Tested the 2-process theory of detection, search, and attention presented by the current authors in a series of experiments. The studies demonstrate the qualitative difference between 2 modes of information processing: automatic detection and controlled search; trace the course of the learning of automatic detection, of categories, and of automatic-attention responses; and show the dependence of automatic detection on attending responses and demonstrate how such responses interrupt controlled processing and interfere with the focusing of attention. The learning of categories is (...) shown to improve controlled search performance. A general framework for human information processing is proposed. The framework emphasizes the roles of automatic and controlled processing. The theory is compared to and contrasted with extant models of search and attention. (shrink)
This contribution tries to assess how the Web is changing the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced, distributed and evaluated, in particular how it is transforming the conventional conception of scientific authorship. After having properly introduced the notions of copyright, public domain and commons, I will critically assess James Boyle's thesis that copyright and scientific commons are antagonistic, but I will mostly agree with the related claim by Stevan Harnad that copyright has become an obstacle to the accessibility of (...) scientific works. I will even go further and argue that Open Access schemes not only solve the problem of the availability of scientific literature, but may also help to tackle the uncontrolled multiplication of scientific publications, since these publishing schemes are based on free public licenses allowing for re-use of texts. However, the scientific community does not seem to be prepared yet to move towards an Open Source model of authorship, probably due to concerns related to attributing credit and responsability for the expressed hypotheses and results. Some strategies and tools that may encourage a change of academic mentality in favour of a conception of scientific authorship modelled on the Open Source paradigm are discussed. (shrink)
O artigo aborda a contradição entre o fato de o homem ser ontologicamente livre, mas, ao mesmo tempo, experimentar-se psicologicamente "determinado", como se fosse compelido a certos comportamentos indesejados. Como é possível compreender tal paradoxo? Para tanto, o artigo aborda: 1) a proposta de Sartre, de uma nova perspectiva para a psicologia clínica, estabelecida a partir de interlocuções com a psicanálise freudiana; 2) a história de um indivíduo, que utilizaremos como "estudo de caso" no transcorrer de nossa explanação, especificamente a (...) biografia de Jean Genet, escrita por Sartre; 3) o conceito de liberdade na concepção sartriana e suas implicações na compreensão do humano; 4) a questão da dinâmica psicológica e seus desdobramentos para o entendimento dos impasses psicológicos. Com esses elementos, forneceremos alguns subsídios dessa teoria buscando elucidar como são possíveis tais contradições.This article deals with the contradictions between the fact that man is ontologically free, but at the same time, he experiences himself "determined", as if compelled by certain undesired behaviours. How is it possible to understand this paradox? To be able to , this article introduces 1) the Sartrean's proposal of new perspective to clinical psychology, set up by dialogue with psychoanalyse; 2) the history of an individual we will use as an "case study" during the explanation. Particularly, Jean Genet's biography, written by Sartre; 3) the idea of freedom within a Sartrean conception and its implications for human understanding; 4) the issue of psychological dynamics and its development in relation to understanding psychological impasses. With these elements we provide instruments taken from Sartrean theory so as to attempt an explanation of how such contradictions are possible. (shrink)
In the Preface, Kargon states the two objectives of this monograph in the history of science: "First, I wish to bring to the attention of historians of science the existence and importance of two circles of natural philosophers which played an important role in the history of atomism. Secondly, I wish to trace the evolution of atomism and illustrate the mechanism of its establishment in England in the latter seventeenth century. In doing so, I will re-evaluate the contributions of four (...) major figures and many minor ones, including Walter Charleton, the Duke and Duchess of Newcastle, William Petty, Charles Cavendish, and John Pell". Kargon turns in cash on both promissory notes with a careful yet highly readable piece of scholarship. Some obscurities remain, however, in particular his attempt to link the Northumberland and Newcastle groups with the suggestion that Hobbes' atomism might have been influenced through his connection with John Pell. Concurrence rather than influence was more likely the case. It is also suggested that there might have been a link between Bacon's early atomism and that of Hariot's Northumberland group. But once again the arguments in favor of such a connection are inconclusive at best. Of great importance for the history of atomism is the influence maintained to have been exerted by the 1653 publication of Bacon's atomistic works; this influence was felt by the Newcastle group and the Royal Society. Most interesting, however, is the securely attested influence of the Baconian method on Barrow, Newton, and the Royal Society in general.—E. A. R. (shrink)
This book approaches ethical and legal issues in medicine from the patient's viewpoint and argues that many patients do not want the full burden of decision making that contemporary bioethics has thrust upon them.