Keller's Gender/Science System: Is the Philosophy of Science to Science as Science is to Nature?

Hypatia ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-148
Author(s):  
Kelly Oliver

I argue that although in “The Gender/Science System,” Keller intends to formulate a middle ground position in order to open science to feminist criticisms without forcing it into relativism, she steps back into objectivism. While she endorses the dynamic-object model for science, she endorses the static-object model for philosophy of science. I suggest that by modeling her methodology for philosophy on her methodology for science her philosophy would better serve her feminist goals.

Author(s):  
Matthew Croasmun

Emergence theory in philosophy of science is introduced, first in modest terms of the emergent properties exhibited by complex wholes that are not exhibited by their constituent parts. Then, emergence is treated as a trans-ordinal theory that stakes out a middle ground between reductionism and dualism. The tension between supervenience and downward causation is described as the generative dialectic of emergence. The coherence of downward causation is debated and ultimately affirmed on account of the prevalence of downward causation in the sorts of accounts produced by fields like systems biology. Racism is treated as a case study of the sorts of causal feedback loops generated by complex causal structures that operate at multiple levels of hierarchy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-183
Author(s):  
Paulo Eduardo Cardoso ◽  
Mauricio Goncalves Vieira Ferreira
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-10
Author(s):  
Elena Tikhonova ◽  
Lilia Raitskaya

Nearly ten years ago, scholarly publishing came to the fore in research on scientific communication spurred by the evolving Open Science system, the reinvention of peer reviews, and new attitudes to scholarly publications in the ranking-based academic environment. Here, the JLE editors revisit the field of scholarly publishing and identify the most popular areas where potential JLE authors might have difficulty. In this editorial, Scopus-indexed reviews are analysed to map the prevailing trends. The editorial review shows that the trends include open access, peer review transparency, the changing role of libraries in scholarly publishing, CrossRef’s initiatives, outsourcing and skills lacking in publishing, the impact of universities’ prescribed lists for publishing research, open-access monographs, and the role of commercial publishers.


2014 ◽  
Vol 556-562 ◽  
pp. 2702-2706
Author(s):  
Ying Xia ◽  
Xin Hao Xu

Accuracy and stability is crucial for dynamic object tracking. Considering the scale invariance, rotational invariance and strong anti-jamming capability of KAZE features, a method of dynamic object tracking based on KAZE features and particle filter is proposed. This method obtains the global color features of the dynamic object appearance and extracts its local KAZE features to construct the object model first, and then performs dynamic tracking by particle filter. Experimental results demonstrate the accuracy and stability of the proposed method.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Abi Younes ◽  
Charles Ayoubi ◽  
Omar Ballester ◽  
Gabriele Cristelli ◽  
Gaetan de Rassenfosse ◽  
...  

The present document provides the take of innovation economists on the current pandemic. It is addressed to the general public and focuses on questions related to the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) ecosystem. It does not present new research findings. Instead, it provides a reading of current real-world developments using economic reasoning and relying on existing economic research.The first part of the report explains the root causes for a general underinvestment in Research and Development (R&D), with a particular focus on vaccines. These causes include an insufficient demand for vaccines in normal times and the very characteristics of R&D. Governments can intervene to mitigate these problems, but government intervention comes with its own set of issues. We discuss three of them, namely free riding, setting research priorities, and acting on scientific knowledge.The second part discusses several aspects related to current STI policy reactions. First, we observe a sizable shift of funds towards research on SARS-CoV-2. Aren’t we wasting money by allocating so much of it on one single scientific problem? Using the concept of the ‘elasticity of science,’ we argue that we are far from a situation where additional funding would represent a waste of money.Second, we also observe an unprecedented level of cooperation among researchers but also an intense competition to find therapeutic solutions and vaccines. We seek to make sense of this apparent antonymy, highlighting how both cooperative and competitive forces might accelerate research.Third, we focus on one policy tool, namely patents, and we discuss whether the existence of patents hampers the search for a solution. We argue that it might, but we provide ways in which patents can be beneficial. They can accelerate research (such as through patent pools) or ensure greater access to innovations (such as with compulsory licensing).Fourth, we notice that the whole STI ecosystem has been rapidly refocusing on SARS-CoV-2 in a way similar to mission-oriented R&D (MOR) programs such as the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. We highlight the fundamental differences between MOR and the present situation. Today’s response is characterized by a proliferation of a wide range of innovative solutions offered by a complex set of institutions and actors with great intellectual freedom and decentralized competition.The third part of the report assesses some potential long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We firstly discuss its impact on R&D investment. We explain how innovation might be negatively affected by a prolonged economic downturn and highlight the crucial role of stimulus packages in confronting the recession. We also address the influence of the crisis on ICT, arguing that it has been a formidable catalyst for ICT adoption. Next, we focus on clean technologies, another major societal challenge besides the pandemic. There are strong reasons for why cleantech investment may suffer. However, the crisis also offers significant opportunities to accelerate the green transition. Finally, we focus on open science, in particular on open access and open data. The current crisis could be a catalyst for the adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Data Practices.The last part of the report offers some concluding thoughts. The STI policy response cannot be limited to the urgent need for ‘technological fixes.’ A second line of response involves the production of new knowledge to prevent outbreaks (ex-ante) or mitigate their effects (ex-post). Furthermore, the current crisis is a reminder that all branches of science matter. The pandemic has many facets, and a significant number of scientific disciplines can contribute to dealing with it. We conclude with a forward-looking note, arguing that the most substantial impact of the pandemic may lie outside of the public health realm or the science system. It offers a unique opportunity to adapt the set of rules that govern our society.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Piña Romero

RESUMEN En este trabajo se analiza la forma en que la ciencia ciudadana que hoy conocemos configura sus principales aspiraciones y dinámicas como parte de un sistema de ciencia abierta centrado en la producción y el acceso al dato. Como tal, se advierte del riesgo que existe de que la ciencia ciudadana derive en una práctica de sofisticación de la recolección y clasificación de datos y, con ello, que los valores democráticos que subyacen a la concepción de apertura científica se tornen más que genuinos, espectaculares. Al final del trabajo y como alternativa, se sugiere a través de Alan Irwin (1993) revisar una concepción de ciencia ciudadana ligada a la idea de crítica, demanda y confrontación ciudadana.Palabras clave: Ciencia Ciudadana; Ciencia Abierta; Democratización de la Ciencia; Alan Irwin.RESUMO Este artigo analisa a forma como a ciência cidadã tal como a conhecemos hoje configura suas principais aspirações e dinâmicas como parte de um sistema de ciência aberta centrado na produção do e acesso ao dado. Assim, adverte-se do risco de a ciência cidadã derivar para uma prática de sofisticação da coleta e classificação de dados e que, assim, os valores democráticos que subjazem o conceito de abertura científica se tornem, mais que do que genuínos, espetaculares. Propõe-se ao final, como alternativa, revisar com Alan Irwin (1993) um concepção de ciência cidadã ligada à idéia de crítica, demanda e confrontação cidadã.Palavras-chave: Ciência Cidadã; Ciência Aberta; Democratização da Ciência; Alan Irwin.ABSTRACTThis article analyses the way citizen science as we know it today configures its main aspirations and dynamics as part of an open science system centered on production of and access to data. Seen in this light, we call attention to the risk of citizen science being diverted to a practice of sophisticating data collection and classification and, thus, that the democratic values which underlie the idea of open science become, more than genuine, spectacular. As an alternative, the suggestion proposed – with Alan Irwin (1993) – is to revise the understanding of citizen science as linked to the idea of citizen critique, demand, and confrontation.Keywords: Citizen Science; Open Science; Democratization of Science; Alan Irwin.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Šimukovič

Watch the VIDEO here.Since the “Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science” was published in April 2016, there is supposed to be “a clear panEuropean target: from 2020 all new publications are available through open access from the date of publication”. This call falls into a line of events, in which demands for a more rapid or even radical transition towards full Open Access world experienced a considerable accumulation. With the “OA2020” initiative launched shortly before and the conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science system adopted by the Council of the European Union in late spring of the same year the whirl of excitement seemed to reach its peak.Yet more than a year later a universal consensus on a “one size fits all”-type solution as proposed by a widely debated and promoted white paper of the Max Planck Digital Library has still to prevail. Not only have country or institution-specific case studies which set out for a challenge to quantify potential benefits and disadvantages of such a scenario for themselves delivered mixed results and propositions. Some of the “most eminent” research institutions and nations seem to even back track from their initially stringent Gold-only Open Access transition roadmaps.Unsurprisingly, long-standing Open Access advocates and scholars like Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Guédon have repeatedly pointed out that Green, Gold and any other new alternative Open Access models should be seen as complementary strategies and encouraged further experimentation with respect to flexibility and adaptation to local circumstances. Thus, this talk will try to address the perceived “either-or” dilemma in many of recent initiatives and to take a closer look at some of their arguments and underlying assumptions. What it is expected to deliver will be a rather more differentiated and colourful picture of current Open Access transitions and visions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document