Can the behavioral sciences self-correct? A social epistemic study

Advocates of the self-corrective thesis argue that scientific method will refute false theories and find closer approximations to the truth in the long run. I discuss a contemporary interpretation of this thesis in terms of frequentist statistics in the context of the behavioral sciences. First, I identify experimental replications and systematic aggregation of evidence (meta-analysis) as the self-corrective mechanism. Then, I present a computer simulation study of scientific communities that implement this mechanism to argue that frequentist statistics may converge upon a correct estimate or not depending on the social structure of the community that uses it. Based on this study, I argue that methodological explanations of the “replicability crisis” in psychology are limited and propose an alternative explanation in terms of biases. Finally, I conclude suggesting that scientific self-correction should be understood as an interaction effect between inference methods and social structures.     

Inconsistent idealizations and inferentialism about scientific representation

Inferentialists about scientific representation hold that an apparatus's representing a target system consists in the apparatus allowing “surrogative inferences” about the target. I argue that a serious problem for inferentialism arises from the fact that many scientific theories and models contain internal inconsistencies. Inferentialism, left unamended, implies that inconsistent scientific models have unlimited representational power, since an inconsistency permits any conclusion to be inferred. I consider a number of ways that inferentialists can respond to this challenge before suggesting my own solution. I develop an analogy to exploitable glitches in a game. Even though inconsistent representational apparatuses may in some sense allow for contradictions to be generated within them, doing so violates the intended function of the apparatus's parts and hence violates representational “gameplay”.     

Silent performances: Are “repertoires” really post-Kuhnian?

Ankeny and Leonelli (2016) propose “repertoires” as a new way to understand the stability of certain research programs as well as scientific change in general. By bringing a more complete range of social, material, and epistemic elements into one framework, they position their work as a correction to the Kuhnian impulse in philosophy of science and other areas of science studies. I argue that this “post-Kuhnian” move is not complete, and that repertoires maintain an internalist perspective. Comparison with an alternative framework, the “sociotechnical imaginaries” of Jasanoff and Kim (2015), illustrates precisely which elements of practice are externalized by Ankeny and Leonelli. Specifically, repertoires discount the role of audience, without whom the repertoires of science are unintelligible, and lack an explicit place for ethical and political imagination, which provide meaning for otherwise mechanical promotion of particular research programs. This comparison reveals, I suggest, two distinct modes of scholarship, one internalist and the other critical. While repertoires can be modified to meet the needs of critical STS scholars and to completely reject Kuhn's internalism, whether or not we do so depends on what we want our scholarship to achieve.     

《植病研究法》课程教学改革与实践

《植病研究法》是植物保护专业的一门专业限选课，为适应新时期植病研究方法课程教学改革与发展的需要，针对植病研究法课程的现状及存在问题，探讨改进教学内容、教学方法与手段以及考核方式的有效途径，旨在为提高教学质量、培养学生对植物病理学研究的兴趣及实际应用能力提供参考。     

“中层性质”的因果力与稳健性论证

"中层性质",例如化学、生物学、生态学等特殊科学关涉的物的性质,是否具有因果力,向来是科学哲学中还原主义与反还原主义争论的焦点问题。在为中层性质拥有自发的、不可还原的因果力辩护的论证当中,基于干预主义因果理论的稳健性论证,相较于传统论证具有一定的优势:中层性质的因果力来自于中层的因果共变的稳健性,因而独立于底层,进而能够回应因果排他问题。但进一步分析稳健性论证所提供的案例表明,事实上,稳健性所依赖的中层性质对底层性质的反馈性约束作用才是中层性质具有因果力的关键理由,然而该反馈性约束作用不普遍适用于所有的中层性质;换言之,并非所有中层性质都具有独特的因果力。     

基于因果岭回归的多数据源科研主题识别方法

为了有效解决多数据源科研主题的识别问题,基于因果岭回归建立了一种新的多数据源科研主题识别方法.该方法首先给出了多数据源科研主题识别关键参数(如主题词的引用权重、状态密度)的评价指标;同时根据科研主题形态特征建立了特征函数,并基于因果岭回归给出了具体识别方法;最后,通过仿真实验深入研究了影响该识别方法的关键因素.结果显示,与朴素贝叶斯、KNN算法和MGe-LDA算法相比较,该方法在价值引用量、引用权重和前沿主题相似度等方面具有较大优势.     

开放科学及建构的制度逻辑

科学与技术是两种不同的制度模式,前者属于科学共和国"Republic of Science",后者属于技术王国"Realm of Technology",两者具有天生的互补性。开放科学作为一种非市场化的激励制度,提出一套基于优先权的报酬体制,强调在知识产权保护前提下追求创新知识社会福利的最大化,对于催生高质量的研究和创新(Research&Innovation)至关重要。本文在阐述开放科学起源、发展与理论内涵的基础上,重点从公共资助、累积创新、知识产权保护和知识分工四个方面,深入探究了开放科学建构的制度逻辑。     

Extensional scientific realism vs. intensional scientific realism

Extensional scientific realism is the view that each believable scientific theory is supported by the unique first-order evidence for it and that if we want to believe that it is true, we should rely on its unique first-order evidence. In contrast, intensional scientific realism is the view that all believable scientific theories have a common feature and that we should rely on it to determine whether a theory is believable or not. Fitzpatrick argues that extensional realism is immune, while intensional realism is not, to the pessimistic induction. I reply that if extensional realism overcomes the pessimistic induction at all, that is because it implicitly relies on the theoretical resource of intensional realism. I also argue that extensional realism, by nature, cannot embed a criterion for distinguishing between believable and unbelievable theories.     

赵九章科学研究的系统性思想刍议

著名的"两弹一星"元勋赵九章是一位"领军型"的科学家。他不但是科学研究领域中的多面手,而且在在科技管理、科技攻关方面具有出色的能力。他系统性的科学研究思想今年看来仍没有过时,对今天的科技界仍颇具启发和借鉴意义。他的"任务带学科,学科促任务"的思想,他的教育与科研结合的思想,他立足生产实践的科研思想,以及"鸡爪变鸭掌"的系统性思想都是科学研究的宝贵精神财富。