FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2046361291> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2046361291 endingPage "204" @default.
• W2046361291 startingPage "203" @default.
• W2046361291 abstract "Ontological and Other Assumptions Lloyd A. Wells (bio) and Sandra J. Rackley (bio) Fahrenberg and Cheetham have conducted an immensely thought-provoking study of the assumptions about human nature made by 800 students and pose a question about the future impact of these assumptions on individuals’ practice in professions including medicine and psychotherapy. This work represents a branch of “philosophical anthropology,” which considers assumptions people make about human nature. The authors used a questionnaire, much of which was newly designed, to assess the assumptions made by university students studying psychology, philosophy, sciences, and other disciplines. Most of the respondents were studying at Freiburg, but some were sampled at several other universities in both the former East and West Germanies. Questions involved consciousness and the brain, evolution, free will, belief in God, the meaning of life, and theodicy. Given the importance of these beliefs and assumptions in so many peoples’ lives, it is quite surprising that there are so few modern data available, and this study ventures an important first step in assessing these assumptions. However, there are many problems inherent in this study (and any like it). The first, for us, is the validity of the questionnaire itself, an issue that was not specifically addressed in the paper. Face validity is a problem even in the few questions quoted directly in the paper. For example, some statements contain two clauses, and one could well agree with one without agreeing with another: “I do not know whether a God exists and I do not believe it is possible to know.” This is the most relevant answer for a true agnostic, but the assumption that “I do not know whether a God exists” does not necessarily link at all with “I do not believe it is possible to know.” Similarly, a theist might have trouble with the two clauses, “I know God really exists” and “I do not doubt this.” (Technically, knowledge does imply a lack of doubt, but belief certainly does not.) Particularly in the trilemmas, where various patterns of response were analyzed, these multiple-clause statements may have led students to respond in a manner inconsistent with their true beliefs and assumptions. Furthermore, many of the questions contain terms that may have been unfamiliar to first-year university students. The authors explain their rationale in not defining terms, but the lack of clarity about definitions may have led some of the students to not fully understand the questions asked and to perhaps influence the answers they chose. Misunderstanding of the questions may account for some of the disparities reported in the results. Other apparent inconsistencies, however, do not seem to be a result of unclear questions. For example, sixty percent of the students agreed with the statement that “I believe in … existence after death,” whereas forty-seven percent agreed with the statement that “when my brain is dead my consciousness and my person cease to be.” These [End Page 203] findings do not add up, and this study has several similar sets of data. People contradict themselves in long and complex questionnaires, and this may be a simple explanation for these findings, but is this the only explanation? How seriously did the students take the questionnaire, often given as part of their class? How honest were their responses? How generalizable are the findings of this study? It is very difficult even to speculate about this. The statistics are incomprehensible in light of the data given, and one must essentially take them on faith, wherever one falls on the God/theodicy questions. The design has many flaws, but we do learn how a subsample of German university students rate important factors about the meaning of life. Statements are made in the paper that the students’ results correlate with similar results for the general population, but this assertion seems to be based on a very few questions. One would like much more delineation of this apparent correlation, because we wonder about the juxtaposition of developmental factors with the answers the students gave to this questionnaire. First-year university students are at a critical developmental point, and it would be fascinating to follow this large cohort of students over time to see whether..." @default.
• W2046361291 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2046361291 creator A5074537576 @default.
• W2046361291 creator A5080486985 @default.
• W2046361291 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W2046361291 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2046361291 title "Ontological and Other Assumptions" @default.
• W2046361291 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.0.0115" @default.
• W2046361291 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2046361291 type Work @default.
• W2046361291 sameAs 2046361291 @default.
• W2046361291 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2046361291 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2046361291 hasAuthorship W2046361291A5074537576 @default.
• W2046361291 hasAuthorship W2046361291A5080486985 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C186720457 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C2778697353 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C2779304628 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C111472728 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C138885662 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C144024400 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C15744967 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C186720457 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C2778697353 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C2779304628 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C2780876879 @default.
• W2046361291 hasConceptScore W2046361291C36289849 @default.
• W2046361291 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2046361291 hasLocation W20463612911 @default.
• W2046361291 hasOpenAccess W2046361291 @default.
• W2046361291 hasPrimaryLocation W20463612911 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W1970645038 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W2006213987 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W2009372896 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W2025716570 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W2809571619 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W3004007046 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W3082464652 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W3117152627 @default.
• W2046361291 hasRelatedWork W89491273 @default.
• W2046361291 hasVolume "14" @default.
• W2046361291 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2046361291 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2046361291 magId "2046361291" @default.
• W2046361291 workType "article" @default.