International audienceThis discussion paper proposes that a meaningful distinction between science and technoscience can be found at the level of the objects of research. Both notions intermingle in the attitudes, intentions, programs and projects of researchers and research institutions – that is, on the side of the subjects of research. But the difference between science and technoscience becomes more explicit when research results are presented in particular settings and when the objects of research are exhibited for the specific interest they hold. When an experiment is presented as scientific evidence, which confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis, this agrees with traditional conceptions of science. When organic molecules are presented for their capacity to serve individually as electric wires that carry surprisingly large currents, this would be a hallmark of technoscience. Accordingly, we propose research on the ontology of research objects. The focus on the material presence of research objects makes this a specifically philosophical project
Aquatic microbial ecology aims at nothing less than explaining the world from "ecological scratch". It develops theories, concepts and models about the small and invisible living world that is at the bottom of every macroscopic aquatic system. In this paper we propose to look at the development of Aquatic Microbial Ecology as a reiteration of classical (eukaryotic) limnology and oceanography. This was conceptualized moving historically from the so-called water desert to microcosm to ecosystem. Each of these concepts characterizes a particular historical field of knowledge that embraces also practices and theories about living beings in aquatic environments. Concerning the question of "who is there", however, Aquatic Microbial Ecology historically developed in reverse order. Repetition, reiteration and replication notwithstanding, Aquatic Microbial Ecology has contributed new ideas, theories and methods to the whole field of ecology as well as to microbiology. The disciplining of Aquatic Microbial Ecology happened in the larger field of plankton biology, and it is still attached to this biological domain, even conceiving of itself very self-consciously as a discipline of its own. Today, Aquatic Microbial Ecology as a discipline is much broader than plankton ecology ever was, for it includes not only oceans and freshwaters but also benthic, interstitial and groundwater systems. The success of Aquatic Microbial Ecology is expressed by its influence on other fields in ecology. The challenge is to further develop its theoretical and methodological features while at the same time contributing to current pressing problems such as climate change or the management of global water resources. although the use of molecular tools was evident, especially for describing the presence of taxonomically distinct populations, these new instruments had not (yet) been adapted to quantify fluxes or to study the control of fluxes. For DOLAN and coauthors, the questions formulated by POMEROY in 1974, regarding " … the identity of metabolically active microorganisms and their role in the food web", were still not resolved. Consequently they proposed that changes in the field might better be described by the term "gradualism" rather than "punctuation". However already in 1961, A. E. KRISS had said as much by stating that "The next endeavor [of marine microbiology] … must be the study of the dynamics of microbial populations regarding seasonal zooplankton migration and phyto plankton blooms. Thus microbiological surveys must be intensified by all available means …" otherwise we would never be able to tackle oceanographic problems and, eventually, make use of the observed processes (KRISS, 1961).So have we been replicating the same questions in aquatic microbial ecology for the last 50 years? And is aquatic microbial ecology nothing else than plankton biology under the worst possible conditions -to paraphrase an old saying about the relationship between ecology and physiology? To discuss these questions in a broader context we turned...
Francis Bacon's experimental philosophy is discussed, and the way in which it not only shapes scientific methodology but also deeply pervades all philosophical and social learning. Bacon draws us in to participate in an experiment with experience. The central driving force is the idea that learning how to learn is necessary in order to know. To meet this requirement, he considers the relation of form and content of pivotal importance, and therefore the selection of the literary form and the form of data inscription is decisive in the construction of a heuristic tool. His inductive method serves a dual purpose: first, the socalled indicative form aims at securing knowledge by a comprehensible procedure that controls and guides hypothetical thinking. Second, the literary forms "fragment" and "aphorism" embody the subjunctive, and invite intellectual openness and even speculation. In this article, special emphasis is put on Bacon's use and justification of the aphorism. Bacon's pervasive experimentalism meets in some sense today's broad adoption of the experimental mode. His philosophy calls for an ontology that is also at work in recent notions of co-action and co-working, or of affordance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.