DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Science Research; *Social Scienees; Social Stratification IDENTIFIERS *Career Patterns; National Science Foundation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Science Research; *Social Scienees; Social Stratification IDENTIFIERS *Career Patterns; National Science Foundation DOCUMENT RESUME ED 230 425 SE 041 920 AUTHOR Weisz, Diane; Kruytbosch, Carlos 'TITLE Studies of Scientific Discirilines. An Annotated Bibliography. INSTITUTION National ltience Foundation, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO NSF-83-7 PUB DATE 82 NOTE 176p. , PUB TYPE Reference Materials - Bibliographies (131) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Citations (References); Engineering; Ethics; Financial Support; Graduate Study; Higher Education;. *Intellectual Disciplines; Mathematics; *Natural Sciences; Productivity; Professional Associations; Professional Recognition; Researchers; *Research Methodology; *Social Science Research; *Social Scienees; Social Stratification IDENTIFIERS *Career Patterns; National Science Foundation- ABSTRACT Provided in this bibliography are annotated lists of social studies of science literature, arranged alphabetically by author in 13 disciplinary areas. These areas include astronomy; general biology; biochemistry and molecular biology; biomedicine; . chemistry; earth and space sciences; ecdnomicst, engineering;, mathematics; physics; political science; psychology; and sociology. In addition, each area is cross-kndexed by 23 topics of social and organizational interest, permitting users to make quick reference to" the range of topids studied within a disciplinary'area, as well as to the range of disciplines in which a topic has been explored. Index words in parentheses indicate the principal topics examined in each item. Each of the 285 annotations briefly describes the focus of the book or article and makes note of the data and methods used in the study. In cases where an item dals with more than one discipline, a full annotation appears only once, and subsequent entries refer back to the full annotation. The bibliography concludes with a short secfidn of conceptual and methodological studies/with general relevance to the study of disciplines. An index of topics, glossary, and a matrix which classifies the'distribution of annotations by diseipline and topic are provided at the end of the bibliography. (JP) 9 *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from, the original document. *. ******************************************************************t**** Le% c, STUDIES OF cc3 SCIENTIFICDISCIPLINEg anannotated bibliography U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERIC) /This document has Peon reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. ' Minor changes have boon made to improve reproduction quality Points of view or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarilyrepresent official NIE Position or policy 4 , National Science Foundaticin Washington, D.C. 20550 NSF 83-7 Acknowledgements of, This report was prepared byMs. Diane WeiszandDr.''Carlos Kruytbosch, Division of Planning and Policy AhalWts,Office of Planningancl. Resources Management, National Science Foundation. The volume was typed by Ms. Antonia Metter,. with additional assistance from Ms. Marlene Wright and Ms. Linda Neuman. s.; Any opinions, findings, conclusions,:orrecommendations eXpressed in thk publication are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation. G, STUDIES OF SCIENTIFICDISCIPLINES an annotaled bibliography t Divition of Planning and Policy Analysis Office of Planning and Resources Management National Science Foundation Washington, D.C. 20550 1982 'TABLE OF CONtENTS INTRODUCTION 1 ASTRONOMY 5 BIOLOGY, GENERAL (BIOL) 11 BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (BIOC) 23 BIOMEDICINE (B10M) 31 CHEMISTRY (CHEM) 39 EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES (E 8. SP) 59 ECONOMICS (ECON) %, 67 ENGINEERING (ENGR) 75 MATHEMATICS (MATH) 83 - PHYSICS (PHYS) 93 POLITICAL SCIENCE (POLI) 117 PSYCHOLOGY (PSY) 125 SOCIOLOGY (SOCL) 137 GENERAL: APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF DISCIPLINES (GENR) 155 GLOSSARY OF INDEX TERMS 161 INDEX OF TOPICS 4 163 AUTHOR INDEX 175 APPENDIX I: DISTRIBUTION OF ENTRIES BY DISCIPLINE AND 1700)C 183 APPENDIX II: SELECTED READINGS IN THE SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE . 185 5 INTRODUCTION Tht) impetus for:I-his annotated bibliography derived from theauthor§' observations of a communication gap between, on 'the one hand, the managers and practitioners inscientific and engineering disciplines, and on the other hand,the community of social studies ofscience. Science and engineering managers and policymakers (broadly defined toinclude both program:edminrstrators and advisory committees of practicing scientists and engineers) frequently make resource allocations that affect disciplinary social structure. Such decisions are thoughtfulsly made, but generally without reference to socialstudies of science literature related to the problems they are addressing. Conversely, the toncerns of those engaged in social studies of science with their models and theories of the behaviorof scientists and engineers, sometimes blind them to significant problemsand phenomena well' known to those who livein the world of the disdipline. Their studies are consequentiyiess rich andless useful to the practi- tioners than they might otherwise be. The primary objective of this bibliography is to make accessible to the managers and practitioners of science and engineering thefindings from the social studies of scienbe in a form that will be useful to them. A secon- dary and longer-term objective is to create an awardhess of aninformation resourcerelevanttotheir activities, andconsequently tostimulate additional research. A third objective is to provide a useful resource for those who -study social asgects of science. To our knowledge, this biblio- graphy is the first attempt to catalogue and index studiesof, disciplines. The wide range of studies annotated may stimulate comparative examination of hypotheses. The roots of one of the authors' interest in these issues go back to his experiences in the mid-1960's in the Social Studies Group of the NASA supported Space Sciences Laboratory 'at the University of California at Berkeley. NASA Administrator James Webb's hope,in supporting groups of social "scientists at acadeMic space science centers, was that their close proximity to the emergence of exciting new space related disciplineswould stimulate studies of the dynamics and organization ofthese activities. Such studies would contribute to an understanding of bowto mana0 re- search. With this view, Webb expressed confidencein the potentialof basic social-studies of scienceto contribute to practical understanding ( and action.. METHODP .. There were two phases in the collection of.materials for thisbiblio- graphy -- the first phase culminated in the Draft Bibliographycirculated for suggestion and comment 4 the November 1979 meeting of theSociety for SocialStudies of Science (45) in Washington,D.C. The second phase, during the following 18 months,incorporated many of the suggestions and contributions of the 4S attendees and others, as well as items dlscoVered through additional search. The Search Process Studies of _scientific disciplines are widely dispersed in the litera- ture. The searcWprocedure throughout was characterizedoby the "snowball" technique. An initial set of books and articles on socialaspects of science wa assembled with assistance of knowledgeable NSF staff members and others. These were reviewed in order to identify further reference's to studies of specific disciplines. Eachitem identified led,in turn, to other materials. In this manner, by October1979, over 450 books and ar:ticlesdealing with disciplines wereidentified. The articles were obtained from 70 different profepsional journals. One hundred sixty-five oftheseitems were annOtated and indexed for the first draft of the bibliography, with another 100 candidateJtems awaiting treatment for the next edition. During phase two,ap. additional 120 items were identified and selected for annotation. These( were partly suggested by 4S members and others,and partly derivedfrom further search. In all the current version of the bibliography contains 285 annotated studies with the latest publication dates extending up to mid-1980. There are nearly 500 entries in the bibliography because manrof the studies pertain to more than one discipline. The Selection Criteria The principal criterion for the inclusion of an item for annotation was that it present Information on some enduring aspect of a sctence or engin- eeringdiscipline. Studies treatingmoreephemeral phenomena, e.g., manpower studies presenting only current figures, are not included. A few seminal conceptual pieces werealso included. Anothercriterion was availability, thus most of the entries are ftom the published literature though, again, a few unpublished pieces of interest were included. Several items were generated in the search process whicn described agpects of interdllsciplinary research. At the end of the search process, they were adjudged to be too few to justify the creation of a separate category for interdisciplinary research. On the whole, we belleVe that insufficient justice was done to well researched pieces from the history of science literature which deal with important social aspects of disciplines. Several have come to our attention since the deadline for the production of the bibliography, and we recommend that future snowballs rollmore con- sciously in the fields of tistorical case Studies and research. ORGANIZATION AND CONTENTS 4 The body of the bibliography'llsts studies of thirteen disciplinary areas which are further cross-indexed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outline of Science
    Outline of science The following outline is provided as a topical overview of • Empirical method – science: • Experimental method – The steps involved in order Science – systematic effort of acquiring knowledge— to produce a reliable and logical conclusion include: through observation and experimentation coupled with logic and reasoning to find out what can be proved or 1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon not proved—and the knowledge thus acquired. The word 2. Making observations of the phenomenon “science” comes from the Latin word “scientia” mean- 3. Forming a hypothesis – proposed explanation ing knowledge. A practitioner of science is called a for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a "scientist". Modern science respects objective logical rea- scientific hypothesis, the scientific method re- soning, and follows a set of core procedures or rules in or- quires that one can test it. Scientists generally der to determine the nature and underlying natural laws of base scientific hypotheses on previous obser- the universe and everything in it. Some scientists do not vations that cannot satisfactorily be explained know of the rules themselves, but follow them through with the available scientific theories. research policies. These procedures are known as the 4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hy- scientific method. pothesis 5. Testing the hypothesis through an experiment – methodical procedure carried out with the 1 Essence of science goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis. The 3 types of
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Science Students' Views on Educational Studies-Pedagogy
    RESEARCH PAPERS COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS' VIEWS ON EDUCATIONAL STUDIES-PEDAGOGY By EFROSYNI-ALKISTI PARASKEVOPOULOU-KOLLIA * GEORGIA SOURSOU ** BILL ZOGOPOULOS *** EVANGELIA OREOPOULOU **** PANAGIOTA KONTOU ***** VASILIKI ZOURA ****** * Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, School of Science, Papasiopoulou, Lamia, Greece. ** Post-graduate Student in Bioinformatics, University of Crete, Faculty of Medicine, Voutes University Campus, Heraklion-Crete, Greece. ***,****,****** Student, Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Papasiopoulou str., Lamia, Greece. ***** Post-doctoral Researcher and Adjunct Lecturer, Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics, University of Thessaly, Papasiopoulou str., Lamia, Greece. Date Received: 22/02/2018 Date Revised: 06/06/2018 Date Accepted: 24/06/2018 ABSTRACT The present article is based on a small-scale research that took place with the students in the Department of Computer Science and Biomedical Informatics in 2014 and three years later with the students of the same Department and the Department of Computer Science, as well. Students who have enrolled in the Educational science-Pedagogy module, that the Department offers, were asked if the module was beneficial in a Department purely technical (Faculty of Science) and if this theoretical module assisted them in their academic life and generally. Various views are listed reflecting students' perspective of the module Educational science-Pedagogy and come to the conclusion that we present; no module is useless. Keywords: Computer Science, Educational Science-Pedagogy, Greek Educational System, Hard and Soft Science, Students. INTRODUCTION pp. 21-22). Pedagogy is, therefore, an anthropological, The term “Pedagogy” refers to the science of educating intellectual, and applied social science that arose from children, both in terms of upbringing and of academic Philosophy and its aim is to research the entire spectrum development.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Nursing Science 9781284041347 CH01.Indd Page 2 10/23/13 10:44 AM Ff-446 /207/JB00090/Work/Indd
    9781284041347_CH01.indd Page 1 10/23/13 10:44 AM ff-446 /207/JB00090/work/indd © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION PART 1 Foundations of Nursing Science 9781284041347_CH01.indd Page 2 10/23/13 10:44 AM ff-446 /207/JB00090/work/indd © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 9781284041347_CH01.indd Page 3 10/23/13 10:44 AM ff-446 /207/JB00090/work/indd © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION CHAPTER Philosophy of Science: An Introduction 1 E. Carol Polifroni Introduction A philosophy of science is a perspective—a lens, a way one views the world, and, in the case of advanced practice nurses, the viewpoint the nurse acts from in every encounter with a patient, family, or group. A person’s philosophy of science cre- ates the frame on a picture—a message that becomes a paradigm and a point of reference. Each individual’s philosophy of science will permit some things to be seen and cause others to be blocked. It allows people to be open to some thoughts and potentially keeps them closed to others. A philosophy will deem some ideas correct, others inconsistent, and some simply wrong. While philosophy of sci- ence is not meant to be viewed as a black or white proposition, it does provide perspectives that include some ideas and thoughts and, therefore, it must neces- sarily exclude others. The important key is to ensure that the ideas and thoughts within a given philosophy remain consistent with one another, rather than being in opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Discover the History of Science the History of the Royal Society
    Discover the history of science The history of the Royal Society Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is the Boyle and John Wilkins, the group national academy of science in the UK, soon received royal approval, and from made up of a Fellowship of approximately 1663 it would be known as ‘The Royal 1,600 of the world’s most eminent Society of London for Improving Natural scientists. Throughout our history, we Knowledge’. have played a part in some of the most life-changing discoveries, and remain The early years of the Society saw dedicated to recognising, supporting, revolutionary advancements in the and promoting excellence in science. conduct and communication of science. Hooke’s Micrographia and the first The origins of the Royal Society lie in issue of Philosophical Transactions a group of people who began meeting were published in 1665. Philosophical in the mid-1640s to discuss the new Transactions, which established the philosophy of promoting knowledge of important concepts of scientific priority the natural world through observation and peer review, is now the oldest and experiment, which we now call continuously published science journal science. The very first ‘learned society’ in the world. meeting on 28 November 1660 followed a lecture at Gresham College To find out more, visit: by Christopher Wren. Joined by other royalsociety.org/about-us/history leading polymaths including Robert Image: Illustrations showing microscopic views of seaweed and rosemary from Micrographia,by Robert Hooke, 1665. The Royal Society’s journal of the history of science. Editor: Professor Anna Marie Roos, University of Lincoln, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Revamping Federal Climate Science Recommendations for the Next President of the United States
    GETTY SHIPING IMAGES/LIU Revamping Federal Climate Science Recommendations for the Next President of the United States By John Podesta, Bidisha Bhattacharyya, and Bianca Majumder December 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Contents 1 Introduction and Summary 4 Recommendations to restore scientific integrity across the government 9 Recommendations for rebuilding the federal climate science workforce 13 Recommendations to coordinate climate science in the White House and across the federal government 19 Recommendations to define interagency climate science research and data priorities 31 Recommendations for prioritizing adaptation and resilience 34 Recommendations to promote international coordination on climate science 40 Conclusion 41 About the authors 41 Acknowledgments 44 Appendix: References and further reading 46 Endnotes Introduction and summary The United States has been the global leader in climate science for decades. Unfortunately, progress has slowed—and in some cases, even moved backward— over the past four years, with the Trump administration dismantling core elements of the federal climate science apparatus. As the country and the planet head toward an increasingly unstable climate, the U.S. government needs to get back to the business of being the preeminent source of trusted applied science that supports climate change mitigation and adaptation decision-making of governments and civilian stakeholders. The science is clear: To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the United States and the world must take aggressive action to decarbonize all sectors of the global economy, protect the Earth’s natural systems, and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. This means achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions globally by no later than 2050 and ensuring an equitable and just transition to a clean energy economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences
    Edinburgh Research Explorer Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences Citation for published version: Fanelli, D & Glanzel, W 2013, 'Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences', PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 6, e66938. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066938 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1371/journal.pone.0066938 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: PLoS ONE Publisher Rights Statement: © 2013 Fanelli, Daniele. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Fanelli, D., & Glanzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One, 8(6), [e66938]doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066938 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists' Data Sharing Behaviors
    Syracuse University SURFACE School of Information Studies - Dissertations School of Information Studies (iSchool) 2013 Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists' Data Sharing Behaviors Youngseek Kim Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/it_etd Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Kim, Youngseek, "Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists' Data Sharing Behaviors" (2013). School of Information Studies - Dissertations. 85. https://surface.syr.edu/it_etd/85 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Information Studies (iSchool) at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Information Studies - Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract Institutional and Individual Influences on Scientists’ Data Sharing Behaviors by Youngseek Kim In modern research activities, scientific data sharing is essential, especially in terms of data-intensive science and scholarly communication. Scientific communities are making ongoing endeavors to promote scientific data sharing. Currently, however, data sharing is not always well-deployed throughout diverse science and engineering disciplines. Disciplinary traditions, organizational barriers, lack of technological infrastructure, and individual perceptions often contribute to limit scientists from sharing their data. Since scientists’ data sharing practices are embedded in their respective disciplinary contexts,
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Inquiry Twenty-Five Years After the Lawyering Process Stefan H
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2003 Empirical Inquiry Twenty-Five Years After The Lawyering Process Stefan H. Krieger Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Stefan H. Krieger and Richard K. Neumann Jr., Empirical Inquiry Twenty-Five Years After The Lawyering Process, 10 Clinical L. Rev. 349 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/155 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EMPIRICAL INQUIRY TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER THE LAWYERING PROCESS RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR. & STEFAN H. KRIEGER* One of the many ways in which The Lawyering Process was a pioneering book was its extensive reliance on empirical research about lawyers, lawyering, and activities analogous to some or another aspect of lawyering. To what extent has the clinical field accepted Gary Bellow and Bea Moulton's invitation to explore empirical stud- ies generated outside legal education and perhaps engage in empirical work ourselves to understand lawyering more deeply? Although some clinicians have done good empirical work, our field as a whole has not really accepted Gary and Bea's invitation. This article ex- plains empirical ways of thinking and working; discusses some of the mistakes law scholars (not only clinicians) make when dealing with empirical work; explores some of the reasons why empiricism has encountered difficulty in law schools; and suggests that empiricism might in some ways improve our teaching in clinics.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard and Soft Science: Physics Vs. Psychology
    THINKING ABOUT SCIENCE MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI Hard and Soft Science: Physics vs. Psychology hile doing research for my results from physics experiments are things: on the one hand, one could next book on the differ- “better” than results from psychological examine theoretical cumulativeness, W ences among so-called hard experiments. But better in what sense? i.e., the advancement of a scientific science, soft science, and pseudoscience, Hedges thought that the difference field in terms of how well its theories I came across a little-known study pub- between the two sciences should be account for how the world is. For lished in 1987 by Larry Hedges, then evident in the “cumulativeness” of their instance, astronomy advanced by a giant at the Department of Education at results: physics should be making prog- leap when it abandoned the Ptolemaic, the University of Chicago. Hedges was ress more steadily and at a faster pace earth-centered view of the solar system empirically addressing the sort of ques- than psychology. This is an important in favor of the Copernican, sun-cen- tion that is usually left to a philosopher criterion because lack of progress, i.e., tered system. Then it made smaller of science: if it is true—as it is often lack of cumulative results over time, but significant advances by realizing claimed—that physics (the queen of the is one of the distinctive features of that the planets move in elliptical, not It turns out that the replicability of research findings in psychology (and therefore, presumably, the resulting empirical cumulativeness of that discipline) is no worse (or better) than the replicability of findings in particle physics.
    [Show full text]
  • OPEN SCIENCE' an Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution
    This work is distributed as a Discussion Paper by the STANFORD INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 06-38 THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF 'OPEN SCIENCE' An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution By Paul A. David Stanford University & the University of Oxford December 2007 Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 725-1874 The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University supports research bearing on economic and public policy issues. The SIEPR Discussion Paper Series reports on research and policy analysis conducted by researchers affiliated with the Institute. Working papers in this series reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research or Stanford University. THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF ‘OPEN SCIENCE’ An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution By Paul A. David Stanford University & the University of Oxford [email protected] or [email protected] First version: March 2000 Second version: August 2004 This version: December 2007 SUMMARY This essay examines the economics of patronage in the production of knowledge and its influence upon the historical formation of key elements in the ethos and organizational structure of publicly funded open science. The emergence during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries of the idea and practice of “open science" was a distinctive and vital organizational aspect of the Scientific Revolution. It represented a break from the previously dominant ethos of secrecy in the pursuit of Nature’s Secrets, to a new set of norms, incentives, and organizational structures that reinforced scientific researchers' commitments to rapid disclosure of new knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Philosophy of Science: an Introduction and a Grounding for Your Practice
    © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © JonesChapter & Bartlett Learning, 1LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Philosophy of Science: © Jones & Bartlett Learning,An Introduction LLC © Jones and & Bartlett a Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE ORGrounding DISTRIBUTION for NOTYour FOR SALE Practice OR DISTRIBUTION E. Carol Polifroni © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION INTRODUCTION Philosophy of science is a perspective—a lens, a way you see the world, and, in the case © Jonesof &advanced Bartlett practice Learning, nurses, theLLC viewpoint the nurse acts ©from Jones in every & Bartlettencounter Learning,with a LLC patient, family, or group. A person’s philosophy of science creates the frame on a picture—a NOT FORmessage SALE that OR becomes DISTRIBUTION a paradigm and a point of reference.NOT Each individual’sFOR SALE philosophy OR DISTRIBUTION of science will permit some things to be seen and cause others to be blocked. It allows people to be open to some thoughts and potentially keeps them closed to others. A philosophy will deem some ideas correct, others inconsistent, and some simply wrong. While philoso- © Jones & Bartlett Learning,phy of science LLC is not meant to be viewed ©as Jonesa black or& whiteBartlett proposition, Learning, it does LLC provide NOT FOR SALE ORperspectives DISTRIBUTION that include some ideas and thoughts;NOT FOR therefore, SALE it ORmust DISTRIBUTION unavoidably exclude others.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Judges Applying the Daubert Trilogy Need to Know About the Social, Institutional, and Rhetorical - and Not Just the Methodological - Aspects of Science David S
    Boston College Law Review Volume 45 Article 1 Issue 1 Number 1 12-1-2003 Why Judges Applying the Daubert Trilogy Need to Know About the Social, Institutional, and Rhetorical - And Not Just the Methodological - aspects of Science David S. Caudill [email protected] Lewis H. LaRue Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Legal History Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation David S. Caudill & Lewis H. LaRue, Why Judges Applying the Daubert Trilogy Need to Know About the Social, Institutional, and Rhetorical - And Not Just the Methodological - aspects of Science, 45 B.C.L. Rev. 1 (2003), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol45/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY JUDGES APPLYING THE DAUBERT TRILOGY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SOCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND RHETORICAL-AND NOT JUST THE METHODOLOGICAL- ASPECTS OF SCIENCE DAVID S. CAUDILL* & LEWIS H. LARUE** Abstract: In response to the claim that many judges are deficient in their understanding of scientific methodology, this Article identifies in recent cases (1) a pragmatic perspective on the part of federal appellate judges when they reverse trial judges who tend to idealize science (i.e., who do not appreciate the local and practical goals and limitations of science), and (ii) an educational model of judicial gatekeeping that results in reversal of trial judges who defer to the social authority of science (i.e., who mistake authority for reliability).
    [Show full text]