The Fuel of Scientific Progress

Black Boxes ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 215-249
Author(s):  
Marco J. Nathan

This chapter addresses a classic topic: the advancement of science. In the wake of Kuhn’s groundbreaking work, positivist philosophy of science was replaced by a more realistic and historically informed depiction of science. However, over half a century has now passed since the publication of Structure. Despite valiant attempts, we still lack a fully developed, viable replacement for the cumulative model presupposed by positivism. At the dawn of the new millennium, mainstream philosophy eventually abandoned the project of developing a grand, overarching account of science. The quest for generality was traded in for a more detailed analysis of particular disciplines and practices. The goal of this chapter is to show how the black-boxing strategy can offer a revamped formulation of scientific progress, an important topic that lies at the core of any general characterization of science, and bring it back on the philosophical main stage, where it legitimately belongs.

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ammad Ahmad Farooqi ◽  
Evangelia Legaki ◽  
Maria Gazouli ◽  
Silvia Rinaldi ◽  
Rossana Berardi

: Central dogma of molecular biology has remained cornerstone of classical molecular biology but serendipitous discovery of microRNAs (miRNAs) in nematodes paradigmatically shifted our current understanding of the intricate mech-anisms which occur during transitions from transcription to translation. Discovery of miRNA captured tremendous attention and appreciation and we had witnessed an explosion in the field of non-coding RNAs. Ground-breaking discoveries in the field of non-coding RNAs have helped in better characterization of microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs (LncRNAs). There is an ever-increasing list of miRNA targets which are regulated by MALAT1 to stimulate or repress expression of tar-get genes. However, in this review our main focus is to summarize mechanistic insights related to MALAT1-mediated regu-lation of oncogenic signaling pathways. We have discussed how MALAT1 modulated TGF/SMAD and Hippo pathways in various cancers. We have also comprehensively summarized how JAK/STAT and Wnt/β-catenin pathways stimulated MALAT1 expression and consequentially how MALAT1 potentiated these signaling cascades to promote cancer. MALAT1 research has undergone substantial broadening however, there is still a need to identify additional mechanisms. MALAT1 is involved in multi-layered regulation of multiple transduction cascades and detailed analysis of different pathways will be helpful in getting a step closer to individualized medicine.


Author(s):  
Ralph Wedgwood

Internalism implies that rationality requires nothing more than what in the broadest sense counts as ‘coherence’. The earlier chapters of this book argue that rationality is in a strong sense normative. But why does coherence matter? The interpretation of this question is clarified. An answer to the question would involve a general characterization of rationality that makes it intuitively less puzzling why rationality is in this strong sense normative. Various approaches to this question are explored: a deflationary approach, the appeal to ‘Dutch book’ theorems, the idea that rationality is constitutive of the nature of mental states. It is argued that none of these approaches solves the problem. An adequate solution will have to appeal to some value that depends partly on how things are in the external world—in effect, an external goal—and some normatively significant connection between internal rationality and this external goal.


Author(s):  
Peter Miksza ◽  
Kenneth Elpus

This chapter introduces the reader to basic characteristics of science and situates the design and analysis considerations presented throughout the book within the context of scientific inquiry. A brief description of key historical developments regarding the philosophy of science is provided. An overview of the fundamental aspects of inductive and deductive scientific reasoning and the importance of falsification to scientific progress is presented. In addition, the values of objectivity and transparency as well as the importance of scientific community are stressed. The usefulness of statistical tools for helping researchers clarify their questions, establish criteria for their judgments, and communicate evidence for their claims is also discussed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 277
Author(s):  
Danny Haelewaters ◽  
Hector Urbina ◽  
Samuel Brown ◽  
Shannon Newerth-Henson ◽  
M. Catherine Aime

Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa) is an important staple of American agriculture. Unlike many vegetables, romaine lettuce is typically consumed raw. Phylloplane microbes occur naturally on plant leaves; consumption of uncooked leaves includes consumption of phylloplane microbes. Despite this fact, the microbes that naturally occur on produce such as romaine lettuce are for the most part uncharacterized. In this study, we conducted culture-based studies of the fungal romaine lettuce phylloplane community from organic and conventionally grown samples. In addition to an enumeration of all such microbes, we define and provide a discussion of the genera that form the “core” romaine lettuce mycobiome, which represent 85.5% of all obtained isolates: Alternaria, Aureobasidium, Cladosporium, Filobasidium, Naganishia, Papiliotrema, Rhodotorula, Sampaiozyma, Sporobolomyces, Symmetrospora and Vishniacozyma. We highlight the need for additional mycological expertise in that 23% of species in these core genera appear to be new to science and resolve some taxonomic issues we encountered during our work with new combinations for Aureobasidiumbupleuri and Curvibasidium nothofagi. Finally, our work lays the ground for future studies that seek to understand the effect these communities may have on preventing or facilitating establishment of exogenous microbes, such as food spoilage microbes and plant or human pathogens.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Rubin

Hypothesizing after the results are known, or HARKing, occurs when researchers check their research results and then add or remove hypotheses on the basis of those results without acknowledging this process in their research report ( Kerr, 1998 ). In the present article, I discuss 3 forms of HARKing: (a) using current results to construct post hoc hypotheses that are then reported as if they were a priori hypotheses; (b) retrieving hypotheses from a post hoc literature search and reporting them as a priori hypotheses; and (c) failing to report a priori hypotheses that are unsupported by the current results. These 3 types of HARKing are often characterized as being bad for science and a potential cause of the current replication crisis. In the present article, I use insights from the philosophy of science to present a more nuanced view. Specifically, I identify the conditions under which each of these 3 types of HARKing is most and least likely to be bad for science. I conclude with a brief discussion about the ethics of each type of HARKing.


2014 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 34-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duygu Nizamogullari ◽  
İpek Özkal-Sanver

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Clark

There is an idea, going back to Aristotle, that reasons for action can be understood on a parallel with reasons for belief. Not surprisingly, the idea has almost always led to some form of inferentialism about reasons for action. In this paper I argue that reasons for action can be understood on a parallel with reasons for belief, but that this requires abandoning inferentialism about reasons for action. This result will be thought paradoxical. It is generally assumed that if there is to be a useful parallel, there must be some such thing as a practical inference. As we shall see, that assumption tends to block the fruitful exploration of the real parallel. On the view I shall defend, the practical analogue of an ordinary inference is not an inference, but something I shall call a practical step. Nevertheless, the practical step will do, for a theory of reasons for action, what ordinary inference does for an inferentialist theory of reasons for belief. The result is a general characterization of reasons, practical and theoretical, in terms of the correctness conditions of the relevant sorts of step.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document