Esta dissertação aborda a controvérsia entre o naturalista inglês John Turberville Needham (1713-1781) e o naturalista italiano Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) sobre o tema da \"geração\" dos seres vivos. Inscrita no âmbito da História da Ciência e inserida na linha de pesquisa História Filosofia e Cultura no Ensino de Ciências, tem os objetivos de contextualizar a controvérsia Needham-Spallanzani a partir de estudos realizados por contemporâneos que desenvolveram trabalhos temática e metodologicamente semelhantes e de apresentar uma discussão sobre a ciência e o papel das controvérsias no desenvolvimento do pensamento científico. Além disso, discute a sua aplicação no ensino de Biologia, com vistas a uma abordagem explícita de questões relacionadas à Natureza da Ciência (NdC). Os resultados experimentais apresentados por Needham à Royal Society em 1748 continham evidências favoráveis à geração espontânea e foram apoiados por Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) e Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788). Incentivado por Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) e René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683-1754), Spallanzani repetiu os experimentos de Needham e publicou os resultados em sua obra mais conhecida, Saggio di osservazioni microscopiche concernenti il sistema della generazione de\' Signori di Needham e Buffon (Ensaio de observações microscópicas sobre o sistema da geração dos Senhores Needham e Buffon) de 1765, em que refutou os resultados do naturalista inglês. A esse livro se seguiram comentários e objeções feitos por Needham em obra publicada em 1769, e uma tréplica de Spallanzani publicada em uma coletânea de trabalhos, Opuscoli di fisica animale e vegetabile (Opúsculos de Física animal e vegetal) de 1776. A análise da controvérsia permitiu concluir que nenhum dos dois autores mudou de posição em função dos experimentos realizados por estarem baseados em pressupostos teóricos distintos. Discutido à luz do papel das controvérsias científicas na ciência, o episódio possibilitou delinear componentes epistêmicos e não-epistêmicos nas situações de conflito entre teorias científicas rivais, aspectos relevantes para a alfabetização científica almejada para o ensino de ciências. / This dissertation approaches the controversy between the english naturalist John Turberville Needham (1713-1781) and the Italian naturalist Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) on the theme of \"generation\" of living beings. As a work related to the History of Science and inserted in the search topic History, Philosophy and Culture in Science Teaching, it has the purposes to contextualize the Needham-Spallanzani controversy from studies carried out by contemporaries of these two naturalists who developed thematically and methodologically similar studies and topresent a discussion about science and the role of controversies in the development of scientific thought. Furthermore, it discusses its application in the teaching of Biology with a view to an explicit approach on the Nature of Science (NOS) issues The experimental results presented by Needham to the Royal Society in 1748 contained favorable evidences to spontaneous generation and were supported by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) and Georges-Louis Leclerc of Buffon (1707-1788). Encouraged by Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) and René Antoine Ferchault of Reaumur (1683-1754), Spallanzani repeated Needham\'s experiments and published the results in his most famous work, Saggio di osservazioni microscopiche concernenti il sistema della generazione dei\' Signori di Needham e Buffon (Essay of microscopic observations about the generation system of Mr. Needham and Mr. Buffon) of 1765, which refuted the results of the English naturalist. Following that book, comments and objections made by Needham were published in 1769, and a reply made by Spallanzani was published in the collection of works Opuscoli di fisica animale e vegetabile (Booklets of animal and plants Physics) of 1776. The analysis of this controversy led to the conclusion that none of the two authors changed position due to the experiments made since they were based on distinct theoretical assumptions. Discussed in light of the role of controversies in the development of scientific knowledge, this episode allow to outline epistemic and non-epistemic components in conflict situations between rival theories, relevant aspects to scientific literacy longed for science education.

Agricultural system models integrate many different processes that cannot all be measured in field experiments and help quantify soil water dynamics, crop evapotranspiration, and crop growth with high temporal resolution. Understanding soil water dynamics and crop evapotranspiration is essential to improve agricultural management of field crops. For example, the interaction between nitrogen application rate and water dynamics is not sufficiently understood. In most cases, model simulations deviate from field measurements, especially when model input parameters are indirectly and unspecifically derived. The extent to which measured soil hydraulic property inputs decrease the discrepancy between measured and simulated soil water status is not well understood. Consequently, this study: (i) investigated thr use of measured soil hydraulic properties as Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) inputs compared to indirectly derived inputs; (ii) explored the capability of calibrating measured soil hydraulic property input parameters for one crop and using them for other crops without further calibration; (iii) studied the effect of the nitrogen application rate on the behavior of soil water dynamics and crop evapotranspiration using RZWQM2 under different rainfall amounts. To evaluate the model in different field management conditions, a field experiment with soybean, corn, wheat, and fallow soil was conducted from 2015 – 2017 to collect field data to calibrate and validate the RZWQM2 model. The model presented a satisfactory response to using measured soil hydraulic property inputs and a satisfactory capability to quantify the effect of nitrogen rates on daily crop evapotranspiration, soil water dynamics, and crop growth. With sufficient measurements of soil hydraulic parameters, it was possible to build a RZWQM2 model that produced reasonable results even without calibration.

Contemporary scholars seeking to increase Tuber Melanosporum truffle production rely almost exclusively on technological advancements to increase yields, while failing to place the cultivation of truffles, trufficulture, in its historical or local landscape contexts. In this dissertation, I describe how truffle scholars’ conceptualization of trufficulture and landscapes has changed over 150 years in France, while focusing on the French département of Lot. I examine changing relations between humans and nonhumans and how they impact truffle harvests. I analyzed the history of French trufficulture through a close reading of historic truffle manuals, archival research and the classification of remotely sensed images. Shifting from the past to the present, from July 2014-August 2016, I conducted semi-structured survey interviews with working truffle-growers (trufficulteurs) and participant observation at meetings of trufficulteurs, truffle hunts and truffle markets. I utilize actor-network theory (ANT) as both a theory and methodology. Actor-network theory allowed me to follow the impacts made by both humans and nonhumans on trufficulture. I found that truffle harvests in the 1880s dropped by 90%. Highly populated, intensively worked landscapes of viticulture, silvopastoralism and cereal cultivation created conditions suitable to truffles. By the 1870s the phylloxera aphid ravaged grapevines, which made trufficulture an important source of revenue. These advantageous conditions would not last. Post-WWI, yields fell for decades because of an ongoing rural population exodus and consequent agricultural abandonment, which promoted reforestation and closed canopy forests in Lot, France. By the 1960s, French trufficulteurs organized associations to share knowledge and promote local truffle markets to revive production. Trufficulteurs’ utilization of tractors, ‘inoculated’ plants and irrigation systems produced a new form of “modern” trufficulture. State subsidies helped trufficulteurs adopt “modern” practices, in hopes of increasing yields. “Modern” trufficulture has not dramatically increased yields. A few highly-capitalized trufficulteurs dominate production in Lot. Many others practice trufficulture as a hobby. Instead of relying on “modern” technological fixes, my findings suggest that trufficulteurs, farmers and states should reinvigorate extensive polyculture farming practices that maintain open canopy forests, which were beneficial to trufficulture in the past. Actor-network theory allowed me to rethink human and nonhuman relations, and to propose alternatives to “modern” trufficulture.

Wissen, Wissenssammlungen und Wissensordnungen haben sich im Laufe der Jahre verändert, ebenso wie die Wissensproduktion, die Schaffung neuen Wissens, die Wissenschaft selbst. Der Baum des Wissens, arbor porphyriana oder auch arbor scientiae war seit der Antike eine gültige Metapher und das Klassifikationsschema für die Struktur des Wissens, die epistemologische Ordnung. So lehnte auch Denis Diderot die Ordnung seiner berühmten Enzyklopädie an die Baumstruktur des Wissens von Francis Bacon an. (...)

A philosophic account of quantum physics. The thesis is divided into two parts. Part I is dedicated to laying the groundwork of quantum physics, and explaining some of the primary difficulties. Subjects of interest will include the principle of locality, the quantum uncertainty principle, and Einstein's criterion for reality. Quantum dilemmas discussed include the double-slit experiment, observations of spin and polarization, EPR, and Bell's theorem. The first part will argue that mathematical-physical descriptions of the world fall short of explaining the experimental observations of quantum phenomenon. The problem, as will be argued, is framework of the physical descriptive schema. Part I includes in-depth discussions of mathematical principles. Part II will discuss the Copenhagen interpretation as put forth by its founders. The Copenhagen interpretation will be expressed as a paradox: The classical physical language cannot describe quantum phenomenon completely and with certainty, yet this language is the only possible method of articulating the physical world. The paradox of Copenhagen will segway into Kant's critique of metaphysics. Kant's understanding of causality, things-in-themselves, and a priori synthetic metaphysics. The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.

Ce mémoire se veut un examen épistémologique de la thèse psychoévolutionniste de Leda Cosmides et John Tooby, principalement en ce qui concerne la modularité massive. Nous avons tâché de voir si la modularité massive permet de rendre compte des processus mentaux complexes en nous penchant plus particulièrement sur le cas des émotions. Nous explorons d'abord la thèse de Cosmides et Tooby en la distinguant d'avec d'autres conceptions comme l'écologie béhaviorale et en expliquant le rôle particulier que jouent les émotions au sein de la théorie. Nous analysons ensuite la thèse de la modularité massive et les différents arguments théoriques ou empiriques qui l'appuient, et évaluons finalement des critiques de la modularité émises par certains philosophes, dont David Buller. / In this thesis, we enquired about the philosophical and empirical foundations of the psycho-evolutionary model of Cosmides and Tooby, especially with regards their Massive Modularity Thesis (MMT). We wanted to determine whether the MMT can account for complex mental processes such as emotions. The thesis first gives a general explanation of evolutionary psychology (as opposed to behavioral ecology or sociobiology) then evaluates different lines of argument for MMT. We then turn to the philosophical criticism of MMT by David Buller.

Vers la fin du 19ème siècle, le moine et réformateur hindou Swami Vivekananda affirma que la science moderne convergeait vers l'Advaita Vedanta, un important courant philosophique et religieux de l'hindouisme. Au cours des décennies suivantes, suite aux apports scientifiques révolutionnaires de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein et de la physique quantique, un nombre croissant d'auteurs soutenaient que d'importants "parallèles" pouvaient être tracés entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Encore aujourd'hui, de tels rapprochements sont faits, particulièrement en relation avec la physique quantique. Cette thèse examine de manière critique ces rapprochements à travers l'étude comparative détaillée de deux concepts: le concept d'akasa dans l'Advaita Vedanta et celui de vide en physique quantique. L'énoncé examiné est celui selon lequel ces deux concepts pointeraient vers une même réalité: un substratum omniprésent et subtil duquel émergent et auquel retournent ultimement les divers constituants de l'univers. Sur la base de cette étude comparative, la thèse argumente que des comparaisons de nature conceptuelle favorisent rarement la mise en place d'un véritable dialogue entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Une autre voie d'approche serait de prendre en considération les limites épistémologiques respectivement rencontrées par ces disciplines dans leur approche du "réel-en-soi" ou de la "réalité ultime." Une attention particulière sera portée sur l'épistémologie et le problème de la nature de la réalité dans l'Advaita Vedanta, ainsi que sur le réalisme scientifique et les implications philosophiques de la non-séparabilité en physique quantique. / Toward the end of the 19th century, the Hindu monk and reformer Swami Vivekananda claimed that modern science was inevitably converging towards Advaita Vedanta, an important philosophico-religious system in Hinduism. In the decades that followed, in the midst of the revolution occasioned by the emergence of Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, a growing number of authors claimed to discover striking "parallels" between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Such claims of convergence have continued to the present day, especially in relation to quantum physics. In this dissertation, an attempt is made to critically examine such claims by engaging a detailed comparative analysis of two concepts: akasa in Advaita Vedanta and vacuum in quantum physics. What is examined is the claim that both concepts would refer to the same reality — an enduring, subtle and all-pervading physical substratum out of which the constituents of the world come into existence and to which they ultimately return. Based on this study, the dissertation argues that comparisons relying on conceptual affinities alone generally fall short of establishing a productive dialogue between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Another approach is to bring into focus the epistemological limits respectively encountered by these systems when attempting to define the content of "reality-in-itself" or "ultimate reality." Emphasis is given to epistemology and the problem of reality in Advaita Vedanta, and scientific realism and philosophical implications of nonseparability in quantum physics.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Contemporary philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright (b. 1944) has raised many an eyebrow with her books How the Laws of Physics Lie (1983) and The Dappled World (1999), among others. The primary task of this dissertation is to link her philosophy with that of Charles S. Peirce (1839–1914)—a link that includes Duns Scotus. My focus is especially on the criticism Peirce would have of Cartwright, and on the philosophical support he can offer her. The question is this: Given her stated philosophy of science, to what else must Cartwright be philosophically committed? This includes discussions of metaphysics, scholastic realism, laws of nature, and the very possibility of science. There are many striking similarities between Peirce and Cartwright, but I argue that he sees further and deeper into the metaphysical implications of her views on science. / Graduate

This thesis examines philosophical controversies surrounding the evaluation of medical treatments, with a focus on the evidential roles of randomised trials and mechanisms in Evidence-Based Medicine. Current 'best practice' usually involves excluding non-randomised trial evidence from systematic reviews in cases where randomised trials are available for inclusion in the reviews. The first paper challenges this practice and evaluates whether adding of evidence from non-randomised trials might improve the quality and precision of some systematic reviews. The second paper compares the alleged methodological benefits of randomised trials over observational studies for investigating treatment benefits. It suggests that claims about the superiority of well-conducted randomised controlled trials over well-conducted observational studies are justified, especially when results from the two methods are contradictory. The third paper argues that postulating the unpredictability paradox in systematic reviews when no detectable empirical differences can be found requires further justification. The fourth paper examines the problem of absence causation in the context of explaining causal mechanisms and argues that a recent solution (Barros 2013) is incomplete and requires further justification. Solving the problem by describing absences as causes of 'mechanism failure' fails to take into account the effects of absences that lead to vacillating levels of mechanism functionality (i.e. differences in effectiveness or efficiency). The fifth paper criticises literature that has emphasised functioning versus 'broken' or 'non-functioning' mechanisms emphasising that many diseases result from increased or decreased mechanism function, rather than complete loss of function. Mechanistic explanations must account for differences in the effectiveness of performed functions, yet current philosophical mechanistic explanations do not achieve this. The last paper argues that the standard of evidence embodied in the ICE theory of technological function (i.e. testimonial evidence and evidence of mechanisms) is too permissive for evaluating whether the proposed functions of medical technologies have been adequately assessed and correctly ascribed. It argues that high-quality evidence from clinical studies is necessary to justify functional ascriptions to health care technologies. / <p>QC 20150312</p>