scholarly journals The COVID-19 pandemic, proper science and everything else

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Rudan
Keyword(s):  
Proper Science

Semiotics of Human Body and Character

1998 ◽  
pp. 298-301
Author(s):  
Sabine Vogt
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
Human Body ◽  
Central Point ◽  
Logical Analysis ◽  
Central Problem ◽  
External Appearance ◽  
Logical Basis ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Triadic Relation ◽  
Proper Science

Whenever we meet an unknown person, our first judgment, even unwillingly and often subconsciously, starts from his or her external appearance. Since character can be properly recognized only from words and deeds observed over some time, at first sight we have to rely on what we immediately can see. This physiognomical first approach to each other is as old as humankind, and, though it has never been able to be proved a proper science, in everyday life we all believe in and use physioculture. The earliest extant written work on the subject is the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise Physiognomonica. The author of its first part, in discussing the methodology of the art, refers to Aristotle, who develops the logical foundation of physiognomical inference: as an enthymeme, a syllogism from signs. Yet, concentrating solely on the formal logical analysis, Aristotle does not touch the central point of physiognomics; it C. S. Peirce’s discovery of the triadic relation of the sign that was able to shed new light on this central problem and to see physiognomics as a process of semiosis. Thus, Aristotle founded the formal logical basis, from which modern semiotics developed new approaches to physiognomics, taking them in account in several strands of their research.

scholarly journals Kant’s conception of proper science

Synthese ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 183 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hein van den Berg
Keyword(s):  
Proper Science

A question of style: method, integrity and the meaning of proper science

Endeavour ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Penders ◽  
Rein Vos ◽  
Klasien Horstman
Keyword(s):  
Proper Science

scholarly journals Proper science in moist biology

EMBO Reports ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 613-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Penders ◽  
Klasien Horstman ◽  
Rein Vos
Keyword(s):  
Proper Science

What Was Kant’s Contribution to the Understanding of Biology?

Kant Yearbook ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Idan Shimony
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Philosophy ◽  
Modern Biology ◽  
Biological Phenomena ◽  
Conceptual Problems ◽  
The One ◽  
Proper Science ◽  
Philosophical Underpinning ◽  
Empirical System

AbstractKant’s theory of biology in the Critique of the Power of Judgment may be rejected as obsolete and attacked from two opposite perspectives. In light of recent advances in biology one can claim contra Kant, on the one hand, that biological phenomena, which Kant held could only be explicated with the help of teleological principles, can in fact be explained in an entirely mechanical manner, or on the other, that despite the irreducibility of biology to physico-mechanical explanations, it is nonetheless proper science. I argue in response that Kant’s analysis of organisms is by no means obsolete. It reveals biology’s uniqueness in much the same way as several current theorists do. It brings to the fore the unique purposive characteristics of living phenomena, which are encapsulated in Kant’s concept of “natural end” and which must be explicated in natural terms in order for biology to become a science. I maintain that Kant’s reluctance to consider biology proper science is not a consequence of his critical philosophy but rather of his inability to complete this task. Kant lacked an appropriate theoretical framework, such as provided later by modern biology, which would enable the integration of the unique features of biology in an empirical system. Nevertheless, as I show in this paper, the conceptual problems with which Kant struggled attest more to the relevance and depth of his insights than to the shortcomings of his view. His contribution to the biological thought consists in insisting on an empirical approach to biology and in providing the essential philosophical underpinning of the autonomous status of biology.

scholarly journals The eWaterCycle platform for Open and FAIR Hydrological collaboration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf Hut ◽  
Niels Drost ◽  
Nick van de Giesen ◽  
Ben van Werkhoven ◽  
Banafsheh Abdollahi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Model Comparison ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Model Studies ◽  
Model Code ◽  
Water Wheel ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
Proper Science ◽  
Reproducible Manner

Abstract. Hutton (2016) argued that computational hydrology can only be a proper science if the hydrological community makes sure that hydrological model studies are executed and presented in a reproducible manner. We replied that to achieve this, hydrologists shouldn't ‘re-invent the water wheel’ but rather use existing technology from other fields (such as containers and ESMValTool) and open interfaces (such as BMI) to do their computational science (Hut, 2017). With this paper and the associated release of the eWaterCycle platform and software package1 we are putting our money where our mouth is and provide the hydrological community with a ‘FAIR by design’ platform to do our science. eWaterCycle is a platform that separates the experiment done on the model from the model code. In eWaterCycle hydrological models are accessed through a common interface (BMI) in Python and run inside of software containers. In this way all models are accessed in a similar manner facilitating easy switching of models, model comparison and model coupling. Currently the following models are available through eWaterCycle: PCR-GLOBWB 2.0, wflow, Hype, LISFLOOD, TopoFlex HBV, MARRMoT and WALRUS. While these models are written in different programming languages they can all be run and interacted with from the Jupyter notebook environment within eWaterCycle. Furthermore, the pre-processing of input data for these models has been streamlined by making use of ESMValTool. Forcing for the models available in eWaterCycle from well known datasets such as ERA5 can be generated with a single line of code. To illustrate the type of research that eWaterCycle facilitates this manuscript includes five case studies: from a simple ‘Hello World’ where only a hydrograph is generated to a complex coupling of models in different languages. In this manuscript we stipulate the design choices made in building eWaterCycle and provide all the technical details to understand and work with the platform. For system administrators who want to install eWaterCycle on their infrastructure we offer a separate installation guide. For computational hydologist who want to work with eWaterCycle we also provide a video explaining the platform from a users point of view. With the eWaterCycle platform we are providing the hydrological community with a platform to conduct their research fully compatible with the principles of Open Science as well as FAIR science.1available on Zenodo: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5119389

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document