It has been suggested that preparing to teach and teaching are conditionally effective in enhancing one’s own learning. This paper focuses on interactivity—the level of teacher-student interaction in expected or actual teaching—as the potential key to understanding and controlling the variability in the effectiveness of learning by preparing to teach and teaching. By summarizing and reanalyzing the results of previous studies, I suggest that the learning benefits of studying with the expectation of direct teaching (i.e., teaching a student face-to-face) are (...) greater than those of studying with the expectation of indirect teaching (i.e., teaching a student indirectly by creating a lecture video, providing written explanations, or using other means) and that learning by direct teaching surpasses learning by explaining to oneself or indirect teaching at least after preparing to do so. Next, three candidate explanations for the impact of interactivity are discussed: the advantages of asking and answering questions, obtaining additional information about and from one’s student, and enhancing one’s motivation to process learning material deeply while preparing to teach and teaching. Finally, I conclude with the remaining questions and directions for future research. (shrink)

To explain why students learn effectively by teaching, explaining to others in particular, Koh and colleagues advanced the retrieval practice hypothesis, which attributes the learning benefits entirely to the effect of practicing retrieval, that is, effortfully recalling to-be-taught information for the provision of instructional explanations. After delineating the rationale behind the retrieval practice hypothesis, the current situation of research, and the limitations of the existing approach, this paper proposes three tests for the evaluation of the hypothesis that address whether explaining (...) to others after initial studying surpasses restudying in learning performance, whether the amount of effort to retrieve to-be-taught information from memory moderates the learning effects of explaining to others, and whether the degree of elaboration during retrieval practice positively predicts the outcomes of learning by merely recalling to-be-taught information. Evidence is examined regarding whether each test is passed, and future directions for research on the retrieval practice hypothesis are discussed. (shrink)

This paper reports on a quiz robot experiment in which we explore similarities and differences in human participant speech, gaze, and bodily conduct in responding to a robot’s speech, gaze, and bodily conduct across two languages. Our experiment involved three-person groups of Japanese and English-speaking participants who stood facing the robot and a projection screen that displayed pictures related to the robot’s questions. The robot was programmed so that its speech was coordinated with its gaze, body position, and gestures in (...) relation to transition relevance places, key words, and deictic words and expressions in both languages. Contrary to findings on human interaction, we found that the frequency of English speakers’ head nodding was higher than that of Japanese speakers in human-robot interaction. Our findings suggest that the coordination of the robot’s verbal and non-verbal actions surrounding TRPs, key words, and deictic words and expressions is important for facilitating HRI irrespective of participants’ native language. Keywords: coordination of verbal and non-verbal actions; robot gaze comparison between English and Japanese; human-robot interaction ; transition relevance place ; conversation analysis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Ōmori Shōzō and Kotodama Theory: How Can We Overcome the Need for Bodily Encounters?Maki SatoIntroductionŌmori Shōzō is known for his theory of tachi-araware monism. Tachiaraware monism is his attempted counter-argument to the Cartesian dualism of the object–subject divide, or in his words, a divide between physical (butsuri, mono, science, object) and non-physical consciousness (ishiki, koto, perception, incident), perception (chikaku, 知覚) and conception (shikō, 思考). His concept of Kasane-egaki is (...) also often cited as a core concept of his theory of time.1 The main aim of this paper is to first overview the works of Ōmori since there is only a limited amount of his translated work so far.2 Consecutively, the paper focuses on Ōmori’s theory of kotodama and its related arguments with an intention to expand his concept of Kowaburi into the ethics of online encounters during the pandemic.The world in 2020 was suddenly forced to face the pandemic caused by COVID-19. What COVID-19 alerted us to is tremendous, and there are countless problems that the invisible virus has revealed. Among those are the hidden problems of contemporary society, not limited to the discrimination among races, gender, and jobs (white-collars versus essential workers), the problem of zoonosis, and the related environmental problems (climate change and intrusion into wild nature) caused by over-exploitation of nature. In developed countries, most students and those serving as intellectual workers face their daily lives being overly occupied with online lectures and meetings. COVID-19 worked to normalize remote work, which further normalized and forced our everyday life to shift to cyberspace. [End Page 101]In introducing and overviewing Ōmori’s philosophy, this paper attempts to see the current situation through Ōmori’s philosophy to draw out some ethical implications related to non-physical online encounters and how we can perceive human interactions and relationships under such conditions. Under the constraints caused by COVID-19, humans’ limitless desires to interact with others are expanding more so to the sphere of cyberspace, leading to technological development, such as VR. In short, first, the paper overviews Ōmori’s philosophy. Second, through the overview of Ōmori’s philosophy, the paper seeks adaptable philosophy of his that may work as soft binding grounding ethics for cyberspace encounters where substantial bodily encounters are void. In doing so, the paper intends to draw out weak binding ethics implied in Ōmori’s philosophy that may work to empathetically engage with others in cyberspace where embodied encounters with others are dissolved.Ōmori Shōzō and His Philosophy: A Short Introduction and OverviewIn his short essay introducing the Japanese philosophy of the 1970s, Yasuo Kobayashi coined the term “Komaba quartet” by selecting four active eminent philosophers based on the Komaba campus at the University of Tokyo.3 Among them is Ōmori Shōzō (1921–97), aligning with Hiromatsu Wataru (1933–94), Sakabe Megumi (1936–2009), and Inoue Tadashi (1926–2014). Ōmori is the oldest of the Komaba quartet and received higher education before World War II. He served at the Naval Technology Institute Mitaka Laboratory during the war with his physics degree from the Tokyo Imperial University.4 After the war, he studied philosophy at the University of Tokyo with an interest in phenomenology, leading him to study at Harvard and Stanford in the United States.During his professorship at the University of Tokyo, he inspired countless students who are now leading the philosophy academy in Japan, such as Noe Keiichi (1949–) and Noya Shigeki (1954–). In the round-table discussion titled “Explanatory Round-Table on the Charm of Ōmori’s Philosophy,” four of his former students—Iida Takashi and Tanji Nobuharu, in addition to Noe and Noya—worked on selecting his works. It is impressive to read that all four [End Page 102] of them recall how exciting and inspiring it was to take his classes.5 Iida recalls that Ōmori’s classes were exceptional since philosophy courses were all about reading, with might and main, the texts written in a language other than Japanese at the University of Tokyo. However, Ōmori, with his postwar American education, welcomed discussion with the students and was keen on questioning... (shrink)

Many educators today think that the school's lessons and activities do not stimulate or engage students' imaginations. In order to alleviate this problem, they tend to use images in conjunction with, or sometimes rather than, words; they employ so-called imaginative or creative activities rather than chalk and talk. However, these principles and methods are based on somewhat misguided or trivial understanding of the importance of imagination in students' lives. Dewey's understanding of the relevance of imagination gives us a useful perspective (...) to better understand where imaginative engagement becomes crucial in education. (shrink)

Study of Vaiśeṣika philosophy with special reference to Vaiśeṣikadaśapadārthaśāstra.

How is it possible to say that truth can be of one kind at the conventional level and totally different in the ultimate plane? As Matilal ( 1971 , p. 154) points out, Kumārila (ca. 600–650), a Mīmāṃsaka philosopher, claims that the Buddhist doctrine of two truths is “a kind of philosophical ‘double-talk’.” It is Prajñākaragupta (ca. 750–810), a Buddhist logician, who tries to give a direct answer to this question posed by Kumārila from the Buddhist side. He argues that (...) even a Mīmāṃsaka cannot demonstrate the validity ( prāmāṇya ) of the Veda without accepting two truth levels. His point is this. Consider the proposition to be proved: the Veda is valid. If the Veda is already known as valid, then it is useless to prove this proposition. But if it is already known as invalid, then it is impossible to prove this proposition. Therefore in the argument to prove the proposition, the Veda is not to be regarded either as valid or as invalid. This means that at the first stage of the argument one has the concept of the Veda as neutral in validity. However, as soon as one acquires the knowledge of the Veda as valid through the argument, one has to repudiate such a conception of the Veda. The acceptance of the Veda as neutral in validity is to the acceptance of the Veda as valid as the conventional truth is to the ultimate truth. (shrink)

『哲学探究』以後、最晩期に独立した地位を与える。ウィトゲンシュタインの知識の哲学。.

「主体」はもちろんsubjectの翻訳語である。明治以降、この語がわが国に入ってくると、「主観」「主体」「主語」などさまざまな翻訳語があらわれる。たとえば西田幾多郎は、初期は「主観」をつかっているが、 後期になると「主体」しか出てこなくなる。この移行ははたして何を意味するのだろうか。戦後には、「主体性論争」がわき起こり、たとえば学生運動では「主体性」という言葉がキーワードとなった。明治期の受容から、 戦後、そして現代に至るまで、それぞれの時代の趨勢となった思想に伏流する「主体」を追い続け、日本近代思想史にあらたな視座を提供する、知的興奮にあふれた一冊。.

The question of the existence of cultural universals immediately leads us to the problem of intercultural communication and of so-called incommensurability. Over the last few decades, these topics have been the subject of controversy in the philosophy of science, and the stock of universalism has been falling as a result of the rise of Kuhn’s paradigm theory and Quine’s thesis of the indeterminacy of translation. Nowadays cultural pluralism or relativism is rather dominant among philosophers and has begun to appear plausible, (...) too, from an anthropological or sociological point of view. But philosophically, as is well known, relativism harbors many difficulties and paradoxes. As philosophers, therefore, we cannot accept imprudent relativism just as it is. (shrink)

古代・中世のアリストテレス的自然観を克服し、信仰や迷信から独立することで17世紀に近代「科学」は誕生した。しかしパラダイム転換はくり返され、20世紀には科学技術に伴うリスクも叫ばれるようになる。科学哲 学の第一人者がこうした決定的な転換点に光をあてながら、知の歴史のダイナミズムへと誘う。科学神話が揺らぐ今だからこそもう一度深く掘り下げる、入門書の決定版。.

はたして科学は万能なのか。19世紀以来の「科学主義」は、現在なお「自然主義」の衣を纏って生き続けている。本書は「科学主義」と「反科学主義」をともに退け、科学を自然というテクストを解読する解釈学的営みと して捉え直す。ハンソンとクーンの「新科学哲学」、クワインの「知識の全体論」、ウィトゲンシュタインの「アスペクト論」を手がかりに、科学哲学に「科学的理性批判」という本来の哲学的課題を担わせることを目指す 。ここに新たに論文3篇を加え、サイエンス・ウォーズや実在論/反実在論など、現代の哲学状況と切り結ぶスリリングな論考。.