientific theory of cognition. Using Shannon information to model human cognition is fundamentally flawed because, as Wallace (2007) discusses, human cognitive systems violate the assumptions under which Shannon information applies. Wallace (2007) further notes that use of terms like ‘information processing’ to describe brain function can lead to a dualist position. Such thinking pervades Klasios’s (2015) commentary, for example, when he argues that EP deals only with information processing and not neural activity as such, giving rise to the brain possessing two distinct qualities: the material activity of its neurons and, as Wallace (2007) calls it, the non-material, “mysterious world of information”. Bryant’s argument rests on the notion that adopting an information theoretic view is, in essence, a functionalist perspective, asking what role a given process plays, rather than the specific manner in which implemented. This position is entirely reasonable—it has helped to avoid that particular kind of ‘neural chauvinism’ that suggests there is something inherently special about biological brains, so excluding from consideration the idea of genuine artificial intelligence. In addition, cognitive integration is often characterised as a form of “extended functionalism” (e.g., Wheeler 2010) precisely because doesn’t consider the brain to be the sole constituent of a cognitive system. That said, it is also apparent that understanding neural implementation is crucial to generating evolutionary hypotheses by guiding and constraining them with respect to what brains reasonably can be expected to achieve (see e.g., Colombo 2013 and Peters 2013). Bryant and Klasisos both stick to the classical cognitivist EP party- line and justify a strategy of studying the computational-algorithmic levels alone, but we think that EP, and evolutionary approaches more generally, would benefit from using neurobiological data to inform their theoretical stance, thus grounding our knowledge in living biological systems; we are, after all, attempting to explain how such living biological systems work. Such a stance is also a natural element of the embodied perspective we endorse, which argues that the way brains are put together will matter for cognition (that is, the way that neurons, glia, neurotransmitters and neuromodulators actually go about doing their job) and how adaptive behaviour in the world is generated. From our perspective, then, it seems well worth considering the radical non-representational/non-computational alternative proposed by Chemero (2009), as well as related work on cognitive integration. As Chemero (2009) himself points out, and as we acknowledged in our original article, embodied/dynamical approaches do not entail a rejection of all representational theories of mind. Clark (1997), for example, argues that there are certain ‘representation-hungry’ (i.e., linguistic) processes that do not seem amenable to an account grounded in coordinated sensorimotor processes alone. Thus, there is some effort being made to reconcile embodied and dynamical approaches with computational/ representational theories (e.g., Barsalou's 1999 “perceptual symbol systems" and Clark's 1997 “dynamic computationalism”). At a minimum, however, the recognition of alternatives to computational-representational theories of mind make it possible to ask some penetrating questions about the nature of representation in a computational model of mind, and whether such representations are, in fact, doing all of the cognitive work, all of the time (Barrett, 2011). Thus, when Bryant (2015) asserts that cognitive integration is a computational theory he is not wrong, but nor is he right. More specifically, the issue of whether cognition is extended can be viewed as orthogonal to whether cognition should be viewed as computation (see Sutton 2014): the issue at stake is where the bounds of the cognitive system should be drawn, and whether bodily resources, material artifacts and other aspects of the environment can be considered constitutive parts of the cognitive system or simply causally related to them. We argued for the constitutive approach, because this follows naturally from a radical embodied view that treats cognitive processes as products of the interaction between brain, body and environment and not the brain alone (see also Barrett 2011; Chemero 2009; Hutto and Myin 2013). Even if one wishes to adhere to a computational framework, however, cognitive integration can and does represent an alternative approach to standard cognitive psychology because it views cultural artifacts (in the human case) and other environmental resources as an integral part of cognitive systems (a point made in both Barrett et al. 2014, and reiterated in Stulp et al. 2015); cognitive integration does not view the brain alone as the part that does all the heavy-lifting. To counter this, as Bryant (2015) and Klasios (2015) do, simply by insisting that brains compute is to precisely miss this point.Loops, not arrowsBryant (2015) also suggests that we have got our causal arrow largely pointing backwards. According to Bryant, culture is primarily shaped by our brains and bodies, and not vice versa (although he then goes onto suggest something very similar to our own position where “the outputs of such processes feedback iteratively into an evolutionarily dynamic cultural knowledge system”, which points to a tension (if not an outright contradiction) in his argument). Of course, human brains are involved in the creation and use of artifacts and other forms of cultural representation, and hence brains must be involved in the shaping of culture—this is not at odds with anything we said in our original paper. The argument from the extended mind, however, is that, by extending our cognition beyond the biological brain, we become capable of feats that would otherwise be impossible. Malafouris’ (2014) recent analysis of how physical artifacts allowed us to make the transition from numerosity to a formal concept of number and hence mathematics is another good example (see also Menary 2007). Our position, then, is that we did not get the causal arrow backwards because there is no arrow. Instead, there are loops of continual reciprocal causation, with social activities and material culture both shaping and being shaped by the brain in an ongoing cycle.By seizing on our example of timeliness as ultimately reflecting concerns about coordination and cooperation, Bryant (2015) over-simplifies and trivialises our position. Perhaps we made our point too flippantly. What we were attempting to convey was the idea that, through our invention of hours, minutes and seconds, along with devices to measure their passing, our specific concept of time as a fourth dimension (and so on through to the concept of space-time that characterises Einstein’s theory of relativity), has fundamentally transformed aspects of human thought and practice. There seems no way that our use of time can be reduced entirely to the demands of social coordination and cooperation. Indeed, it is interesting to note that both Basu and Waymire (2006) and Mullins at al. (2013) make exactly the reverse argument to Bryant (2015) suggesting that large-scale human cooperation was dependent on material culture, namely writing and record-keeping (although these authors argue that this allowed us to ‘transcend’ our evolved psychology, we would suggest this represents an example of how humans psychology is inherently extensive and integrated with environmental and cultural resources). Although timeliness could be a by-product of social norms and customs as Bryant suggests, the concept of time is not: our invention of various ingenious ways to measure time and how we use these to shape our lives, permit us to go far beyond anything that our Pleistocene ancestors were capable of. Of course, humans are not “infinitely flexible and unconstrained by past selection”, but one has to admit there is something about the sheer inventiveness of modern human behaviour that quite clearly reflects the manner in which cultural artifacts augment, enhance and extend our evolved biological brains. Functional FuzzinessBryant (2015) identifies one last failing on our part concerning the relationship between domain-generality and specificity, with reference to our argument on incest taboos. Namely, he suggests that we did not consider the possibility that unconscious mechanisms guide our behaviour under such circumstances. Far from failing to acknowledge this, however, we cited Westermarck (1921) in precisely this context. It is odd that Bryant picks up on an aspect of our argument that was made explicit in our original piece, but ignores its substance, which was to counter the idea put forward by Cosmides and Tooby (1994) that incest avoidance requires innate domain-specific knowledge because such knowledge could not, even in principle, be learned. Instead, Bryant attempts to shift the emphasis, making the point that “just because a mechanism works across content domains, it is still functionally specialized. The scope of a mechanism is independent from whether it has design features.” To the extent that we understand this statement, it seems to promote a rather fuzzy notion of functional specialization, and deny the very motivation for EP-style ‘design thinking’ in the first place: that is, the notion that specialized tasks require specialized mechanisms, and cannot be solved effectively by general-purpose mechanisms that apply across several domains. Such a statement also raises an empirical worry for, if it is true that a mechanism’s scope is independent of its design features, how does one go about identifying evolved functionally-specialized mechanisms applied to a new domain as opposed to evolved domain-general mechanisms operating on one of the several tasks to which they are well suited? There seems to be no means of distinguishing the two. Consequently, when Bryant asks: where is the argument here? We would suggest that, not only is there an argument to be had, but it is one that cuts to the very heart of the EP project. Why All the Fuss?Summing up, Bryant (2015) suggests the gap between human behavioural ecology and EP is closing, but notes that Symons (1987) question remains: if we’re all Darwinians, what’s all the fuss about? For us, the fuss is about the rather restrictive view of human psychology promoted by EP, and the failure of some of its assumptions to withstand close scrutiny; a topic that occupied two-thirds of our original paper. More broadly, we think it is worth considering whether we should continue to base our model of the mind on inanimate computation (a notion that has human intentionality built into it at source) or whether we should pursue a truly evolutionary route that grounds psychology (of both human and non-humans) in living biological systems—a view that further permits the study of humans as hybrid embodied-extended biocultural beings who invent all kinds of things and so continually reinvent themselves. For us, this is another good reason why some Darwinians shou. (shrink)

We critique the distinction Byrne makes between strong causes and enabling conditions, and its implications, on both theoretical and empirical grounds. First, we believe that the difference is psychological, not logical. Second, we disagree that there is a strict Third, we disagree that it is easier for people to generate causes than counterfactuals.

We study for each computably bounded $\Pi ^0_1$ class P the set of degrees of c.e. paths in P. We show, amongst other results, that for every c.e. degree a there is a perfect $\Pi ^0_1$ class where all c.e. members have degree a. We also show that every $\Pi ^0_1$ set of c.e. indices is realized in some perfect $\Pi ^0_1$ class, and classify the sets of c.e. degrees which can be realized in some $\Pi ^0_1$ class as exactly (...) those with a computable representation. (shrink)

Objective Bayesian methodology is widely used in statistics, physics, engineering and artificial intelligence. However, every justification for this method has contained glaring holes. This paper offered an entirely new, decision-theoretic justification of objective Bayesianism. Kyburg goes half-way towards objective Bayesianism. He accepts that frequencies constrain rational belief to an interval but stops short of isolating an optimal degree of belief within this interval. I examine the case for going the whole hog.

The relationship between technology and the environment is complex, particularly with the advent of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) tools. While AI technologies consume significant energy and resources, they also offer solutions to environmental challenges. This chapter examines the dual impact of AI: increasing energy consumption and pollution, yet enabling more efficient and sustainable practices. Key applications include optimizing wind turbine placement, photovoltaic production, and energy consumption patterns. Additionally, the need for holistic energy assessments is emphasized, highlighting emerging efficient AI systems (...) and advancements in public services like waste and water management. (shrink)