PL EN


2017 | 53 | 4(214) | 405-428
Article title

Towards an evolutionary model of science dynamics: generation and production of scientific knowledge

Authors
Content
Title variants
PL
Ku ewolucyjnemu modelowi dynamiki nauki: generowanie i produkcja wiedzy naukowej
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The paper proposes a modifi ed version of BVSR model of research process. At the level of individual heuristics-driven variation it uses beta (IBP) and Dirichlet (CRP) random clustering processes. At the SR level it elaborates two main research strategies based on team reasoning principles: inventive and explorative strategies. They are differentiated by the phase of “heuristics routinizer”.
PL
Artykuł wprowadza model procesu badawczego jako modyfi kację BVSR. na poziomie zmienności jednostkowej proponuje process beta (IBP) oraz Dirichlet (CRP) jako losowe procesy klastrowania. Na poziomie SR opracowuje dwie zasadnicze strategie badawcze, oparte na zasadach myślenia zbiorowego: strategie przełomową oraz odkrywczą. Są one różnicowane przez fazę określaną jako „rutynizacja heurystyki”.
Year
Volume
53
Issue
Pages
405-428
Physical description
Dates
published
2017-12
Contributors
  • Faculty of Philosophy, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
References
  • Ambros V., 2001, microRNAs: Tiny Regulators with Great Potential, “Cell” 107.7: 823–826.
  • Ambros V., 2004, The Functions of Animal microRNAs, “Nature” 431.7006: 350.
  • Ambros V., Horvitz H., 1984, Heterochronic Mutants of the Nematode, “Science” 226: 409–416.
  • Antonelli C., 2017, Endogenous Innovation, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Applbaum K., 2006, Pharmaceutical Marketing and the Invention of the Medical Consumer, “PLOS Medicine” 3.4.
  • Applbaum K., 2009, Is Marketing the Enemy of Pharmaceutical Innovation?, “Hastings Center Report” 39.4: 13–17.
  • Arnauld A., Nicole P., 1996, Logic, Or, The Art of Thinking: Containing, besides Common Rules, Several New Observations Appropriate for Forming Judgment, (J.V. Buroker, trans.) (5th ed., and newly augmented.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bacharach M., 2006, Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, N. Gold, R. Sugden, eds., Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
  • Bacharach M., Stahl D.O., 2000, Variable-Frame Level-N Theory, “Games and Economic Behavior” 32.2: 220–246.
  • Bartel D.P., 2004, MicroRNAs: Genomics, Biogenesis, Mechanism, and Function, “Cell” 116.2: 281–297.
  • Böhme G., Daele W., Hohlfeld R., Krohn W., Schäfer W., 1983, Finalization in Science: The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress, (P. Burgess, trans.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Braunerhjelm P., 2012, Innovation and Growth: A Technical or Entrepreneurial Residual?, in: M. Andersson, B. Johansson, C. Karlsson, H. Lööf, eds., Innovation and Growth: From R&D Strategies of Innovating Firms to Economy-Wide Technological Change (1st ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 286–316.
  • Brouwer E., Kleinknecht A., 1999, Innovative Output, and a Firm’s Propensity to Patent: An Exploration of CIS Micro Data, “Research Policy” 28.6: 615–624.
  • Campbell D.T., 1960, Blind Variation and Selective Retentions in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes, “Psychological Review” 67.6: 380–400.
  • Carrier M., 2011, Knowledge, Politics, and Commerce: Science Under the Pressure of Practice, in: M. Carrier, A. Nordmann, eds., Science in the Context of Application (Vol. 274), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, p. 11–30.
  • Collins Harry M., Evans R., 2009, Rethinking Expertise, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
  • Collins H.M., Evans R., 2002, The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, “Social Studies of Science” 32.2: 235–296.
  • Descartes R., 2006, A Discourse on the Method of Correctly Conducting One’s Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, (I. Maclean, trans.), Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Devlin W.J., Bokulich A., eds., 2015, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On (Vol. 311), Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  • Esquela-Kerscher A., Slack F.J., 2006, Oncomirs — microRNAs with a Role in Cancer, “Nature Reviews Cancer” 6.4: 259–269.
  • Foster J.G., Rzhetsky A., Evans J.A., 2015, Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies, “American Sociological Review” 80.5: 875–908.
  • Fuller S., 2007, New Frontiers in Science and Technology, Cambridge: Polity.
  • Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M., 1994, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: SAGE.
  • Gigerenzer G., Brighton H., 2009, Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences, “Topics in Cognitive Science” 1.1: 107–143.
  • Hacking I., 1999, The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  • Heinze T., 2013, Creative Accomplishments in Science: Definition, Theoretical Considerations, Examples from Science History, and Bibliometric Findings, “Scientometrics” 95.3: 927–940.
  • Hessels L.K., Grin J., Smits R.E.H.M., 2011, The Effects of a Changing Institutional Environment on Academic Research Practices: Three Cases from Agricultural Science, “Science and Public Policy” 38.7: 555–568.
  • Hull D.L., 1988, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Izquierdo L.R., Izquierdo S.S., Galán J.M., Santos J.I., 2009, Techniques to Understand Computer Simulations: Markov Chain Analysis, “Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation” 12.1: 6.
  • Kawalec P., 2017, Perspectival Representation in DSGE Models, “Economics and Business Review” 3.3: 80–99.
  • Kitcher P., 2001, Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Koepsell D.R., 2015, Who Owns You? Science, Innovation, and the Gene Patent Wars (Second edition.), Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Ladyman J., 2007, Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological Positions, in: T. Kuipers (ed.), General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues (Vol. 1), Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 303–376.
  • Lee R.C., Ambros V., 2001, An Extensive Class of Small RNAs in Caenorhabditis Elegans, “Science” 294.5543: 862–864.
  • Lee R.C., Feinbaum R.L., Ambros V., 1993, The C. Elegans Heterochronic Gene Lin-4 Encodes Small RNAs with Antisense Complementarity to Lin-14, “Cell” 75.5: 843–854.
  • Losee J., 1993, A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lu J., Getz G., Miska E.A., Alvarez-Saavedra E., Lamb J., Peck D., … Golub T.R., 2005, MicroRNA Expression Profiles Classify Human Cancers, “Nature” 435.7043: 834–838.
  • Mirowski P., 2011, Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  • Nickles T., 2009, The Strange Story of Scientific Method, in: J. Meheus, T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, p. 167–207.
  • Nickles T., 2016, Fast and Frugal Heuristics at Research Frontiers, in: E. Ippoliti, F. Sterpetti, T. Nickles. eds., Models and Inferences in Science (Vol. 25), Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 31–54.
  • Nowotny H., Scott P., Gibbons M., 2001, Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  • Pasquinelli A.E., Reinhart B.J., Slack F., Martindale M.Q., Kuroda M.I., Maller B., … Ruvkun E., 2000, Conservation of the Sequence and Temporal Expression of Let-7 Heterochronic Regulatory RNA, “Nature” 408.6808: 86–89.
  • Pitman J., 2006, Combinatorial Stochastic Processes: Ecole D’ete de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXII – 2002, (J. Picard, ed.), Berlin ; New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Radder H., ed., 2010, Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Scharnhorst A., Börner K., van den Besselaar P., eds., 2012, Models of Science Dynamics, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Simonton D.K., 2012a, Foresight, Insight, Oversight, and Hindsight in Scientific Discovery: How Sighted Were Galileo’s Telescopic Sightings?, “Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts” 6.3: 243–254.
  • Simonton D.K., 2012b, Combinatorial Creativity and Sightedness: Monte Carlo Simulations Using Three-Criterion Definitions, “The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving” 22.2: 5–18.
  • Simonton D.K., 2013, Creative Thought as Blind Variation and Selective Retention: Why Creativity Is Inversely Related to Sightedness, “Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology” 33.4: 253–266.
  • Simonton D.K., 2015, On Praising Convergent Thinking: Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention, “Creativity Research Journal” 27.3: 262–270.
  • van Fraassen B.C., 2014, The Criterion of Empirical Grounding in the Sciences, in: W.J. Gonzalez, ed., Bas van Fraassen’s Approach to Representation and Models in Science, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, p. 79–100.
  • Zamora-Bonilla J., 2016, Is Science A Market?: Positivist Essays on Philosophy of Science, Metaphysics, and Religion, Kindle edition: Amazon.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-3fcb150d-129d-45a8-a2bd-a881d987faac
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.