Online research in philosophy

In this paper the co-responsibility of the North for the development of the South, the chance of an authentic developmentand Rawls’s maximin rule are indicated as the ethical perspectives from which the financial integration of developing countries will beevaluated. It follows a brief economic analysis of possible problems of high inflows of portfolio investments for developing countries. They become more vulnerable to financial and monetary crises and their domestic banking systems are weakened by a higher risk of devaluation. This will lead to an outline of the goals for reshaping the financial integration: among others limitation of capital inflows,strengthening of the domestic banking system and further development of the country’s particular economic style. Finally someregulations of external financial relations and the proposal of a cooperative monetary arrangement between the South and the Northare discussed as possible measures to improve this integration.

This paper examines the influence of internal barriers on the relationship between the organizational capability of stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies. We adopt a moderate hierarchical regression model to test the hypotheses using data from a sample of 73 managers in the business education industry. The paper contributes to stakeholder theory by showing that stakeholder integration positively influences the development of proactive environmental strategies when managers perceive internal barriers to the development of such strategies. This article also explores an ethical dilemma—managers may use the stakeholder integration capability to support their own interests rather than to benefit stakeholders.

Many studies of the unification of science focus on the theories of different disciplines. The model for integration is the theory reduction model. This paper argues that the embodiment of theories in scientists, and the institutions in which scientists work and the instruments they employ, are critical to the sort of integration that actually occurs in science. This paper examines the integration of scientific endeavors that emerged in cell biology in the period after World War II when the development of cell fractionation and electron microscopy made serious investigations of cell organelles possible. One surprising feature of such integration is that it generated further disintegration as the new institutions of cell biology separated the practitioners of the new discipline from other, closely related biological disciplines.

Lewis makes a strong case for the interdependence and integration of emotion and cognitive processes. Yet, these processes exhibit considerable independence in early life, as well as in certain psychopathological conditions, suggesting that the capacity for their integration emerges as a function of development. In some circumstances, the concept of highly interactive emotion and cognitive systems seems a viable alternative hypothesis to the idea of systems integration.

Developmental biology has resurfaced in recent years, often without a clearly central role for the organism. The organism is pulled in divergent directions: on the one hand, there is an important body of work that emphasizes the role of the gene in development, as executing and controlling embryological change; on the other hand, there are more theoretical approaches under which the organism disappears as little more than an instance for testing biological generalizations. I press here for the ineliminability of the organism in developmental biology on explanatory grounds. I examine classical work concerned with growth and development, particularly in Drosophila and C. elegans. Some of this work is suggestive of modular development, and accordingly suggests a level below that of the organism as being explanatory. These are not the only type of case. There are other equally well-established results, which indicate greater integration in the developing organism. Though with a modular organization the organism can be thought of as made up of its constituent traits, and though the explanations of these traits may lie in terms of cells or genes, even with modular development the explanations of "genetic" differences require an appeal to the organism. With non-modular organization the organism has an even more central role. This does not mean that these genetic or cellular contributions are unreal in any way, or that development requires some sort of vitalistic contribution; but the genetic contributions make sense only as constituents of the organism, embedded in a larger organic context.

The world of ontology development is full of mysteries. Recently, ISO Standard 15926 (“Lifecycle Integration of Process Plant Data Including Oil and Gas Production Facilities”), a data model initially designed to support the integration and handover of large engineering artefacts, has been proposed by its principal custodian for general use as an upper level ontology. As we shall discover, ISO 15926 is, when examined in light of this proposal, marked by a series of quite astonishing defects, which may however provide general lessons for the developers of ontologies in the future.

Professor Licona presents a series of ideas and fundamental questions related to regional integration and to cultural diversity and development. To accomplish this analysis he reexamines the historical visions from different cultural policy world conferences. He associates these specific visions with issues from economic cultural policy observing the existing gaps and the different paths that need to be traveled in the transition from local and global realities to the new paradigm known as glocalization with its profound asymetries, exclusions, and profits from the cultural sector. Emphasis is placed on the existing dificulties to arrive to a regionl integration an to a deep cultural diversity and development.

The paper emphasizes the role of knowledge dimensions of an action which could be regarded as rational. Rational action usually results of specific decision — making process including selection, evaluation and acceptance of a preferred alternative. This process should integrate not only various types of knowledge but also the interdisciplinary or interdepartmental knowledge integration. The integration of knowledge may cover various forms, especially integration of knowledge relating to different domains, of different quality, of knowledge connected with different goal-orientations. The paper stresses the role of the hitherto known and recognized alternatives. The integration procedures should also include the integration of various spheres and types of knowledge with accepted and justified systems of values.

With regard to the theoretical place of environmental factors in development, three approaches to evolution and development can be distinguished. One is the neo-Darwinist approach in which genetic programs are central. The other two present themselves as alternatives to the gene-centrism in present-day biology. I discuss pairwise similarities and differences between the three approaches. Goodwin's approach differs from neo-Darwinism in its favoured types of causes, but shares the internalist perspective on embryological development. The constructionist alternative proposes to enlarge the developmental system to include external factors, and shares with neo-Darwinism the emphasis on contingent causes. Thus there is neither a grand dichotomy in biology, between neo-Darwinism and its alternative, nor a grand trichotomy. Different purposes make different approaches useful. I conclude by arguing that environmental influences should have a more prominent place in developmental biology.

The paper works towards an account of explanatory integration in biology, using as a case study explanations of the evolutionary origin of novelties-a problem requiring the integration of several biological fields and approaches. In contrast to the idea that fields studying lower level phenomena are always more fundamental in explanations, I argue that the particular combination of disciplines and theoretical approaches needed to address a complex biological problem and which among them is explanatorily more fundamental varies with the problem pursued. Solving a complex problem need not require theoretical unification or the stable synthesis of different biological fields, as items of knowledge from traditional disciplines can be related solely for the purposes of a specific problem. Apart from the development of genuine interfield theories, successful integration can be effected by smaller epistemic units (concepts, methods, explanations) being linked. Unification or integration is not an aim in itself, but needed for the aim of solving a particular scientific problem, where the problem's nature determines the kind of intellectual integration required.