Abstract |
Project selection by funding bodies directly influences the division of cognitive labour in scientific communities. I present a novel adaptation of an existing agent-based model of scientific research, in which a central funding body selects from proposed projects located on an epistemic landscape. I simulate four different selection strategies: selection based on a god's-eye perspective of project significance, selection based on past success, selection based on past funding, and random selection. Results show the size of the landscape matters: on small landscapes historical information leads to slightly better results than random selection, but on large landscapes random selection greatly outperforms historically-informed selection.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories |
No categories specified (categorize this paper) |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor.Michael Weisberg & Ryan Muldoon - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (2):225-252.
View all 14 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration.Shahar Avin - 2017 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axx059.
Margulis' Theory on Division of Labour in Cells Revisited.Deng K. Niu, Jia-Kuan Chen & Yong-Ding Liu - 2001 - Acta Biotheoretica 49 (1):23-28.
Rationality and Allocating Scarce Medical Resources.Ralph P. Forsberg - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):25-42.
O Modo de Selecção Dos Representantes Legislativos.Ricardo Tavares da Silva - 2017 - Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 73 (1):159-190.
On the Adaptive Value of Some Mate Selection Strategies.Klaus Jaffe - 1999 - Acta Biotheoretica 47 (1):29-40.
Deliberation, Cognitive Diversity, and Democratic Inclusiveness: An Epistemic Argument for the Random Selection of Representatives.Hélène Landemore - 2013 - Synthese 190 (7):1209-1231.
The ‘Negotiated Space’ of University Researchers’ Pursuit of a Research Agenda.Terttu Luukkonen & Duncan A. Thomas - 2016 - Minerva 54 (1):99-127.
Von Mises' Definition of Random Sequences Reconsidered.Michiel van Lambalgen - 1987 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 52 (3):725-755.
A More Pluralist Typology of Selection Processes.Bence Nanay - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):547-548.
Inscrutability and the Opacity of Natural Selection and Random Genetic Drift: Distinguishing the Epistemic and Metaphysical Aspects.Philippe Huneman - 2015 - Erkenntnis 80 (S3):491-518.
Primacy of Information About Means Selection Over Outcome Selection in Goal Attribution by Infants.Stephan Verschoor & Szilvia Biro - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (4):714-725.
Self Organization and Adaptation in Insect Societies.Robert E. Page & Sandra D. Mitchell - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:289 - 298.
The Units of Selection Revisited: The Modules of Selection. [REVIEW]Robert N. Brandon - 1999 - Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):167-180.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2018-07-18
Total views
5 ( #1,198,603 of 2,498,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #427,476 of 2,498,155 )
2018-07-18
Total views
5 ( #1,198,603 of 2,498,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #427,476 of 2,498,155 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads