Search results

A special forum for individuals to respond in detail to material published in the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness or to raise issues which relate to the specialized field of work with blind and visually handicapped persons. Contributions should be 350-100 words in length.

Vol. 2 has call number: MICROFILM 20027 NEWS ; At head of title: Sar Mérodack J. Peladan ; [I] Comment on deviant mage. Éthique.--[II] Comment on deviant fée. Érotique.--[III] Comment on deviant artiste. Esthétique.--IV. Le livre du sceptre. Politique.--V. L'occulte catholique. [Mystique]--[VI] Traité des antinomies. Métaphysique ; Mode of access: Internet.

Today, there are a lot of studies on climate change and sustainability from social sciences' perspectives. Achievements of sociology, psychology or political sciences can be extremely helpful in designing, adopting, implementing and evaluating of effective climate and sustainability policy. However, so far, social sciences, excluded neoclassical economics and dogmatic law, have being marginalizing in the mainstream of climate and sustainability science, politics and discourse. Social studies also have not been included in the IPCC' and other important agencies' reports. In consequence, there is a significant gap in our understanding many facets of climate change and other civilizational threats and possible tools to mitigating them, which may be a reason of the pure effectiveness of the past policies. In this paper I would like to present a few of examples, what social sciences, especially sociology and psychology can contribute to climate and sustainability discourse, as well as, propose hypothesis which could explain marginalization of social sciences today. I will conclude that there are needed more studies about reasons of little widespread social perspective and barriers of incorporating social sciences' approaches to political and non-governmental sphere. In my opinion, in these studies could be used perspectives of cognitive and social psychology or constructivist version of sociology of knowledge, then sociology could became object of its own research, which will result in such kind of 'sociology of sociology'.

The paper, "Ameliorating the Rising Insecurity situation in Nigeria: Skills Development Initiative through Social Science Education as alasting Tool" has as its main thrust, the principle of using skills development initiative as a reliable too of engaging able bodied, healthy and willing men and women in order to get them out of the street in line with the popular aphorism "that an idle mind is the devils workshop "which indeed explains it all. To further appreciate this intellectual discuss, basic concepts relevant to the article such as Insecurity which is generally seen as the state of being open to danger or the uncertainty or anxiety about oneself safety is also examined. Importantly too, Skill Development Initiative is also in this discuss defined as the act of providing vocational training to people both young and old, students and even school dropouts, existing workers, and everyone interested in earning a living through practical skill etc. The concept of Social Science Education and other concepts in this discourse such as Skills, Development, Initiative and the phrase Skills Development Initiative were adequately defined etc. the paper concludes by asserting firmly that creating awareness, education and information through tactical deployment of Social Sciences Education classroom instructional process on the use of Skills Development Initiatives remains a functional and effective way of curbing the problem of dwindling insecurity problem in the Society today. Steps on how this can be effectively done through teaching and training were proffered.
Keywords: Social Science Education, Skills, Development, Initiative, Skills Development Initiative

Regardless of whether science is practised in industry, the academy, or government, its conduct inescapably shapes and is shaped by democratic institutions. Moreover, the involvement of science with public policy formation and democracy has dramatically increased over the centuries and, by all accounts, will continue to do so. In order to understand the functioning of science and democracy, it is necessary to acknowledge the complex relationship between them. Public Science in Liberal Democracy aims to do this from an interdisciplinary perspective, presenting an array of substantively different positions on the issues that it explores.The volume focuses on three major questions: Can science retain independence and objectivity in the face of demands to meet commercial and public policy objectives? In what ways is scientific discourse privileged in the formation of public policy? How can scientific knowledge and methodology be made compatible with the interdisciplinarity and integration required of public policy formation and discourse? Representing a wide range of viewpoints, the contributors to Public Science in Liberal Democracy come from Canada, Europe, the United States, and Australia, and include practising scientists as well as scholars working in the humanities and social sciences. This timely and thought-provoking collection makes an important contribution to the literature and will appeal to anyone interested in scientific research and its political and philosophical ramifications in democratic society

The political use of political sciencePolitical scientists claim for science and for themselves, as scholars, a maximum of independence in their dealings with government and Parliament. At the same time, science finds itself so inextricably bound up with the actual political process that it has become an "establishment" as strong and formidable as religion was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Liberal political scientists put themselves into a contradictory position when they demand for themselves, in the pursuit of their task as scholars, a political status which would protect them from the scrutiny of the elected representatives of the people, a condition which, they would refuse to grant to any other social group, and yet simultaneously in their teaching and writing set themselves up as the ardent defenders of representative and responsible democracy. What must one sacrifice, science or democratic responsibility? Is it necessary to aim at excluding science from the democratic process, at the risk of seeing our society regress towards a pre-industrial age, or should one regard representative and responsible democracy as relevant to questions of minor importance while significant issues which concern the present and future of society are to be dealt with by other political methods?