Thesis (M.S.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2009. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Science benefits from substantial cognitive diversity because cognitive diversity promotes scientific progress toward greater accuracy. Without diversity of goals, beliefs, and methods, science would neither generate novel discoveries nor certify representations with its present effectiveness. The revolution in geosciences is a principal case study.The role of cognitive diversity in discovery is explored with attention to computational results. Discovery and certification are inseparable. Moreover, diverse scientific groups agree convergently, and their agreements manifest an explanatory defense akin to the explanatory defense of realism. Scientists accept representations as a matter of their instrumental success in individual scientific research. Because scientists are diverse, this standard of acceptance means that widespread acceptance involves widespread instrumental success. This success is best explained through the accuracy of topics of agreement.The pessimistic induction is addressed; it fails to undermine the explanatory defense because past scientific successes don't resemble present ones in their degree of instrumental success; to make this point, instrumental success of representations of caloric and of oxygen are compared.Cognitive diversity challenges the methodological uniformity of scientific practice. Science lacks uniform methods and aims, and it ought to. It is argued that there is no sound basis for thinking that science aims. Moreover, the growth of science itself is not the growth of knowledge. Scientific communities rather than individual scientists are the main certifiers of scientific results. Hence, since knowledge requires a certifying belief formation process but the process relevant to science is not realized individually, science does not progress toward knowledge. The epistemology of science is socialized, but remains broadly realist because, even without a method of inquiry, science develops accurate representations of unobservable nature.

The case study as a scientific method is, and has been for a long time, a subject of heavy discussion in the scientific community. Some scientists disregard the study completely and argue that it’s nothing more than story-telling, while others claim that the case study is the most relevant research method there is. As with all scientific methods case studies have both advantages and disadvantages and the aim of this study is to present and discuss these.

The need for office efficiency is now of paramount importance. Great strides have been made in factory production methods and procedures during the first half of the twentieth century. But to the present, application of scientific management solution of office problems has been much slower.

In Sex Curve, a quirky cast of characters goes to war with oxytosin, the hormone which makes a woman fall in love with the person she sleeps with. Brilliant biochemist, Marissa, puts love to the ultimate test in this biting satire.

Thesis advisor: Richard Cobb-Stevens / Thesis advisor: Jean-Luc Solere / This dissertation attempts to locate the origins of Descartes' concept of mind in his early, unfinished treatise on scientific method, the <italic>Regulae ad directionem ingenii</italic>. It claims that one can see, in this early work, Descartes' commitment to substance dualism for methodological reasons. In order to begin an analysis of the <italic>Regulae</italic>, one must first attempt to resolve textual disputes concerning its integrity and one must understand the text as a historical work, dialectically situated in the tradition of late sixteenth and early seventeenth century thought. The dissertation provides this historical backdrop and textual sensitivity throughout, but it focuses on three main themes. First, the concept of <italic>mathesis universalis</italic> is taken to be the organizing principle of the work. This methodological principle defines a workable technique for solving mathematical problems, a means for applying mathematics to natural philosophical explanations, and a claim concerning the nature of mathematical truth. In each case, the <italic>mathesis universalis</italic> is designed to fit the innate capacities of the mind and the objects studied by <italic>mathesis</italic> are set apart from the mind as purely mechanical and geometrically representable objects. Second, Descartes' account of perceptual cognition, the principles of which are found in the <italic>Regulae</italic>, is examined. In this account, Descartes describes perception as a mechanical process up to the moment of conscious awareness. This point of awareness and the corresponding actions of the mind are, he claims, independent from mechanical principles; they are incorporeal and cannot be explained reductively. Finally, when Descartes outlines the explanatory bases of his natural science, he identifies certain "simple natures." These are the undetermined categories according to which actual things can be known. Descartes makes an explicit distinction between material simples and intellectual simples. It is argued that this distinction suggests a difference in kind between the sciences of the material world and the science or pure knowledge of the intellectual world. Though the <italic>Regulae</italic> is focused on physical or material explanations, there is a clear commitment to distinguishing this type of explanation from the explanation of mental content and mental acts. Hence, the <italic>Regulae</italic> demonstrates Descartes' early, methodological commitment to substance dualism. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

The ‘Demarcation Problem’ is to mark the boundary between things that are scientific and things that are not. Philosophers have worked on this problem for a long time, and yet there is still no consensus solution. Should we continue to hope, or must we draw a more sceptical conclusion? In his paper, ‘The Demise of the Demarcation Problem’, Larry Laudan (1983) does the latter. In this thesis, I address the three arguments he gives for this conclusion. / The Pessimistic Induction: From the failure of many specific past attempts at demarcation, Laudan infers that all future attempts at demarcation will fail. For his argument to be fully convincing, Laudan needs to show that each attempt has been a complete failure, and that these failures have never led to progress in the theory of demarcation. I argue that many past attempts at demarcation have only resulted in partial failure, and many of these failures have led to some cumulative progress. So I think we can draw a more optimistic conclusion: future attempts at demarcation may be even more successful than past attempts. / The Pseudo-Problem: Laudan argues that the demarcation problem presupposes an ‘epistemic invariant’: something common to all and only the sciences, which makes them epistemically special. But, says Laudan, this presumption is false – so, by definition, the issue is merely a pseudo-problem. I find Laudan’s argument unconvincing. I present reasons for thinking that the demarcation problem does not, in fact, presuppose an extremely simple epistemic invariant. Furthermore, there may still be a satisfactory, moderately complex epistemic invariant to be found. So I do not think any false assumption is presupposed. / The New Problem: Laudan argues that we should replace the original demarcation problem with a new demarcation problem. I take this to be the problem of demarcating between well-confirmed and ill-confirmed theories. I argue that scientific status is relevant to the confirmation of theories, so the two problems are closely related. I also argue that science has other purposes; so scientific status indicates other virtues besides well-confirmedness. Thus we do want to know which theories and activities are scientific, because this will help us to decide which theories and activities to pursue. So this new demarcation problem is not a suitable replacement for the original problem. / My central question is ‘Has Laudan killed the demarcation problem?’, and my answer is ‘No!’.

Thesis (M.Sc.)(Technology Management)--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Title from opening screen (viewed March 22, 2006). Includes summary. includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (MTech(Engineering))--Cape Peninsula University of Technology, 2011 / Reliable analytical results represent the pinnacle assessment of the quality of an analytical laboratory. Variability associated with the analytical method, or process known as selenium analysis which is being used at Western Cape Provincial Veterinary Laboratory (WC PVL), presents a critical quality problem. This is due to the narrow margin of safety between toxic and deficient doses for animal health. In addition, control features of this selenium process, were found to be limited. Limited control features represent ‘process waste’. To overcome the adverse impact of variation and limited control, steps towards process improvement present the best solution.The primary research objective of the research study is: “To establish an alternative accurate and safer digestion procedure within the ‘selenium analysis process, in order to attain quality improvement of the process”.The scientific method was employed to accomplish the research objective. The research design and methodology selected was based on the scientific PDCA cycle, and is known as Lean Six Sigma. A research hypothesis was set as H0 : Variation in process, time and control procedures have a direct impact on the disparity in selenium testing results. Research was able to test the hypothesis using scientific methodology which was empirical, inductive and deductive, systematic, relied on data and was fact based.Implementation of an alternative, more reliable and safer selenium analysis process is believed to result in reduced risks associated to the digestion procedure, while optimising selenium yield and ultimately translating into improved quality in terms of accuracy and precision, thus confidence in results.

Orientador: Regina Paolucci El Dib / Banca: Antônio José Maria Catâneo / Banca: Olavo Ribeiro Rodrigues / Resumo: Em virtude da importância das revisões sistemáticas (RSs) como fonte de evidências para a prática na área da saúde, esse tipo de estudo tornou-se cada vez mais frequente. Além disso, requerem pouco recurso financeiro e podem ser realizados em um período menor de tempo quando comparado aos ensaios clínicos. Pesquisadores têm usado esse estudo como uma ferramenta para compilar e avaliar informação útil na tomada de decisões clínicas. Desta forma, facilitar o caminho destas pesquisas para a publicação é essencial uma vez que, um dos meios mais efetivos para a disseminação dos resultados de pesquisas científicas é a apresentação dos mesmos em revistas científicas de alto impacto. Verificar a proporção de revistas científicas da área de Medicina que publicam revisões sistemáticas, bem como, correlacionar seus respectivos fatores de impacto e, identificar se estas revistas solicitam diretrizes específicas para o relato dos achados das revisões sistemáticas. Para cada revista foi averiguado, na seção instruções para autores, a menção do aceite de revisões sistemáticas e exigência das diretrizes específicas de relato das RSs. Quando não havia menção sobre o aceite nesta seção, foi consultado o conteúdo dos periódicos. Foram incluídas 625 revistas científicas de 25 subespecialidades médicas disponíveis no Portal de Periódicos da Capes, classificadas nas áreas Medicina I, II e III do avaliador bibliométrico Qualis que inclui o fator de impacto do ISI. Entre as revistas científicas analisadas, 437 (69,90%) publicam artigos de revisão sistemática, sendo que apenas 135 (21,60%) mencionam o aceite nas instruções de autores e 118 (27%) exigem a submissão das diretrizes específicas de relato das RSs. 302 (48,30%) revistas científicas, não mencionam o aceite de RSs na seção instruções de autores, porém publicam RSs. 30,10% (188 revistas) não publicam ... / Abstract: Due to the importance of systematic reviews as a source of solutions for medical practice, this kind of study has been increasingly more frequent. Furthermore require little financial resources and can be performed in a shorter time compared to the experimental studies. Researchers have used this methodology as a tool to compile and evaluate information useful in making clinical decisions. To determine the proportion and the average impact factor of scientific journals in the field of medicine that publish systematic reviews and require that these works are in accordance with the PRISMA, MOOSE or STARD. We included all 625 scientific journals from 25 medical subspecialties available in Journals Portal Capes, classified areas Medicine I, II and III of Qualis bibliometric evaluator which includes the ISI impact factor. For each issue was examined the systematic review acceptance in the instructions for authors and requirement of target cheklists. When there was no mention of the acceptance, was consulted the content of the scientific journals to know which publish although not mention in instructions for authors. 437 (69,90%) scientific journals published systematic reviews; 135 (21,60%) with acceptance mention in the instructions for authors and 118 (27%) require submission of specific guidelines for reporting of RSs. 302 (48,30%) scientific journal do not mention in the instructions for authors, but publishing and 30,10% (188 journals) do not publish this kind of paper. Only 27% scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific forms for reporting RSs. The results show the wide acceptance of RSs in the analyzed journals. There is a tendency toward uniformity of editorial policy about publication of RSs and the impact of these scientific journals in the scientific environment. The low-requirement cheklists indicates that editors are not using these tools for evaluating and ... / Mestre