David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (3):289-315 (2002)
As so many other activities nowadays, modern science revolves around the competition for attention. Unlike in so many other attention games, in science those who seek attention are more or less the same people who are giving it. An important characteristic is the skewness of the distribution of scientific attention. We discuss the effect these characteristics have on scientific institutions. An important thesis of ours is that scientists converge in clusters of likeminded scientists. Given the character of scientific organization and communication we expect that the digitalization of scientific communication will not affect the basic scientific institutions as the principles upon which the Internet functions coincide more or less with the way science functions. However, violation of these principles can in principle disrupt science and fundamentally change its character. Diversity, the key element of scientific conversation, may be destroyed.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Humberto R. Maturana & Francisco G. Varela (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition the Realization of the Living.
Michael Polanyi (1962). The Republic of Science. Minerva 1 (1):54-73.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
S. Ducheyne (2008). Towards an Ontology of Scientific Models. Metaphysica 9 (1):119-127.
John T. Sanders & Wade L. Robison (1992). Research Funding and the Value-Dependence of Science. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 11 (1):33-50.
Justin Solomon (2009). Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):467-489.
Sebastian Watzl (2010). The Significance of Attention. Dissertation, Columbia University
Dachun Liu & Yongmou Liu (2009). A Reflection on the Alternative Philosophy of Science. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (4):576-588.
Moti Mizrahi (2013). What is Scientific Progress? Lessons From Scientific Practice. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 44 (2):375-390.
Gary Hatfield (1998). Attention in Early Scientific Psychology. In Richard D. Wright (ed.), Visual Attention. Oxford University Press 3-25.
Yvonne Donders (2011). The Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress: In Search of State Obligations in Relation to Health. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (4):371-381.
Daniel Garber (1986). Learning From the Past: Reflections on the Role of History in the Philosophy of Science. Synthese 67 (1):91 - 114.
Daniela M. Bailer-Jones (2002). Scientists' Thoughts on Scientific Models. Perspectives on Science 10 (3):275-301.
Catherine Z. Elgin (1993). Understanding: Art and Science. Synthese 95 (1):196-208.
Lorraine Daston (2007). Objectivity. Distributed by the MIT Press.
Katja Mruck & Günter Mey (2008). Using the Internet for Scientific Publishing: FQS as an Example. Poiesis and Praxis 5 (2):113-123.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads7 ( #345,522 of 1,780,627 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #203,623 of 1,780,627 )
How can I increase my downloads?