Throughout the biological and biomedical sciences there is a growing need for, prescriptive ‘minimum information’ (MI) checklists specifying the key information to include when reporting experimental results are beginning to find favor with experimentalists, analysts, publishers and funders alike. Such checklists aim to ensure that methods, data, analyses and results are described to a level sufficient to support the unambiguous interpretation, sophisticated search, reanalysis and experimental corroboration and reuse of data sets, facilitating the extraction of maximum value from data sets (...) them. However, such ‘minimum information’ MI checklists are usually developed independently by groups working within representatives of particular biologically- or technologically-delineated domains. Consequently, an overview of the full range of checklists can be difficult to establish without intensive searching, and even tracking thetheir individual evolution of single checklists may be a non-trivial exercise. Checklists are also inevitably partially redundant when measured one against another, and where they overlap is far from straightforward. Furthermore, conflicts in scope and arbitrary decisions on wording and sub-structuring make integration difficult. This presents inhibit their use in combination. Overall, these issues present significant difficulties for the users of checklists, especially those in areas such as systems biology, who routinely combine information from multiple biological domains and technology platforms. To address all of the above, we present MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations); a web-based communal resource for such checklists, designed to act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for those exploring the range of extant checklist projects, and to foster collaborative, integrative development and ultimately promote gradual integration of checklists. (shrink)

Do children have a theory of mind? If they do, at what age is it acquired? What is the content of the theory, and how does it differ from that of adults? The Child's Theory of Mind integrates the diverse strands of this rapidly expanding field of study. It charts children's knowledge about a fundamental topic - the mind - and characterizes that developing knowledge as a coherent commonsense theory, strongly advancing the understanding of everyday theories as well as the (...) commonsense theory of mind. Wellman presents evidence that children as young as age three do possess a commonsense theory of mind - that they grasp the distinction between mental constructs and physical entities and that they have an understanding of the relationship between individuals' mental states and their overt actions. He delves in detail into questions about the nature of adults' commonsense theories of mind and about the nature of commonsense theories. Wellman then examines the content of the three-year-old's theory of mind, the nature of children's notions of mind before age three, the changes in the theory during subsequent development from ages three to six, and the young child's conception of mind in comparison with those of older children and adults. Henry M. Wellman is a Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Center for Human Growth and Development at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. (shrink)

The idea of a single scientific method, shared across specialties and teachable to ten-year-olds, is just over a hundred years old. For centuries prior, science had meant a kind of knowledge, made from facts gathered through direct observation or deduced from first principles. But during the nineteenth century, science came to mean something else: a way of thinking. The Scientific Method tells the story of how this approach took hold in laboratories, the field, and eventually classrooms, where science was once (...) taught as a natural process. Henry M. Cowles reveals the intertwined histories of evolution and experiment, from Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection to John Dewey's vision for science education. Darwin portrayed nature as akin to a man of science, experimenting through evolution, while his followers turned his theory onto the mind itself. Psychologists reimagined the scientific method as a problem-solving adaptation, a basic feature of cognition that had helped humans prosper. This was how Dewey and other educators taught science at the turn of the twentieth century-but their organic account was not to last. Soon, the scientific method was reimagined as a means of controlling nature, not a product of it. By shedding its roots in evolutionary theory, the scientific method came to seem far less natural, but far more powerful. This book reveals the origin of a fundamental modern concept. Once seen as a natural adaptation, the method soon became a symbol of science's power over nature, a power that, until recently, has rarely been called into question. (shrink)

For William Whewell and, later, Charles Peirce, the methods of science merited scientific examination themselves. Looking to history to build an inductive account of the scientific process, both men transformed scientific methods into scientific evidence. What resulted was a peculiar instance of what Ian Hacking calls “the looping effects of human kinds,” in which classifying human behavior changes that behavior. In the cases of Whewell and Peirce, the behavior in question was their own: namely, scientific study. This essay brings Hacking’s (...) formulation to bear on the status of science in nineteenth-century intellectual history, revealing the continued entanglement of science and philosophy even as they were being prized apart. Focusing on how Whewell and Peirce turned themselves into “scientific kinds,” the essay reveals the slippage between “what” and “how” across what Peirce once called “the age of methods.”. (shrink)

Selection bias? Content Type Journal Article DOI 10.1007/s11016-010-9490-4 Authors Henry M. Cowles, Program in History of Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA Journal Metascience Online ISSN 1467-9981 Print ISSN 0815-0796.

The practice of evidence based medicine has changed the role of the physician from information dispenser to gatherer and analyser. Studies and controlled trials that may contain unknown errors, or uncertainties, are the primary sources for evidence based decisions in medicine. These sources may be corrupted by a number of means, such as inaccurate statistical analysis, statistical manipulation, population bias, or relevance to the patient in question. Regardless of whether any of these inaccuracies are apparent, the uncertainty of their presence (...) in physician information should be disclosed to the patient. These uncertainties are not, however, shared by physicians with patients, and have caused a direct increase in patient responsibilities and mistrust. Only when disclosure of uncertainty becomes commonplace in medical practice will the physician/patient relationship evolve to a level of greater understanding and satisfaction for both the physician and patient. (shrink)

Offers a physical explanation of the Coriolis force. This book is useful for studying the hydrodynamics of the ocean and atmosphere. It also presents many aspects of classical mechanics/dynamics physics. It explains the complexities of this force, about which many scientists have had lingering uncertainties since it was first described in 1831.

Lomonosov began his scientific career with the study of mining, but his active mind quickly led him to the considerations of physics and chemistry which occupied most of his life. Only toward the end of his career did he begin the systematic treatment of geology and metallurgy. The guiding principle of his thought in these fields became and remained a belief in the extreme age of the earth and the constant modification of its surface. He assumed the presence of a (...) central fire produced by the gradual consumption of sulphur, whose combustion produced earthquakes and mountain formation. Rock formed from clay and eroded into sand which could again be compacted to rock. Plants and animals produced alkaline and earthy materials which by combination with vitriolic acid and phlogiston from burning sulphur gave salt and metals. Fossils were petrified organic remains. (shrink)

It used to be thought that, just as word-initialfl… and fr… behaved likepl…, pr…, tr…, etc., in not producing a long syllable when following a word-final short vowel, just so word-internal …fl… and …fr… allowed both the short and, except for the pre-classical scenic poets, the long scansion. It was implied that these clusters oscillated with the same degree of freedom which is the well-known characteristic of the stop-and-liquid clusters. The difficulty is, of course, that evidence can be no more (...) than minimal since in truly Latin material f occurs only at the beginning of words or after a compounding seam. In fact, the argument, explicit or implicit, has turned on Horace, Sat. 1.2.98: custodes lectica ceniflones parasitae; Horace, Sat. 2.2.131: ilium aut nequities aut uafri inscitia iuris; Ov. Ars 3.332: cuiue pater uafri luditur arte Getae; Martial 6.64.26: stigmata nec uafra delebit Cinnamus arte; 12.66.3: arte sed emptorem uafra corrumpis Amoene; Phaedrus 2.6.14: inducta uafris aquila monitis paruit; Silius 8.566: et quos aut Rufrae quos aut Aesernia quosue, and Martial 4.71.1: quaero diu totam Safroni Rufe per urbem. (shrink)

Nous reproduisons ici, avec l’aimable autorisation de la Hofbibliothek Aschaffenburg (Allemagne), la courte correspondance inédite entre Dingler et Henri Poincaré. Cette correspondance, conservée aux Archives Dingler dans la Hofbibliothek Aschaffenburg (et mentionnée dans le catalogue du Nachlass de Dingler [Wolters & Schroeder-Heister 1979]), consiste en trois documents : un brouillon en allemand de la main de Dingler, sa traduction française par une autre plume, mais avec des corrections ef...

There is no descriptive science of the stream of consciousness in the literature of the social sciences, and as a result, we do not have an empirical understanding of the nature of the healthy human mind.This paper will:(1)demonstrate that an empirically valid theory of the healthy mind must be a theory that isderived from a descriptive science ofthe stream of consciousness (2) present the rationale and methodology for doing interviews with a specific group ofTibetan lamas who have been using meditation (...) for over ten and a half centuries todevelop a descriptive science/if the streamofconsciousnessand (3) present briefexcerpts from some ofthe interviews I have been doing with these lamas. In these interviews, the lamas discuss their experiences of their own mind in meditation for the purpose of: (1) developing a descriptive science ofthe stream of consciousness and (2) using that descriptive science to discuss and describe the defining characteristics ofthe healthy human mind. (shrink)