Paradox Of Science Research Articles

Are we close(d)? Debating the openness paradox in science

In our theoretical and conceptual article, we propose that the application of Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory as a difference-theoretical approach to the opening of science unveils an openness paradox. We describe and discuss the general concept of open science as currently proposed by UNESCO and posit that only by accepting the scientific method as truly and inherently open, can higher education institutions and science at large indeed be considered open. The paradox arises by analyzing and discovering through systems theory how the relevant systems function and the various structures within science (e.g., publishing and funding) are seemingly destined to be and ultimately stay closed. Finally, we propose a desideratum for open science that could dissipate the openness paradox in the future and once and for all answer the question “Are we close(d)?”.

Scientific Paradoxes and the Paradox of Salvation

The concept of paradox in science is discussed: some apparent paradoxes turn out not to be paradoxes at all whilst others remain paradoxical. The concept of paradox is then applied to two theological ideas: salvation by faith or salvation by works and judgement to heaven / hell or universalism. It is suggested that the issue of salvation by faith / works is not a paradox at all whilst the idea of judgement to heaven / hell or universalism is a paradox.

The Great Paradox of Science: Why Its Conclusions Can Be Relied Upon Even Though They Cannot Be Proven

The Great Paradox of Science: Why Its Conclusions Can Be Relied Upon Even Though They Cannot Be Proven

From Intention to Action: Operationalizing AGA Diversity Policy to Combat Racism and Health Disparities in Gastroenterology

From Intention to Action: Operationalizing AGA Diversity Policy to Combat Racism and Health Disparities in Gastroenterology

Этический парадокс науки: между абсолютом и солидарностью

Этический парадокс науки: между абсолютом и солидарностью

The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science

Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity's role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.

Response to Stuart Kauffman: The Paradox of Divine Action and Scientific Truth

ABSTRACTWe three authors compare and contrast Stuart Kauffman's concept of the “cosmic mind” with similar ideas developed in our recent book, The Unity of Truth: Solving the Paradox of Science and Religion (IUniverse, 2012). Albert Einstein was known to have said: “Science without religion is lame, religion with science is blind.” We authors make use of the “paradox resolution” methods of physics to find a non-conflicting method by which God's actions communicate with human beings without violating any of the laws of science. The “communications paradox” is resolved by hypothesizing non-causal quantum-mechanical measurements as the way God communicates. the quantum-mechanical resolution of the “communications paradox” is completely consistent with both theist belief and the laws of science, whereas Kauffman's “cosmic mind” concept is seen to be consistent with pantheism.

Plus Surplus Love: Jacques Derrida’s Echopoiesis and Narcissism Adrift

Tears that see . . , Do you believe?-Jacques Derrida, Memoirs of the BlindDuring a cameo appearance in Ken McMullen's experimental film Ghost Dance (1983), Jacques Derrida invokes a spectral dialectic: Cinema plus psychoanalysis equals a of In algebraic idiom, Derrida's algorithm moves from cinema and psychoanalysis to the of phantoms. The interstices of his equation are designated by the trope of a plus, the tissue that connects each of his variables.1 The scene, as remarkable for Derrida's appearance as for his transmission, puts into play a constellation of terms defined by an arithmetic of additions and equivalencies, A + B = C. Despite the seeming certainty of this and all formulaic assertions, Derrida's communique never leaves the realm of pure algebra. The variables remain without reference both within and outside of the equation, suspended in a state of animated variability, as Derrida's of is no more a discernible resolution of cinema plus psychoanalysis than those terms themselves. Everything is left in suspense and without resolution, a formula without end, destined to return time and again to the site of its own irresolution. Still, Derrida's formulation suggests montage, an editing of scenes to form a sequence without closure. Such is the of as is Derrida's thesis on cinema (psychoanalysis, science, and phantoms) delivered by Derrida from within the very site of his reflection: cinema. Derrida's speculation on cinema takes place in reflection, his enunciation in echo. He is already elsewhere, absorbed by the cinema he imagines. Derrida improvises aseries of interventions on media technologies and their relation to phantoms during a staged conversation with actress Pascal Ogier.2 Cinema, says Derrida, when it is not boring, is the art of allowing phantoms to It is the advent of oneself as another, as a phantom second person, you. It is narcissism, says Derrida elsewhere and in reference to video, set adrift (derive du narcissisme').s In those I see myself adrift. For Derrida, the paradox of science, its techne and media, is that far from banishing shadows and shades, calls them back, makes possible their return. In a later conversation with Bernard Stiegler, Derrida retreats from his use of the word science without retracting it completely. Of course, beyond the improvisation, he says, referring to his phantom equation in Ghost Dance, I'm not sure I'd keep the word 'science'; for at the same time, there is something which as soon as one is dealing with ghosts, exceeds, if not scientificity in general, at least what, for a very long time, has modeled scientificity on the real, the objective, which is not or should not be, precisely phantomic.4 Since phantoms transgress a concept of scientificity modeled on objectivity and the real, a of phantoms would constitute a in excess of scientificity. Derrida's beyond is already under partial erasure, a phantom as much as a of phantoms.If so, then Derrida's of phantoms, forged in the alchemy of cinema and psychoanalysis, determines an impossible (and illicit technology), an unscientific science, or without scientificity. Derrida's phantom formula opens onto a scene beyond the gaze of science, onto a surplus science, seance. In his televised conversation with Stiegler, Derrida conjures the scene of an earlier conversation with Ogier, who had since died; Derrida opens a conversation within a conversation staged as the return of a scene of mediation within another medium. Ogier returns here and elsewhere, as she is destined from the moment she is filmed. She is already consigned while living to return as a specter, summoned by a medium within a medium, in the form of a double seance or mise-en-seance. The phantom returns through a medium (cinema), through a medium within a medium (cinema in television), but also through the figure of the medium, a spiritual medium that facilitates the return of ghosts, in this instance a role assumed by Derrida himself. …

An age of limits: social theory for the 21st century

1. From the Birth of the Modern World to the Age of Limits 2. Convergence and Divergence 3. The Paths towards Pluralist Democracy: Liberal versus Radical Interpretations 4. Free and Unfree Markets 5. The Paradoxes of Science, Technology and Social Change 6. The Limits to Transforming the Environment 7. Three Cultures 8. Modernization and the Politics of Development 9. Social Theory in the Face of the Future

The Innovative Paradox in Science and Science Parks

Universities have a synthetic style for radical innovation but an inappropriate administrative culture. Science parks, which are supposed to have such entrepreneurial culture, instead lack an appropriate synthetic style. Our answer is to combine appropriate styles and cultures into a new arena. A modified-systems approach, based on the suggested principles, should, however, be structurally tested and compared with the current science-park model.

The double helix revisited: a paradox of science and a paradigm of human behaviour

In the modern history of Science, few breakthroughs have caused an impact comparative to the Double Helix, the three-dimensional structure of DNA proposed by Watson & Crick in 1953, an event whose 50th anniversary was widely celebrated in the non-specialist media, three years ago. Although the discovery had little transcendence at the time, it has unquestionably been of great importance ever since. The Double Helix has underlined the true biological value of nucleic acids compared with proteins, demonstrating that genes are not amorphous entities but have a specific chemical composition and adopt an ordered spatial folding pattern. Elucidation of this key configuration made it possible to establish a direct relationship between the structure and the function of macromolecules, a relationship which is not so clear in the case of proteins. During these last fifty years much has been written and argued about the circumstances surrounding the discovery and about the behaviour and attitudes of many of the protagonists. Besides Watson & Crick, other scientists, whose contribution has not been adequately recognised, played an important part in solving the Double Helix mystery. This article contains some ethical and scientific reflections which revise some of these essential contributions and throws light on the role played in history by these comparatively «unknown soldiers» of science. The Double Helix story is undoubtedly a manifestation of the human side of science and many scientists believe that the available evidence taken as a whole permits an alternative story to be written.

Essential Tensions

This paper examines the tensions and paradoxes that arise during the life course of research groups as they strive to establish and maintain an identity, acquire and retain control of an ensemble of research technologies, and evaluate and choose the risks they are willing to accept in their work. My central aim is to rekindle interest in the ambivalences, tensions, and paradoxes of science by identifying and illustrating the tensions that characterize research groups. Among the questions of concern are: How does a group establish an independent identity while remaining connected with its field of research? How are consistency of focus and continuity of approach balanced against the freedom younger scientists need to develop as independent investigators? What varieties of risks are encountered in research and how are they evaluated and navigated? Based on intensive, repeated, face-to-face interviews with scientists at various levels of seniority at elite private and public universities, the paper examines the choices leaders make at these critical junctures and the consequences of those choices. Several sorts of tensions are examined, including autocracy versus democracy, varieties of risk, role conflicts, openness versus secrecy, competitive cooperation, ambivalences about priority claims, and balancing continuity and change, and their implications for science, scientists, and the research process are discussed.

Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics

Two paradoxes form the nucleus of the problems of scientific expertise and policy-making. The first is the simultaneous scientification of politics and the politicisation of science. This has destructive effects: the increased use of scientific expertise by policy-makers has not increased the degree of certainty, in fact it becomes delegitimating. This gives rise to the second paradox: despite the loss of authority of scientific expertise, policy-makers do not abandon their reliance on existing advisory arrangements, nor do the scholars adapt their ideas on science and its relation to politics. How can this stability be achieved? How can science-politics be institutionalised? Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

NEW MODALITIES FOR THE PHARMACOTHERAPY OF ASTHMA: Leukotriene Inhibitors and Antagonists

Although the reasons for the worldwide growth in asthma prevalence are multifactorial, the evidence suggests that the frequent inability to treat early and aggressively the underlying inflammation associated with the disease lies close to the heart of the matter. It may be a paradox of science that our therapeutic failure has followed a number of important new insights into asthma’s pathogenesis and natural history. Most significantly, we have begun to comprehend the critical role of asthma’s inflammatory component. We also have identified many of the critical cells and mediators that amplify the inflammatory response, and have developed new strategies to inhibit their activity. A central target of investigation has been the family of leukotrienes. Our expanding knowledge base, built on a new understanding of the basic science and clinical effects of these products, is significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the biochemical complex of reactions associated with the family of leukotrienes has both pathologic and therapeutic consequences. More specifically, there is good evidence that leukotriene pathway inhibitors and receptor antagonists may be of particular utility in the treatment of patients with aspirinintolerant or exercise-induced asthma. Further studies are required to determine the relative efficacy of these drugs compared with that of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with moderate asthma or in more severe patients requiring oral corticosteroids. Given the progress already made, it is likely that, in the near future, these new compounds will come to play an important role in the management of asthma around the world.

Paradoxes of science as a system: (Fragments from the philosophy of science)

AbstractI. The general paradox of systems science: Systems scientists think that science is a system and that system science is a science. No one feels called on to explicate these relationships. Systems theorists do not believe it is incumbent on them to tell what way their discipline is a science. Nor do scientists feel obliged to say how the generic notion of system is binding on them.II. The paradox of theory versus practice: If theory is taken to be basic, practice is taken to be lower level applied theory. If practice is taken to be basic, theory is felt not to be able to pay its way.III. The paradox of basic research versus R & D: To the extent that Science embraces R & D, the scientist becomes a manager; a manager is not a Scientist.IV. When science as management becomes an integral part of the political economy, the scientific manager becomes a politician.V. Philosophy tries to unscramble this mess. For scientific practice it suggests a division of the work of science into experimentation governed by something like lab control and for the emotional romantic side of science a newly furbished discipline, essentially preaching, which it calls hermenuetics.VI. It has been said the ‘philosophy is the misuse of a vocabulary expressly designed for that purpose.’ Is this true? It almost looks like it. Since the early part of the century, and increasingly before WWII philosophy has been burying more of its messes under the catch‐all word ‘vocabulary.’ If you took the term away from logical positivists, logicians and Richard Rorty, they would not have much left. Leibniz said that mathematics is a well‐made language. Is the mathematician also a vocabulary? Nothing but a vocabulary? What about the philosopher or systematist who is one of Freud's anals, that is, ‘orderly, parsimonious and abstinate’? When will philosophers recognize that orality is a personality trait characteristic of only certain people?

Social Forces Shape Math Attitudes and Performance

Debate has continued throughout the last decade over the existence and possible causes of differences between males' and females' mathematical skills. Several observations recur as the focus of this controversy. First, adolescent boys have been found to score higher than girls on standardized mathematics achievement tests.' Second, males are more likely than females to engage in a variety of optional activities related to mathematics, from technical hobbies to careers in which math skills play an important role.2 Third, adolescent males typically perform better than their female

Quirk Topics Enliven Technical Writing Classes

The use of quirk topics can help solve one of the technical writing instructor's hardest problems: selection of a challenging topic. A quirk topic derives from some paradox of science or technology which, upon reflection, calls for thought. The quirk topic challenges the technical writing student to focus on the reader, gather data, and interpret and report data convincingly. This article explains the use of quirk topics, suggests twenty such topics, and explains how to solve problems of their use.

The postulate of adequacy: Phenomenological sociology and the paradox of science and sociality

Alfred Schutz's postulate of adequacy has become a focal point of discussions of phenomenological sociology. For its proponents (e.g., Filmer et al., 1972; Zijderveld, 1972; Winter, 1966), the postulate of adequacy represents a radical, perhaps revolutionary, methodological requirement that distinguishes the phenomenological approach from positivistic theoretical orientations and entails a reconceptualization of the very idea of social science. Critics of Schutz's phenomenological framework view this postulate as inadequately formulated, inconsistent with Schutz's general theoretical position, and irrelevant or harmful to what they take to be the central concerns of sociological theory. The following analysis is an attempt to clarify and interpret the nature and implications ofthe postulate of adequacy. While the analysis is inspired and guided by Schutz's theoretical framework, it clearly goes beyond the context and presuppositions in terms of which his postulate is formulated, and the claims made here are based more on critical interpretation than on exposition.2 This analysis argues that, despite certain

The paradox of science in the universities.

The paradox of science in the universities.