Models: representation and the scientific understanding
In: Boston studies in the philosophy of science 48
In: Synthese library 129
15 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Boston studies in the philosophy of science 48
In: Synthese library 129
In: Social research: an international quarterly, Band 51, Heft 4, S. 863
ISSN: 0037-783X
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, Band 27, Heft 1-4, S. 235-250
ISSN: 1502-3923
In: Praxis international: a philosophical journal, Band 1, Heft 3, S. 288-306
ISSN: 0260-8448
In: Science, technology, & human values: ST&HV, Band 5, Heft 4, S. 5-23
ISSN: 1552-8251
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, Band 20, Heft 1-4, S. 457-479
ISSN: 1502-3923
In: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science Ser. v.64
In: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science Ser. v.71
"An examination of how individuals strive for social status and how this creates our culture as a whole Contrary to belief, status signaling isn't just the province of the immature or insecure but a fundamental human need to secure social standing. It drives our behavior, forms our tastes, determines what we buy, and ultimately shapes who we are. It's what's behind "cool" and what drives fashion, music, food, sports, slang, travel, hairstyles, and dog breeds-and even the outsize influence of unpopular things with the "right" audience. In Status and Culture, W. David Marx weaves together history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, philosophy, linguistics, semiotics, cultural theory, literary theory, art history, media studies, and neuroscience to reveal for the first time the inner workings of status. While there have been some explorations in the past of how status needs affect our individual behavior, Status and Culture seeks to go one step deeper and link the behavior of individuals to the formation of our broader culture. Marx examines three fundamental questions: Why do individuals cluster around arbitrary behaviors and take deep meaning from them? How do distinct styles, conventions, and sensibilities emerge? Why do we change behaviors over time and why do some behaviors stick around? Answering these long-standing mysteries then provides us with new perspectives for understanding the ephemeral and often baffling nature of internet culture. Status and Culture is a book that will appeal to business people, students, aspiring artists, and anyone who has ever wondered why things become popular or why they often feel pressured to go against their personal tastes. The reader will gain an understanding of the general rules that can be applied to everyday life and feel empowered by better appreciating the effect of social influence on their choices"--
In: The Department of State bulletin: the official weekly record of United States Foreign Policy, Band 20, S. 575-578
ISSN: 0041-7610
In: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 154
These essays by his friends, students, colleagues, and admirers honor Marx Wartofsky on his 65th birthday by their humane and rigorous investigations of themes from his own broad range of interests. Art and science, ethics and history, from the great Enlightenment through the 19th century to our time of failed hopes and ironic successes, and especially human self-understanding through praxis, Wartofsky's joys, sorrows, curiosity and intelligence find their reflections in these insightful and original contributions. The authors include Joseph Agassi, Andrew Buchwalter, Peter Caws, Robert S. Cohen, William Earle, Bernard Elevitch, Paul Feyerabend, Roger S. Gottlieb, Carol C. Gould, Hilde Hein, Jaakko Hintikka, Gregg Horowitz, Michael Kelly, Peter Kivy, Erazim Kohak, Douglas Lackey, Berel Lang, Isaac Levi, Joseph Margolis, Gyorgy Markus, Alasdair MacIntyre, William McBride, Thomas McCarthy, Joëlle Proust, Roshdi Rashed, Cheyney Ryan, Abner Shimony, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Lorenzo Simpson, Gary Smith, John Stachel, and Willis Truitt
In: Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Band 58, Heft 4, S. 255
ISSN: 1736-7530
In: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 253
Professor Joseph Agassi has published his Towards an Historiography of Science in 1963. It received many reviews by notable academics, including Maurice Finocchiaro, Charles Gillispie, Thomas S. Kuhn, Geroge Mora, Nicholas Rescher, and L. Pearce Williams. It is still in use in many courses in the philosophy and history of science. Here it appears in a revised and updated version with responses to these reviews and with many additional chapters, some already classic, others new. They are all paradigms of the author's innovative way of writing fresh and engaging chapters in the history of the natural sciences.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE