Ordinary language philosophy, explanation, and the historical turn in philosophy of science.

Taking a cue from remarks Thomas Kuhn makes in 1990 about the historical turn in philosophy of science, I examine the history of history and philosophy of science within parts of the British philosophical context in the 1950s and early 1960s. During this time, ordinary language philosophy's influence was at its peak. I argue that the ordinary language philosophers' methodological recommendation to analyze actual linguistic practice influences several prominent criticisms of the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation and that these criticisms relate to the historical turn in philosophy of science. To show these connections, I primarily examine the work of Stephen Toulmin, who taught at Oxford from 1949 to 1954, and Michael Scriven, who completed a dissertation on explanation under Gilbert Ryle and R.B. Braithwaite in 1956. I also consider Mary Hesse's appeal to an ordinary language-influenced account of meaning in her account of the role of models and analogies in scientific reasoning, and W.H. Watson's Wittgensteinian philosophy of science, an early influence on Toulmin. I think there are two upshots to my historical sketch. First, it fills out details of the move away from logical positivism to more historical- and practice-focused philosophies of science. Second, questions about linguistic meaning and the proper targets and aims of philosophical analysis are part and parcel of the historical turn, as well as its reception. Looking at the philosophical background during which so-called linguistic philosophers also had a hand in bringing these questions to prominence helps us understand why.

Hans Reichenbach's and C.I. Lewis's Kantian philosophies of science.

Recent work in the history of philosophy of science details the Kantianism of philosophers often thought opposed to one another, e.g., Hans Reichenbach, C.I. Lewis, Rudolf Carnap, and Thomas Kuhn. Historians of philosophy of science in the last two decades have been particularly interested in the Kantianism of Reichenbach, Carnap, and Kuhn, and more recently, of Lewis. While recent historical work focuses on recovering the threatened-to-be-forgotten Kantian themes of early twentieth-century philosophy of science, we should not elide the differences between the Kantian strands running throughout this work. In this paper, I disentangle a few of these strands in the work of Reichenbach and Lewis focusing especially on their theories of relativized, constitutive a priori principles in empirical knowledge. In particular, I highlight three related differences between Reichenbach and Lewis concerning their motivations in analyzing scientific knowledge and scientific practice, their differing conceptions of constitutivity, and their relativization of constitutive a priori principles. In light of these differences, I argue Lewis's Kantianism is more similar to Kuhn's Kantianism than Reichenbach's, and so might be of more contemporary relevance to social and practice-based approaches to the philosophy of science.

Intolerancia a la frustración y estrategias cognitivas de regulación emocional en la predicción de la agresividad / Frustration intolerance and cognitive strategies of emotional regulation in the prediction of aggressiveness

Resumen La conducta agresiva constituye un problema que afecta a los individuos y a la so ciedad. El Modelo de Agresión General integra un conjunto de variables que influyen en la pro babilidad de exhibir una conducta agresiva entre las cuales está la regulación emocional y la frustración. Esta investigación evalúa las relaciones entre la regulación emocional cognitiva y la intolerancia a la frustración. A 419 sujetos adultos se les administraron la Escala de Intoleran cia a la Frustración, la Escala de Regulación Emocional Cognitiva y el Cuestionario de Agresión. Se hallaron relaciones positivas en la mayoría de las estrategias desadaptativas cognitivas de regulación emocional y relaciones negativas entre la mayoría de las estrategias cognitivas adap tativas de regulación emocional con la conducta agresiva, y relaciones positivas entre todas las dimensiones de la intolerancia a la frustración y la conducta agresiva. El Análisis de Regresión Múltiple muestra que las variables que producen un cambio significativo en la agresividad son la catastrofización y culpar a otros, así como la intolerancia a la frustración referida a derechos. Mediante path análisis se verificó que estas tres variables mencionadas permiten explicar un 41% de la variabilidad en la agresividad.

Abstract Aggressive behavior is a problem that affects individuals and society. The General Aggression Model integrates a set of variables that influence the probability of exhibiting aggressive behavior, among which is emotional regulation and frustration. This research assesses the relationships between cognitive emotional regulation and frustration intolerance. A total of 419 adult subjects were administered the Frustration Intolerance Scale, the Cognitive Emotional Regulation Scale and the Aggression Questionnaire. Positive relationships were found in most of the maladaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies and negative re lationships between most of the adaptive cognitive emotional regulation strategies with the aggressive behavior, and positive relationships between all the dimensions of the frustration intolerance and the aggressive behavior. The Multiple Regression Analysis shows that the vari ables that produce a significant change in aggressiveness are catastrophization and blaming others, as well as the frustration intolerance referring to rights. By means of path analysis, it was verified that these three variables can explain 41% of the variability in aggressiveness.

Generation of hypoimmunogenic human pluripotent stem cells.

Polymorphic HLAs form the primary immune barrier to cell therapy. In addition, innate immune surveillance impacts cell engraftment, yet a strategy to control both, adaptive and innate immunity, is lacking. Here we employed multiplex genome editing to specifically ablate the expression of the highly polymorphic HLA-A/-B/-C and HLA class II in human pluripotent stem cells. Furthermore, to prevent innate immune rejection and further suppress adaptive immune responses, we expressed the immunomodulatory factors PD-L1, HLA-G, and the macrophage "don't-eat me" signal CD47 from the AAVS1 safe harbor locus. Utilizing in vitro and in vivo immunoassays, we found that T cell responses were blunted. Moreover, NK cell killing and macrophage engulfment of our engineered cells were minimal. Our results describe an approach that effectively targets adaptive as well as innate immune responses and may therefore enable cell therapy on a broader scale.

Percepción de estudiantes y graduados sobre el estatus de la Psicología en Argentina / Perception of students and graduates on status of Psychology in Argentina

Hay evidencia que muestra que existen diferencias entre estudiantes y graduados sobre los puntos de vista acerca de la naturaleza de la Psicología. El objetivo del trabajo es evaluar la percepción sobre el status de la disciplina entre estudiantes y graduados de Psicología de Argentina con la Escala de Psicología como ciencia, basada en la de Friedrich (1996). Consiste en 20 afirmaciones que se deben puntuar con una escala likert, que va desde completamente en desacuerdo (1) a completamente de acuerdo (7), clasificadas en tres factores: F1, la Psicología es una disciplina análoga a la Biología o la Física; F2, la investigación llevada a cabo en entornos controlados de laboratorio es esencial para la comprensión de la conducta cotidiana, y F3, la conducta es predecible. El Factor 4 contiene ítems de relleno para ensombrecer el objetivo del cuestionario. La Escala se envió mediante un sistema on line y en forma presencial. Los graduados presentaron puntajes significativamente mayores que los estudiantes en los tres factores de interés. Los graduados de orientación cognitiva-conductual obtuvieron un puntaje medio que indica que están muy de acuerdo o de acuerdo con el estatus científico de la Psicología a diferencia de los estudiantes y psicoanalistas. Además, los estudiantes de los primeros años presentan puntajes significativamente más altos en F1 y F3 en relación a los de los últimos años. Los resultados se discuten en relación a la enseñanza de la Psicología.

One of the fundamental goals of education is for people to learn to differentiate scientific knowledge from the one derived from common sense and pseudoscience. Learning to thinks cientifically is considered an easy task. It is not natural to humans; it requires changing certain structures of knowledge towards notions that need reflection, and an important transformation of some conceptual networks that are involved in the information processing mechanisms natural of all living organisms. In the case of psychology, the conceptual change from folk psychology (or common sense) and pseudos-cience to psychological science is also difficult to teach, perhaps even more so than in physics or biology, as the latter are more developed, more remote from human problems and there are less epistemological controversies about their methodology. There is evidence of differences between students and graduates on their views about the scientific basis of psychology. In this paper, the perception of psychology's status was evaluated among psychology students and graduates from universities in Argentina using the Psychology as a Science Scale (Friedrich, 1996PAS). It's comprised of 20 items with a 7 point Likert style response ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). It is divided into three factors. F1: psychology can be considered as a science similar to biology or physics (4 items, e.g. A degree in psychology should be a Bachelor of Science rather than one in Arts or Humanities); F2: research conducted in controlled laboratory environments is essential for the understanding of everyday behavior (5 items, e.g. Being able to do experiments is as important to psychology students as for chemistry, physics or biology students); and F3: behavior is predictable (6 items, e.g. Although each person is unique, it is possible for science to find general laws to explain human behavior). It also has 4 filler questions (FR) to hide the objectives of the survey and control social desirability (eg. An introductory course in psychology should encompass the widest range of possible topics). Friedrich (1996) reported that the scale has an internal consistency coefficient alpha of .71 for a sample of students and Holmes (2014), reported alpha of .74 for graduate / teachers. For the sample presented, Cronbach's alpha was .74 for all items. The Spanish translation was done by the authors of the study and evaluated by two experts in psychology and English proficiency. Then it was administered to a group of psychology students to confirm the understanding of the items. The survey was administered both through an online system and in person. The main results show that students have significantly lower score than graduates in the three factors of interest. However, graduates who identify with a cognitive-behavioral framework or with an integrative-eclectic approach strongly agree or agree with the scientific status of psychology as measured in F1, F2 and F3, unlike students and psychoanalysts who scored significantly less in F1 and F3. Moreover, students of the first years of study have a significant minor score than students of the last years on F1 and F3(p < .05). This work has as limit that the sample is not representative and the questionnaire was not validated in its version in Spanish. However, the results are similar to those of other countries, although it was the first that discriminated the opinion of the graduates in function of the theoretical orientation. Future research confirms these results. These results are discussed in relation to studies in other countries and to the teaching of psychology.

Adaptación Argentina de la "Escala de intolerancia a la frustración" / Argentinean adaptation of the Frustration Intolerance Scale

La "Escala de intolerancia a la frustración" (EIF; Harrington, 2005) permite evaluar una serie de creencias que promueven la intolerancia a las molestias, el esfuerzo, la injusticia y las emociones incómodas. A pesar de la importancia de este instrumento, no existe una versión en español de la EIF. En este trabajo se evaluó la equivalencia de una traducción de la EIF mediante un panel de expertos. Posteriormente, mediante análisis factorial confirmatorio (n= 799) se concluyó que la EIF posee una estructura multidimensional de cuatro factores: Intolerancia emocional, Derecho, Intolerancia a la incomodidad y Logro. Sin embargo, debieron eliminarse 11 ítems, lo cual afectó la consistencia interna de algunas dimensiones. También se examinó la invarianza del instrumento considerando la edad, sexo y nivel educativo de los participantes, obteniéndose pruebas de validez de criterio correlacionando la EIF con los niveles de autoestima. Los resultados psicométricos fueron aceptables, aunque se identificaron algunas limitaciones a considerar antes de utilizar a nivel profesional. Este trabajo inaugura futuros estudios sobre IF en países de habla española

The Intolerance to Frustration Scale (IFS, Harrington, 2005) assesses a series of beliefs that promote intolerance to annoyance, exertion, injustice and uncomfortable emotions. Despite the importance of this instrument, there is no Spanish version of the IFS. In this work, the equivalence of a translation from thecIFS was assessed by a panel of experts. Subsequently, by means of confirmatory factorial analysis (n= 799) it was concluded that the IFS has a multidimensional structure of four factors: Emotional Intolerance, Right, Intolerance to Discomfort and Achievement. However, 11 items had to be removed, which affected the internal consistency of some dimensions. The invariance of the instrument was also examined considering the age, sex and educational level of the participants, and evidence of validity as obtained by correlating the IFS with self-esteem levels. Psychometric results were acceptable, although some limitations should be addressed before the scale is used professionally in Spanish-speaking countries

Percepción de los beneficios individuales del uso de la bicicleta compartida como modo de transporte / Perception of the individual benefits of bike sharing use as a mode of transport

El uso de la bicicleta como modo de transporte se asocia con numerosos beneficios ambientales y sociales, no obstante, se desconoce cuáles son los más valorados por los ciclistas. El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer en qué medida el Sistema de Transporte Público de Bicicletas (STPB) de la ciudad de Buenos Aires produjo impactos positivos sobre los aspectos que las personas valoran en el momento de viajar, analizando si estas evaluaciones varían en función de la intensidad de uso del STPB. Para ello, se diseñó un cuestionario basado en un estudio sobre la calidad de vida residencial que fue aplicado a 161 usuarios del STPB. Los resultados indicaron que los aspectos del viajar: rapidez, control del horario de llegada, ahorro de dinero y en menor medida la salud, fueron muy importantes para los usuarios y fueron los que más mejoraron a partir del uso del STPB. Asimismo, las personas que usan el sistema con mayor intensidad son las que perciben más beneficios sobre los aspectos no instrumentales del viajar como el entretenimiento y la comodidad. Estos resultados sugieren que para lograr que las personas realicen un cambio sustentable en sus comportamientos de movilidad es necesario mantener las ventajas instrumentales que ofrece el servicio de bicicletas compartidas sobre los otros medios de transporte.

Cycling as a mode of transport is associated with numerous social and environmental benefits. However, the benefits that are most valued by cyclists are unknown. This study sought to find out to what extent the Public Bike Sharing System (PBSS) of the city of Buenos Aires produced positive impacts on aspects that users value most when traveling, and analysing whether these evaluations vary according to the intensity of use of the PBSS. To achieve this aim, a questionnaire was designed based on a study on residential quality of life, which was administered to 161 PBSS users. Results indicated that travel aspects such as rapidity, control of arrival time, saving money and -to a lesser extent- health were very important to users, and these aspects had the greatest improvement since they started to use the PBSS. Similarly, those who used the system with greater intensity perceived greater non-instrumental benefits, such as entertainment and comfort. These results suggest that, in order to achieve a sustainable change in mobility behaviours, it is necessary to maintain the instrumental advantages of bike sharing over other modes of transport.