Communism,Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms

This paper re-examines the relevance of three academic norms to contemporary academic life – communism, universalism and disinterestedness – based on the work of Robert Merton. The results of a web-based survey elicited responses to a series of value statements and were analysed using the weighted average method and through cross-tabulation. Results indicate strong support for communism as an academic norm defined in relation to sharing research results and teaching materials as opposed to protecting intellectual copyright and withholding access. There is more limited support for universalism based on the belief that academic knowledge should transcend national, political, or religious boundaries. Disinterestedness, defined in terms of personal detachment from truth claims, is the least popular contemporary academic norm. Here, the impact of a performative culture is linked to the need for a large number of academics to align their research interests with funding opportunities. The paper concludes by considering the claims of an alternate set of contemporary academic norms including capitalism, particularism and interestedness.     

Moral masquerades: Experimental exploration of the nature of moral motivation

Why do people act morally – when they do? Moral philosophers and psychologists often assume that acting morally in the absence of incentives or sanctions is a product of a desire to uphold one or another moral principle (e.g., fairness). This form of motivation might be called moral integrity because the goal is to actually be moral. In a series of experiments designed to explore the nature of moral motivation, colleagues and I have found little evidence of moral integrity. We have found considerable evidence of a different form of moral motivation, moral hypocrisy. The goal of moral hypocrisy is to appear moral yet, if possible, avoid the cost of being moral. To fully reach the goal of moral hypocrisy requires self-deception, and we have found evidence of that as well. Strengthening moral integrity is difficult. Even effects of moral perspective taking – imagining yourself in the place of the other (as recommended by the Golden Rule) – appear limited, further contributing to the moral masquerade.     

Visions of Brazilian Scientists on Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies

This article examines the visions on nanosciences and nanotechnologies (N&N) disseminated by a group of Brazilian scientists to legitimize this emergent field of research. For this purpose we analyzed reports on N&N published by the Journal of Science, edited daily by the Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science, from 2002 to 2007, covering the period in which the main events in domestic N&N research policy took place. Our analysis shows that researchers on N&N are spreading visions of progress, efficiency and competitiveness related to the advances in this field, giving little attention to issues such as potential risks, and economic, social and ethical implications of these technologies.

中医药科研道德责任的伦理学思考

科研道德作为一种意识形态,它既受科研实践的制约和影响,同时又具有反作用,可以促进或阻碍其发展。目前,科研道德责任在科研工作中愈来愈受到人们的关注。通过对中医药科研道德责任意义的认识,从分析当前中医药科研道德滑坡情况及其造成的危害入手,对科研道德责任进行理性思考,并探讨其对策。     

The Non-Conceptual Dimension of Social Mediation: Toward a Materialist Aufhebung of Hegel

ABSTRACT

Sellars’s relationship with Hegel is complex and itself ‘dialectical‘ in interesting ways. Sellars follows Hegel in recognizing that the normativity essential to intentionality and conceptuality is a social phenomenon. But Sellars criticizes Hegel for his inability to independently explain the emergence and function of this essential group phenomenon. I shall argue that Sellars’s critique of Hegel on this count is part of a larger, metaphysically ambitious and rigorously realistic position, which, though turning Hegel’s ontology on its head, shares with Hegel the methodological ambition of arriving at a position which is globally explanatorily closed. Further, it will be suggested that although Sellars would surely have been critical of the ontological reification of Hegel’s dialectical method, he nonetheless reserves an important role for conceptual dialectical development right at the heart of his system, namely in his understanding of the conceptual evolution that leads from the manifest to the scientific image. Finally, I shall argue that Sellars thereby aspires to provide nothing less than a materialist aufhebung of idealist Hegelian dialectics.     

领导者行为一致性研究:过去、现在与未来

领导者行为一致性是指员工关于领导者言行匹配程度的知觉模式。行为一致性是一个本身不存在善恶之说但对于达到道德上的善却非常必要的附属性美德。领导者行为一致性的测量方法包括情景测量法和量表测量法。在实证研究模型中,领导者行为一致性通常扮演因变量、自变量、中介变量和调节变量等角色。未来研究应该关注领导者行为一致性的多元测量方法,情景变量的调节效应,领导者行为不一致性,以及行为一致性概念在集体层次或员工层次上的应用等方面。     

Liberal naturalism and the scientific image of the world

ABSTRACT

This paper distinguishes between the theoretical scientific image (of the posits of the successful sciences) and the practical scientific image (which, besides explanatory posits, includes everything presupposed by the practices of doing science (e.g. scientists, funding agencies, laboratories, chairs and other artifacts, linguistic communication, a just and democratic ethos). The popular idea that there is a conceptual clash between the scientific and manifest images of the world is revealed as largely illusory. From the perspective of a liberal naturalism, the placement problem for ‘problematic’ entities or truths is not solved but dissolved. Persons, say, are not posits of any explanatory science, but beings acknowledged as rational agencies in second-personal space. Core elements of the manifest image (e.g. persons) are more deeply rooted in our conceptual scheme than any version of the scientific image.     

SCIENCE AND OTHER COMMON NOUNS: FURTHER IMPLICATIONS OF ANTI-ESSENTIALISM

The term “science” is a common noun that is used to designate a whole range of activities. If Reeves is right—and I think he is—that there is no essence to these activities that allows them to be objectively identified and demarcated from nonscience, then what qualifies as science is determined by communities. It becomes much more difficult on this antiessentialism position to identify and dismiss pseudo-science. I suggest we might find a way forward, though, by engaging a philosophical tradition that has largely been neglected in English-speaking science and religion studies, and by articulating a theory of consensus along the lines of Oreskes (2019).     

Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: Results from a replication study and an international comparison

Research on scientific integrity is growing in psychology, and questionable research practices (QRPs) have received more attention due to its harmful effect on science. By replicating the procedures of previous research, the present study aimed at describing the use of QRPs among Brazilian psychological researchers and to make an international comparison with previous studies in other countries—the US and Italy. Two hundred and thirty-two Brazilian researchers in the field of psychology answered questions related to 10 different QRPs. Brazilian researchers indicated a lower tendency to engage in two QRPs (failing to report all of a study's dependent measures; deciding whether to collect more data after looking to see whether the results were significant) when compared to their Italian and North American counterparts, but indicated a higher tendency to engage in two other QRPs (selectively reporting studies that “worked”; not reporting all of a study's conditions). Most of the sample did not admit integrity conflicts in their own research but indicated that others have integrity problems, as observed in previous studies. Those discrepancies could be attributed to contextual and systemic factors regarding different publication demands among the different nations. Further studies should focus on identifying the antecedents of QRPs.     

OVERVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW

Abstract. Understanding the structure of a scientific world view is important for the dialogue between science and religion. In this essay, I define comprehensive worldview and distinguish it from the more focused non comprehensive worldview. I explain that scientists and the public at large agree that modern research works in a scientific as opposed to nonscientific worldview. I give some of the essential elements of any scientific worldview that differentiate it from nonscientific ones. These elements are the general pre suppositions of science, the methods of science, and the articles of justification for the conclusions science puts forward. I question whether a scientific worldview can allow philosophical and theological tenets, which might appear to stand opposed to scientific paradigms, and conclude that the answer lies in the scope of its comprehensiveness.