Search results for 'Scientists' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  11
    Alan Petersen & Alison Anderson (2007). A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists' and Science Policymakers' Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (3):243-256.
    In recent years, in the UK and elsewhere, scientists and science policymakers have grappled with the question of how to reap the benefits of nanotechnologies while minimising the risks. Having recognised the importance of public support for future innovations, they have placed increasing emphasis on ‘engaging’ ‘the public’ during the early phase of technology development. Meaningful engagement suggests some common ground between experts and lay publics in relation to the definition of nanotechnologies and of their benefits and risks. However, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  2.  15
    Rosalyn W. Berne (2006). Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum.
    No one really knows where nanotechnology is leading, what its pursuit will mean, and how it may affect human and other forms of life. Nevertheless, its research and development are moving briskly into that unknown. It has been suggested that rapid movement towards 'who knows where' is endemic to all technological development; that its researchers pursue it for curiosity and enjoyment, without knowing the consequences, believing that their efforts will be beneficial. Further, that the enthusiasm for development comes with no (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  3.  32
    Hugh Lacey (forthcoming). Science, Respect for Nature, and Human Well-Being: Democratic Values and the Responsibilities of Scientists Today. Foundations of Science:1-17.
    The central question addressed is: How should scientific research be conducted so as to ensure that nature is respected and the well being of everyone everywhere enhanced? After pointing to the importance of methodological pluralism for an acceptable answer and to obstacles posed by characterizing scientific methodology too narrowly, which are reinforced by the ‘commercial-scientific ethos’, two additional questions are considered: How might research, conducted in this way, have impact on—and depend on—strengthening democratic values and practices? And: What is thereby (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  4
    Kathryn Nixdorff (2013). Education for Life Scientists on the Dual-Use Implications of Their Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (4):1487-1490.
    Advances in the life sciences are occurring with extreme rapidity and accumulating a great deal of knowledge about life’s vital processes. While this knowledge is essential for fighting disease in a more effective way, it can also be misused either intentionally or inadvertently to develop novel and more effective biological weapons. For nearly a decade civil-academic society as well as States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention have recognised the importance of dual-use biosecurity education for life scientists (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5. Vivian Weil (2002). Making Sense of Scientists' Responsibilities at the Interface of Science and Society. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):223-227.
    As Kenneth Pimple points out, scientists’ responsibilities to the larger society have received less attention than ethical issues internal to the practice of science. Yet scientists and specialists who study science have begun to provide analyses of the foundations and scope of scientsts’ responsibilities to society. An account of contributions from Kristen Shrader-Frechette, Melanie Leitner, Ullica Segerstråle, John Ahearne, Helen Longino, and Carl Cranor offers work on scientists’ social responsibilities upon which to build.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  6.  31
    Richard Peterson (2010). When Scientists Go to War. In Science and Religion in Dialogue. Wiley-Blackwell 420--428.
    This chapter contains sections titled: * 1 Science and Scientists in Conflict – the Case of Bohr and Heisenberg * 2 Professional/Personal Ethics in a Time Of War – Meitner, Einstein, Compton, and Wilson * 3 An Existential Experience: The Epiphany of the First Atomic Bomb Test * References.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  12
    Ademola A. Adenle (2014). Stakeholders' Perceptions of GM Technology in West Africa: Assessing the Responses of Policymakers and Scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (2):241-263.
    The perception of two key stakeholders such as policymakers and scientists on genetic modification (GM) technology was examined in Ghana and Nigeria using semi-structured interviews. A total sample of 20 policymakers (16 at ministries and 4 at parliament/cabinet) and 58 scientists (43 at research institutes and 15 at universities) participated at the interviews. This study revealed respondents perspectives on potential benefits and risks of GM technology, status and development of biosafety regulatory frameworks, role of science and technology innovation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  2
    Dennis Bray & Hans von Storch (forthcoming). The Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-17.
    In 1942 Robert K. Merton tried to demonstrate the structure of the normative system of science by specifying the norms that characterized it. The norms were assigned the abbreviation CUDOs: Communism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, and Organized skepticism. Using the results of an on-line survey of climate scientists concerning the norms of science, this paper explores the climate scientists’ subscription to these norms. The data suggests that while Merton’s CUDOs remain the overall guiding moral principles, they are not fully endorsed (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  1
    Anders Persson, Sven Hemlin & Stellan Welin (2007). Profitable Exchanges for Scientists: The Case of Swedish Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 15 (4):291-304.
    In this article two inter-related issues concerning the ongoing commercialisation of biomedical research are analyzed. One aim is to explain how scientists and clinicians at Swedish public institutions can make profits, both commercially and scientifically, by controlling rare human biological material, like embryos and embryonic stem cell lines. This control in no way presupposes legal ownership or other property rights as an initial condition. We show how ethically sensitive material (embryos and stem cell lines) have been used in Sweden (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  11
    Stanley Joel Reiser & Ruth E. Bulger (1997). The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):137-143.
    Biological scientists, like scientists in other disciplines, are uncertain about whether or how to use their knowledge and time to provide society with insight and guidance in handling the effects of inventions and discoveries. This article addresses this issue. It presents a typography of structures in which scientists may contribute to social understanding and decisions. It describes the different ways in which these contributions can be made. Finally it develops the ethical arguments that justify the view that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  4
    Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.
    The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. These scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers. -/- Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level (...) and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly-some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it. -/- Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  12.  8
    Gary G. Tibbetts (2013). How the Great Scientists Reasoned: The Scientific Method in Action. Elsevier.
    1. Introduction : humanity's urge to understand -- 2. Elements of scientific thinking : skepticism, careful reasoning, and exhaustive evaluation are all vital. Science Is universal -- Maintaining a critical attitude. Reasonable skepticism -- Respect for the truth -- Reasoning. Deduction -- Induction -- Paradigm shifts -- Evaluating scientific hypotheses. Ockham's razor -- Quantitative evaluation -- Verification by others -- Statistics : correlation and causation -- Statistics : the indeterminacy of the small -- Careful definition -- Science at the frontier. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Renée Weber (ed.) (1986). Dialogues with Scientists and Sages: The Search for Unity. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  14. P. B. Medawar (1990). The Threat and the Glory: Reflections on Science and Scientists. Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15. M. J. Charlesworth (1989). Life Among the Scientists an Anthropological Study of an Australian Scientific Community. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. J. G. Crowther (1935). British Scientists of the Nineteenth Century. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17. V. C. Chappell (1992). Seventeenth-Century Natural Scientists.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  2
    Eve Hartman (2012). Do Scientists Care About Animal Welfare? Raintree.
    Looks at animal welfare in society and the sciences, including laboratory animals, pets, and the effect of climate change.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Melissa J. Lane (1988). Doctoral Scientists and Engineers a Decade of Change. National Science Foundation.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. J. Scott Long (2001). From Scarcity to Visibility Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers.
  21. Henry Margenau & Roy Abraham Varghese (1992). Cosmos, Bios, Theos Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Hans A. Tolhoek & L. Wecke (eds.) (1986). The Role of Scientists in the Peace Movement: End-Convention, Amsterdam. Distribution, J. Mets.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  48
    Bruno Latour (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press.
    In this book Bruno Latour brings together these different approaches to provide a lively and challenging analysis of science, demonstrating how social context ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   361 citations  
  24.  2
    Elizabeth A. Corley, Youngjae Kim & Dietram A. Scheufele (forthcoming). Scientists’ Ethical Obligations and Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Research. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-22.
    Scientists’ sense of social responsibility is particularly relevant for emerging technologies. Since a regulatory vacuum can sometimes occur in the early stages of these technologies, individual scientists’ social responsibility might be one of the most significant checks on the risks and negative consequences of this scientific research. In this article, we analyze data from a 2011 mail survey of leading U.S. nanoscientists to explore their perceptions the regarding social and ethical responsibilities for their nanotechnology research. Our analyses show (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  14
    David A. Rier (2004). Publication Visibility of Sensitive Public Health Data: When Scientists Bury Their Results. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):597-613.
    What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study’s authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists’ selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  8
    Paul Thagard (1999). How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton University Press.
    "This is a wonderful book! In "How Scientists Explain Disease," Paul Thagard offers us a delightful essay combining science, its history, philosophy, and sociology.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   19 citations  
  27.  31
    Melissa S. Anderson, Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries & Brian C. Martinson (2007). The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists' Work and Relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):437-461.
    Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  28.  1
    Mohammed Ghaly (2013). Collective Religio‐Scientific Discussions on Islam and Hiv/Aids: I. Biomedical Scientists. Zygon 48 (3):671-708.
    During the 1990s, biomedical scientists and Muslim religious scholars collaborated to construe Islamic responses for the ethical questions raised by the AIDS pandemic. This is the first of a two-part study examining this collective legal reasoning (ijtihād jamā‘ī). The main thesis is that the role of the biomedical scientists is not limited to presenting scientific information. They engaged in the human rights discourse pertinent to people living with HIV/AIDS, gave an account of the preventive strategy adopted by the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  29.  81
    Jennifer Wiseman & Paul Arveson (2014). Scientists and Religious Communities: Investigating Perceptions, Building Understanding. Zygon 49 (2):414-418.
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program has embarked on an exciting project, “Scientists and Religious Communities: Investigating Perceptions to Build Understanding.” The project will provide the first quantitative data on the underlying assumptions and concerns that shape national attitudes on science. A nationally representative survey conducted in collaboration with sociologists at Rice University has reached 10,000 people, including evangelical Christians, mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. The survey probed how (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  91
    Rev’D. Ian StJohn Fisher (1996). What Place Does Religion Have in the Ethical Thinking of Scientists and Engineers? Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3):335-344.
    Religion, defined as ‘the idea of a state that transcends ourselves and our world and the working out of the consequences of that idea’, may influence the ethical thinking of scientists and engineers in two ways. The first is at the level of the individual and how personal beliefs affect the choice of research, design or development projects, relationships with other researchers and the understandings of the consequences of research on other aspects of life. The second level is that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  94
    Jan Deckers (2005). Are Scientists Right and Non-Scientists Wrong? Reflections on Discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (5):451-478.
    The aim of this article is to further our understanding of the “GM is unnatural” view, and of the critical response to it. While many people have been reported to hold the view that GM is unnatural, many policy-makers and their advisors have suggested that the view must be ignored or rejected, and that there are scientific reasons for doing so. Three “typical” examples of ways in which the “GM is unnatural” view has been treated by UK policy-makers and their (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  32.  26
    David Koepsell (2010). On Genies and Bottles: Scientists' Moral Responsibility and Dangerous Technology R&D. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):119-133.
    The age-old maxim of scientists whose work has resulted in deadly or dangerous technologies is: scientists are not to blame, but rather technologists and politicians must be morally culpable for the uses of science. As new technologies threaten not just populations but species and biospheres, scientists should reassess their moral culpability when researching fields whose impact may be catastrophic. Looking at real-world examples such as smallpox research and the Australian “mousepox trick”, and considering fictional or future technologies (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  96
    Don Ross & David Spurrett (2004). What to Say to a Skeptical Metaphysician? A Defense Manual for Cognitive and Behavioral Scientists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):603-627.
    A wave of recent work in metaphysics seeks to undermine the anti-reductionist, functionalist consensus of the past few decades in cognitive science and philosophy of mind. That consensus apparently legitimated a focus on what systems do, without necessarily and always requiring attention to the details of how systems are constituted. The new metaphysical challenge contends that many states and processes referred to by functionalist cognitive scientists are epiphenomenal. It further contends that the problem lies in functionalism itself, and that, (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  34.  62
    Daniel B. Klein & Charlotta Stern (2005). Professors and Their Politics: The Policy Views of Social Scientists. Critical Review 17 (3-4):257-303.
    Abstract Academic social scientists overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the Democratic hegemony has increased significantly since 1970. Moreover, the policy preferences of a large sample of the members of the scholarly associations in anthropology, economics, history, legal and political philosophy, political science, and sociology generally bear out conjectures about the correspondence of partisan identification with left/right ideal types; although across the board, both Democratic and Republican academics favor government action more than the ideal types might suggest. Variations in policy views (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  35. Daniela M. Bailer-Jones (2002). Scientists' Thoughts on Scientific Models. Perspectives on Science 10 (3):275-301.
    : This paper contains the analysis of nine interviews with UK scientists on the topic of scientific models. Scientific models are an important, very controversially discussed topic in philosophy of science. A reasonable expectation is that philosophical conceptions of models ought to be in agreement with scientific practice. Questioning practicing scientists on their use of and views on models provides material against which philosophical positions can be measured.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  36. C. Mackenzie Brown (2003). The Conflict Between Religion and Science in Light of the Patterns of Religious Belief Among Scientists. Zygon 38 (3):603-632.
    Recent summaries of psychologist James H. Leuba's pioneering studies on the religious beliefs of American scientists have misrepresented his findings and ignored important aspects of his analyses, including predictions regarding the future of religion. Much of the recent interest in Leuba was sparked by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham's commentary in Nature , “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith.” Larson and Witham compared the results of their 1996 survey of one thousand randomly selected American scientists regarding (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  15
    Mathieu Albert, Suzanne Laberge & Brian Hodges (2009). Boundary-Work in the Health Research Field: Biomedical and Clinician Scientists' Perceptions of Social Science Research. [REVIEW] Minerva 47 (2):171-194.
    Funding agencies in Canada are attempting to break down the organizational boundaries between disciplines to promote interdisciplinary research and foster the integration of the social sciences into the health research field. This paper explores the extent to which biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research operate as a cultural boundary to the inclusion of social scientists into this field. Results indicated that cultural boundaries may impede social scientists’ entry into the health research field through three (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  38. Thaddeus R. Miller & Mark W. Neff (2013). De-Facto Science Policy in the Making: How Scientists Shape Science Policy and Why It Matters (or, Why STS and STP Scholars Should Socialize). Minerva 51 (3):295-315.
    Science and technology (S&T) policy studies has explored the relationship between the structure of scientific research and the attainment of desired outcomes. Due to the difficulty of measuring them directly, S&T policy scholars have traditionally equated “outcomes” with several proxies for evaluation, including economic impact, and academic output such as papers published and citations received. More recently, scholars have evaluated science policies through the lens of Public Value Mapping, which assesses scientific programs against societal values. Missing from these approaches is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Boyce Rensberger (2000). Why Scientists Should Cooperate with Journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):549-552.
    Despite a widespread impression that the public is woefully ignorant of science and cares little for the subject, U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) surveys show the majority are very interested and understand that they are not well informed about science. The data are consistent with the author’s view that the popularity of pseudoscience does not indicate a rejection of science. If this is so, opportunities for scientists to communicate with the public promise a more rewarding result than is commonly (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  40. Peter Achinstein (2000). Why Philosophical Theories of Evidence Are (and Ought to Be) Ignored by Scientists. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):192.
    There are two reasons, I claim, scientists do and should ignore standard philosophical theories of objective evidence: (1) Such theories propose concepts that are far too weak to give scientists what they want from evidence, viz., a good reason to believe a hypothesis; and (2) They provide concepts that make the evidential relationship a priori, whereas typically establishing an evidential claim requires empirical investigation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  41.  7
    J. M. Ladd, M. D. Lappe, J. B. McCormick, A. M. Boyce & M. K. Cho (2009). The "How" and "Whys" of Research: Life Scientists' Views of Accountability. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (12):762-767.
    Objectives: To investigate life scientists’ views of accountability and the ethical and societal implications of research. Design: Qualitative focus group and one-on-one interviews. Participants: 45 Stanford University life scientists, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty. Results: Two main themes were identified in participants’ discussions of accountability: (1) the “how” of science and (2) the “why” of science. The “how” encompassed the internal conduct of research including attributes such as honesty and independence. The “why,” or the motivation for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42. Ian StJohn Fisher (1996). What Place Does Religion Have in the Ethical Thinking of Scientists and Engineers? Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (3):335-344.
    Religion, defined as ‘the idea of a state that transcends ourselves and our world and the working out of the consequences of that idea’, may influence the ethical thinking of scientists and engineers in two ways. The first is at the level of the individual and how personal beliefs affect the choice of research, design or development projects, relationships with other researchers and the understandings of the consequences of research on other aspects of life. The second level is that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  51
    C. Kenneth Waters (2004). What Concept Analysis in Philosophy of Science Should Be (and Why Competing Philosophical Analyses of Gene Concepts Cannot Be Tested by Polling Scientists). History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):29 - 58.
    What should philosophers of science accomplish when they analyze scientific concepts and interpret scientific knowledge? What is concept analysis if it is not a description of the way scientists actually think? I investigate these questions by using Hans Reichenbach's account of the descriptive, critical, and advisory tasks of philosophy of science to examine Karola Stotz and Paul Griffiths' idea that poll-based methodologies can test philosophical analyses of scientific concepts. Using Reichenbach's account as a point of departure, I argue that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  44.  38
    Tom Børsen (2013). Extended Report From Working Group 5: Social Responsibility of Scientists at the 59th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs in Berlin, 1–4 July 2011. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):299-308.
    Extended Report from Working Group 5: Social Responsibility of Scientists at the 59th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs in Berlin, 1–4 July 2011 Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-10 DOI 10.1007/s11948-011-9324-9 Authors Tom Børsen, Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Lautrupvang 2, DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark Journal Science and Engineering Ethics Online ISSN 1471-5546 Print ISSN 1353-3452.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  9
    P. D. Magnus (2014). What Scientists Know Is Not a Function of What Scientists Know. Philosophy of Science 80 (5):840-849.
    There are two senses of ‘what scientists know’: An individual sense (the separate opinions of individual scientists) and a collective sense (the state of the discipline). The latter is what matters for policy and planning, but it is not something that can be directly observed or reported. A function can be defined to map individual judgments onto an aggregate judgment. I argue that such a function cannot effectively capture community opinion, especially in cases that matter to us.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  2
    Shaun Gallagher & Denis Francesconi (2012). Teaching Phenomenology to Qualitative Researchers, Cognitive Scientists, and Phenomenologists. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 12 (3):183-192.
    The authors examine several issues in teaching phenomenology to advanced researchers who are doing qualitative research using phenomenological interview methods in disciplines such as psychology, nursing, or education, and to advanced researchers in the cognitive neurosciences. In these contexts, the term "teaching" needs to be taken in a general and non-didactic way. In the case of the first group, it involves guiding doctoral students in their conception and design of a qualitative methodology that is properly phenomenological. In the case of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  4
    PE Meehl (1999). Discussion. How to Weight Scientists' Probabilities is Not a Big Problem: Comment on Barnes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):283-295.
    Assuming it rational to treat other persons' probabilities as epistemically significant, how shall their judgements be weighted (Barnes [1998])? Several plausible methods exist, but theorems in classical psychometrics greatly reduce the importance of the problem. If scientists' judgements tend to be positively correlated, the difference between two randomly weighted composites shrinks as the number of judges rises. Since, for reasons such as representative coverage, minimizing bias, and avoiding elitism, we would rarely employ small numbers of judges (e.g. less than (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48. Mason Richey (2008). What Can Philosophers Offer Social Scientists?; or The Frankfurt School and its Relevance to Social Science: From the History of Philosophical Sociology to an Examination of Issues in the Current EU. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 3 (6):63-72.
    This paper presents the history of the Frankfurt School’s inclusion of normative concerns in social science research programs during the period 1930-1955. After examining the relevant methodology, I present a model of how such a program could look today. I argue that such an approach is both valuable to contemporary social science programs and overlooked by current philosophers and social scientists.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  18
    Neil Levy (2010). Scientists and the Folk Have the Same Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (4):344.
    If Knobe is right that ordinary judgments are normatively suffused, how do scientists free themselves from these influences? I suggest that because science is distributed and externalized, its claims can be manipulated in ways that allow normative influences to be hived off. This allows scientists to deploy concepts which are not normatively suffused. I suggest that there are good reasons to identify these normatively neutral concepts with the folk concepts.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  50.  8
    Richard J. Davidson & Anne Harrington (eds.) (2002). Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature. OUP Usa.
    Western science has generally addressed human nature in its most negative aspects-the human potential for violence, the genetic and biochemical bases for selfishness, depression, and anxiety. In contrast, Tibetan Buddhism has long celebrated the human potential for compassion, and is dedicated to studying the scope, expression, and training of compassionate feeling and action. Science and Compassion examines how the views of Western behavioral science hold up to scrutiny by Tibetan Buddhists. Resulting from a meeting between the Dalai Lama, leading Western (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000