14.01.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!