2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society
2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society
2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>HSS</strong> Abstracts<br />
which challenge aspects <strong>of</strong> the national history. Moreover, an article focusing on<br />
huaqiao recently appeared in the Journal <strong>of</strong> Asian Studies that will surely attract<br />
the attention <strong>of</strong> China historians with its broad readership. As historical exposition<br />
begins to move beyond the mode <strong>of</strong> national histories, the China field will have to<br />
contend with aspects <strong>of</strong> Chinese history that unfold in spaces not traditionally<br />
considered China and have thus been ignored. Dr. Tee’s scientific practice dovetails<br />
nicely into this growing area <strong>of</strong> Chinese history. The work <strong>of</strong> both Peter and Tee<br />
reflects specific mechanisms by which western scientific knowledge was<br />
transmitted and institutionalized in modern China and how this knowledge<br />
displaced, coexisted and competed with pre-existing Chinese forms <strong>of</strong> scientific<br />
knowledge and practice.<br />
Frederick Gregory University <strong>of</strong> Florida<br />
Continental Critiques <strong>of</strong> Scientific Objectivity<br />
During the last decades <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth century representatives <strong>of</strong> different<br />
sectors <strong>of</strong> the German and Austrian intellectual community contributed to<br />
fundamental questioning <strong>of</strong> the popular image <strong>of</strong> the objectivity <strong>of</strong> scientific<br />
knowledge. While the contributions <strong>of</strong> the physicist Ernst Mach, the theologian<br />
Wilhelm Herrmann, and the philosopher Hans Vaihinger represent just three<br />
articulations <strong>of</strong> this concern, this paper investigates the individual agendas<br />
that motivated each one and inquires to what extent the common thread <strong>of</strong><br />
their arguments caught on in the years around the turn <strong>of</strong> the twentieth century.<br />
Implicit in this inquiry is another: can these critiques <strong>of</strong> the objectivity <strong>of</strong><br />
science suggest ways in which we can understand the obvious appeal scientific<br />
objectivity held for many and the function it performed for them?<br />
92<br />
Daniel Haag Institute <strong>of</strong> Soil <strong>Science</strong> and Land Evaluation, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Hohenheim<br />
Ecosystem Simulation:<br />
Dynamical Systems vs. Self-Modifying, Historical Systems<br />
Dynamical systems are the paradigm for the formal representation <strong>of</strong> complex<br />
natural systems in simulation modeling. Based on the notion <strong>of</strong> an abstract state,<br />
ecosystems are encoded in a closed set <strong>of</strong> equations with determined parameters.<br />
For the encoding, the system is severed from its environment and from background<br />
“noise” discriminating supposedly essential from accidental features. Parameters<br />
in dynamical systems are fixed a priori, many <strong>of</strong> them being parameters <strong>of</strong><br />
convenience which fulfil the formal needs <strong>of</strong> (systems) theory. To account for<br />
ecosystem “complexity” , the number <strong>of</strong> parameters <strong>of</strong>ten is increased<br />
unrestrictedly. The ensuing non-identifiability <strong>of</strong> parameters is a major shortcoming