Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- About the Book -- About the Series -- Contents -- About the Editors and Authors -- Acknowledgments -- 1 The Laetrile Phenomenon: An Overview -- Actors in the Controversy -- Issues in the Controversy -- Current State of the Controversy -- References and Notes -- 2 Laetrile in Historical Perspective -- The Creation by the Krebs -- The McNaughton Ascendancy -- The Appeal to Freedom -- The Pattern of Cancer Unorthodoxies -- Exploitation of Fear -- Promise of Painless Treatment and Good Results -- Claims of a Miraculous Scientific Breakthrough -- One Cause/One Therapeutic System -- The Galileo Ploy -- The Conspiracy Theory -- Shifts to Adjust to Circumstances -- Reliance on Testimonials -- Distortion of the Idea of "Freedom -- Large Sums of Money Are Involved -- Laetrile Within the Perspective of the Past -- References and Notes -- 3 Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering: A Case Study -- 4 The Political Implications of Laetrile: Who Gets What, When and How -- Model of Analysis -- Political Background/History -- Competing Sets of Problem Definitions -- Definition I. Laetrile as a Scientific Controversy -- Action Implications -- Definition II. Laetrile as a Quack Cure -- Action Implications -- Definition III. Freedom of Choice -- Action Implications -- Definition IV. Big Government Interference -- Action Implications -- The Debate Over Laetrile -- The State Level -- The Legislation -- The Role of the FDA -- Other Testimony -- The Role of Government -- Legalizing the Sale of Laetrile--The Implementation Phase -- State I -- State II -- State III -- The Legislative Response -- The Federal Level -- The Current Legal Status of Laetrile -- Legal Issues -- Political Issues -- Discussion/Conclusions -- What Was at Stake? -- Which Problem Definition Prevailed? -- Accountability and Responsibility -- Passing the Buck.

The paper examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the political process in Italy in 2021. The author analyzes the change of government in February 2021 and the country's economic recovery and resilience plan, as well as changes in the party-political landscape that occurred in the second year of the pandemic. The study showed that there is an increase in the factors of personalization of power and the strengthening of the executive branch and stagnation of the party landscape in the absence of a clear leader among political forces. The center-right and center-left coalitions are comparable in terms of citizens' support, but at the same time the level of frustration is growing, reflecting the dissatisfaction of citizens with any of the parties. We can say that there is a certain feeling of the lack of alternative to the proposed development model and the absence of the very request for an alternative. Against this background, the ideas of sovranism so popular recently, it seems, no longer have any prospects.

Causal questions are relevant to all sciences and social sciences, yet how we discover causal connections is no easy matter. Indeed, the choice of methods concerns the correct norms for the empirical study of the world. In this text, two experts on causation relate philosophical theory to scientific practice and propose nine new norms of discovery.

Annotation, A clear, critical inquiry into the norms, processes and purposes of social science work. Diesing (political science, SUNY, Buffalo) begins with a wonderfully lucid survey of philosophical approaches to social science to examine the question of how social science ought to work. He then surveys sociological, political, and psychological studies of social science to find out what actually occurs in practice. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

Open Science is an umbrella term that encompasses a multitude of assumptions about the future of knowledge creation and dissemination. Based on a literature review, this paper aims at structuring the overall discourse by proposing five Open Science schools of thought: The infrastructure school (which is concerned with the technological architecture), the public school (which is concerned with the accessibility of knowledge creation), the measurement school (which is concerned with alternative impact measurement), the democratic school (which is concerned with access to knowledge) and the pragmatic school (which is concerned with collaborative research).

In the nineteenth century, science was inseparably identified with progress. This optimism has given way to a pandemic mistrust of science by all sorts of elites. Yet this by no means reproduces the traditional opposition between science and the humanities. On the contrary, it reflects a clash within the culture of science itself. From a positivist perspective, knowledge goes with certainty. The destructive power of modern science, even in democratic societies, along with epistemological shifts within scientific practice itself, have favoured the emergence of a different and valuable conception of the relation between science and society, one that entails a certain tentativeness with respect to recommending policy and evaluating the need for new areas of investigation. In a democracy, the view of scientific knowledge as ethically indeterminate is both philosophically shaky and pragmatically indispensable.

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cambridge University Press via the DOI in this record ; I argue that Open Science as currently conceptualised and implemented does not take sufficient account of epistemic diversity within research. I use three case studies to exemplify how Open Science threatens to privilege some forms of inquiry over others, thus exasperating divides within and across systems of practice, and overlooking important sources and forms of epistemic diversity. Building on insights from pluralist philosophy, I then identify four aspects of diverse research practices that should serve as reference points for debates around Open Science: (1) specificity to local conditions, (2) entrenchment within repertoires, (3) permeability to newcomers and (4) demarcation strategies. ; Alan Turing Institute ; European Union Horizon 2020

Tema del mes ; En la sociedad del riesgo nos enfrentamos a nuevos desafíos para lograr un mejor funcionamiento de las democracias modernas. La noción de experticia se ha construido histórica y socialmente en torno a la supremacía epistémica de la ciencia sobre otras formas de conocimiento, diferenciando el valor de las opiniones entre los expertos y los que no lo son. El problema recae en la conceptualización política moderna que se ha dejado llevar por el auge de la ciencia y la tecnología. Sin duda, uno de esos problemas es que la noción de representación política tiene una sospechosa cercanía con la noción de experticia. Así como el saber científico se separó del sentido común, la representación política de los estados modernos se alejó de la voz de la comunidad. La resolución democrática de los problemas requiere principalmente de la participación de todos. La propuesta es que esa noción de experticia tendría que ser modificada si se considera que los expertos pueden equivocarse y sus decisiones tienen un margen de error latente. Esta asimilación del riesgo en el saber experto lo obliga a interactuar de una manera más simétrica con el saber común, el cual tiene sus virtudes si se considera como una fuente directa de experiencia y de necesidades de la comunidad. Por todo lo anterior es que se requiere de una posición de mutuo reconocimiento entre los expertos y los no-expertos, para que todos participen en la resolución de problemas comunes. ; In this risk society, we face new challenges to obtain an optimal functioning of modern democracies. The notion of expertise on the epistemological supremacy of science over other ways of knowledge has been elaborated historically and socially, differentiating the value of expert opinions over non-expert opinions. The problem lies in the conceptualization of modern politics which has been influenced by the growth of science and technology. One of the problems is that the concept of political representation is closed to the idea of expertise. Thus, scientific knowledge moved away from the common sense, the political representation of the Modern States also moved away from the will of people. The democratic resolution of the social problems requires the participation of all of us. The notion of expertise has to be modified if we consider that experts may make mistakes and their decisions may be erroneous. This consciousness of the risk of the expertise suggests that there should be more symmetrical relations with common sense, which has virtues because it is a source of social experiences and necessities from community. A mutual recognition between experts and non-experts is necessary in order for everyone to participate in the resolution of social problems.

Tema del mes ; En la sociedad del riesgo nos enfrentamos a nuevos desafíos para lograr un mejor funcionamiento de las democracias modernas. La noción de experticia se ha construido histórica y socialmente en torno a la supremacía epistémica de la ciencia sobre otras formas de conocimiento, diferenciando el valor de las opiniones entre los expertos y los que no lo son. El problema recae en la conceptualización política moderna que se ha dejado llevar por el auge de la ciencia y la tecnología. Sin duda, uno de esos problemas es que la noción de representación política tiene una sospechosa cercanía con la noción de experticia. Así como el saber científico se separó del sentido común, la representación política de los estados modernos se alejó de la voz de la comunidad. La resolución democrática de los problemas requiere principalmente de la participación de todos. La propuesta es que esa noción de experticia tendría que ser modificada si se considera que los expertos pueden equivocarse y sus decisiones tienen un margen de error latente. Esta asimilación del riesgo en el saber experto lo obliga a interactuar de una manera más simétrica con el saber común, el cual tiene sus virtudes si se considera como una fuente directa de experiencia y de necesidades de la comunidad. Por todo lo anterior es que se requiere de una posición de mutuo reconocimiento entre los expertos y los no-expertos, para que todos participen en la resolución de problemas comunes. ; In this risk society, we face new challenges to obtain an optimal functioning of modern democracies. The notion of expertise on the epistemological supremacy of science over other ways of knowledge has been elaborated historically and socially, differentiating the value of expert opinions over non-expert opinions. The problem lies in the conceptualization of modern politics which has been influenced by the growth of science and technology. One of the problems is that the concept of political representation is closed to the idea of expertise. Thus, scientific knowledge moved away from the common sense, the political representation of the Modern States also moved away from the will of people. The democratic resolution of the social problems requires the participation of all of us. The notion of expertise has to be modified if we consider that experts may make mistakes and their decisions may be erroneous. This consciousness of the risk of the expertise suggests that there should be more symmetrical relations with common sense, which has virtues because it is a source of social experiences and necessities from community. A mutual recognition between experts and non-experts is necessary in order for everyone to participate in the resolution of social problems.