Every research method has its own advantages as well as disadvantages. So is the selection of methods science or art? Are there any solid rules on choosing the most appropriate method for certain circumstances? Probably not. Sometimes, such selections rely a lot on experience and inspirations and cannot be taught or learned. Similarly, in physical or natural sciences, there are also problems about which laws to use when explaining certain phenomenon or proving theorems.
The paper illustrated eight major methods and compared their advantages and disadvantages based on three dimensions (generality, precision and realism). Some of them are not really common to find, maybe because some overlap with others a lot and are hardly treated as an independent method.
Randomization and sampling are also discussed. Similarly, (Clark, 1973) emphasized on the importance of treating the sample of population as random effects in research of linguistics and psychology. The introductions to internal and external validity are also interesting, although both are difficult to achieve.
Generally, I think it is helpful to read
about those methods so that we are better equipped to accept and respect various
research approaches at IST.
Reference:
Clark, H. H. (1973). The Language-as-Fixed-Effect Fallacy: A Critique of Language Statistics in Psychological Research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335-359. clark73.pdf
From its beginning, science has improved the life quality human beings. What about other life-forms on the planet and our environment? This paper covers the roles of science and technology in helping victims with disaster relief. Yes, they are very important and useful. They can also be used to predict the happening of disasters and save more lives.
But science has also been used by us against the nature. What if we think of the causes of those natural disasters? Why serious natural disasters are happening more and more frequently? Why is the environment on the planet getting worse? Science is not the criminal for our environmental problems. However, it is our development and usage of science that makes the environment worse. Scientific disciplines that aim at doing good to our environment were established way later, achieved less and draw fewer attentions than those that do bad to our environment.
Besides environmental issues, science is also involved in ethical issues. The article talked about the loss from natural disasters. However, wars are arguably considered more serious than a lot of natural disasters. Thanks to those who applied science and technology on weapons, we can kill more people with more advanced guns and missiles. We can even destroy our planet with nuclear weapons. The article “Science and War” from the TIME magazine also talked about the role of science in warfare and exonerated science as the war criminal.
Talking about wars, a digression came to the top of my head. The article also mentioned the use of science and technology for justices. But what is justice? It is really ambiguous and heavily influenced by ideology. Power and justice are always inter-related. Science and technology are usually better used by those have power against their rivals and may reverse justice. For example, those who killed one person are called murders. Those who conducted genocide in Serbia may end up dead in prison. At the same time, those who started a war without solid evidence of the other side’s wrong doing, killed tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians, and caused humanitarian crisis can still boldly call for human rights and liberty.
Just my two cents.
-by Kang Zhao
The idea of string
theory reminds me of the wave particle duality of light, which emerged when either
wave or particle theories of light can only explain part of the phenomenon
about light. Similarly, when two important yet incompatible paradigms of physics:
relativity and quantum physics both had difficulties in explaining some
phenomenon, people proposed string theory as a way to explain the world and unify
the two.
However, as a new
theory that aims at unifying forces of the nature, string theory encountered
difficulty finding empirical evidence. Right now, it is almost impossible to test
string theory. This leads to one of the basic problems in philosophy of
science: does science need empirical evidence to be valid? On one hand, we do
not want to be positivists who rely solely on proving; on the other hand, we
need some evidence or new interpretation of already observed empirical data or
facts to show that we are on the right track. Actually I am a little doubtful
about existence of such a unified theory.
Another problem
about string theory is how long we should wait till accepting string theory as
a valid theory about the physical world? I think we are still waiting and a lot
of efforts have been put into the research of this theory. However, if we just
keep investing into it without continuously scrutinizing its validity, we may
have wasted too much, as described in “What if string theory is wrong”.
Another article
about string theory is
-by Kang Zhao
To me, one of the major implications of chaos mainly lies in its contribution to the concept of complex systems. Chaotic systems, which are sensitive to initial conditions, form a major category of complex systems, although they do not fully represent the adaptation and non-linearity of complex systems.
Talking about complex systems, it is then natural to think of one of the popular approaches to study them—agent-based modeling (Bonabeau, 2002), which combines ideas from game theory, complex systems, emergence, computational sociology, multi agent systems, and evolutionary programming. With the focus on micro-level behaviors, agent-based models have the advantage over traditional equation-based analytic models on generating emergence of high-over patterns. Agent-based model will make a good candidate to simulate how minor changes in initial condition can changes in each agent/individual’s behavior and thus lead to an overhaul of the system outcome.
Reference:
Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 7280-7287.
I think all Chinese students are pretty
familiar with Tsai Lun, while his name appears totally strange to people from other
countries. This is common in nowadays. The domination of Western civilization
has shadowed the achievements of other civilizations, such as
There are two things that I want to
point out about the Ts’ai Lun article. First, it is believed by many Chinese
that he is just the one that improved the paper making technique and popularized
it. People had been making papers before Ts’ai did and it was his position in
the empire that made him the most famous paper makers. Another point that I am
not sure about is the reason why
Ts'ai Lun reminds me of another eunuch, the voyager Zheng He, whom I mentioned in one of my previous postings. Therefore, the additional reading I chose is Zheng He's Voyages of Discovery.
As for da Vinci, one of his statues is at
the Piazza della Scala, one of the two landmarks in
This chapter introduced a lot of scientific constructs. I would guess the target audience of this book is general public because some of the contents are fundamental to several scientific disciplines. Although I know some of the constructs already, this chapter kind of refreshed my memory. Of courses, there are also concepts that are new to me. Godel’s incompleteness theorem is one of them.
This theorem attracts me because it deals with artificial intelligence and claims that computers can never be smarter than human beings because computers cannot discover new things. Actually, I am not quite sure about that because machine can be designed to do more than repetitive work. I know there are scientists who are against this claim. Although I cannot agree with the reasoning part, I do think the conclusion makes more sense than the given reason for the conclusion.
But what does intelligence really mean? Relying on mathematical algorithms and taking advantage of computer’s strength in computing, artificial intelligence researchers have made progress in making computers that behave like human beings, but does that mean computers are as smart as human being? (Searle, 1980). Is Google translation intelligent? Is human intelligence is the de facto standard of intelligence for computers.
To make computers think as human beings, a lot of scientists have taken is to explore how human intelligence works so that they can mimic it in computers. Research on human intelligence involves a lot of cognitive, biological and neural research. This approach may also mean that computers will inherit short comings of human beings. However, I do have the feeling that human beings can never fully understand how their own intelligence works. Does that mean computers based on mimicking human intelligence can never be smarter than human beings? Even if we can make computers that completely resemble human beings, do we really need computers that sometimes are as stupid as human beings, who are in the process of destroying this planet?
Reference:
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, Brains, and
Programs. The Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3.
One potential addition to the history of Renaissance might be more introductions to the economic factor. It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate economics, politics, wars and the development of science, because monetary benefits are always one of the most important issues. For example, the Crusades can be considered as wars about religion, as well as wars to seek treasures from the east. Also, I personally believe that hunting for new treasures was one of the most important purposes for naval explorations by Columbus and Magellan, etc. One important consequence of the discovery of the American continent was also the impulse to the European economics, driven by the great amount of treasures brought from the new continent to Europe. This was illustrated in detail in (O'Rourke & Williamson, 2002). Without the economic factor, naval exploration could be totally different, as in the case of Chinese explorer Zheng He. In the 1400s, China (the Ming Dynasty) is probably the leader in nautics. Supported by the Ming emperor, Zheng He’s fleet, consisting of 200-300 ships, had seven voyages into the west Pacific and Indian Ocean from 1405 to 1433, before Columbus was born. He reached as far as Arabian Peninsular and east Africa. However, the main purpose of his voyages was political propaganda. Therefore, even though his fleet had powerful weapons and warships, they ended up as diplomats, although they also did some merchandise exchange. In the end, the naval program was suspended because of the high cost. If Chinese were in great need of new treasures, as was European, the outcomes of Zheng’s voyages may include a lot of commerce, even warfare.
I like to reading about history, especially Chinese history. The renascence reminds me of the Song Dynasty in China (960-1276 AD). The situation back then was pretty similar to that in Europe. The major difference is the sprout for renascence happened before the emergence of Mongolians and Genghis Khan. With fast growing economics and the sprouts for capitalism, people became more liberal and appreciated arts. More than Cosimo de' Medici, who appreciated art works, Emperor Zhao Ji (Hui Zong) made a step further and became a famous painter in Chinese history. People also started to explore micro-level principles of natural phenomenon and made great improvements in technology. However, this progress was deadly interrupted by the invasion of Mongolians.
Well, history is just interesting and dramatic.
Reference:
O'Rourke, K. H., & Williamson, J. G. (2002). AFTER COLUMBUS: EXPLAINING EUROPE'S OVERSEAS TRADE BOOM, 1500-1800. The Journal of Economic History, 62(2), 457-488.
After Columbus Explaining Europe's overseas trade boom 1500-1800.pdf
This article was first published in July 1945, when
the World War II was coming to an end. The author of this article, Vannevar
Bush, was heavily involved in national defense research during the World War II
[1]. He wrote this article from the perspective of a science administrator,
trying to find new directions for post-war scientific research. The article
also reflected his academic background in electrical engineering, with various
appearances of electrical engineering terms and technologies.
In this
article, the author called for a shift in the focus of scientific work after
the war. He suggested focusing on facilitating access to human knowledge,
including the creation, storage, manipulation, selection and consultation of
records.
The famous theoretical hypertext-based
computer system “Memex” was proposed as “a device in which an individual stores
all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it
may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility”. The “Memex” has great
impacts on the development of hypertext and intellect augmenting computer
systems [2].
In addition,
many new technologies, as well as technical trends, associated with the “Memex”
were also successfully predicted, such as speech recognition, mass-produced computers,
hypertext, and new forms of encyclopedias.
This article is very important for Information
Sciences and Technology (IST), although the word “record” was used much more frequently
than the word “information” by the author (I would guess it was partially because
the idea of “information” has not been mature or well recognized at the time of
the article). This article provided seminal work and laid groundwork for a great
number of current IST topics. This article was primarily concerned with I and T
of the Information-Technology-People (I-T-P) triangle. As for I, “Memex” was
proposed to provide personalized information service, which is similar to
library service. As for T, it talked about technologies that can help people to
better create, organize, store, manipulate and utilize information. Nevertheless,
the author also considered user interface design for effective access to
knowledge, which is about “People”.
Every coin has two sides. There are also limitations
in Bush’s article.
First, from the perspective of “Technology”, he missed
some important technologies, although it seems too harsh to expect him to
predict all important technologies. For example, as an electrical engineer, he
missed digitalization, maybe because he was so successful in analog computing. Most
of the technologies he proposed in this article were based on analog devices and
technologies. By contrast, digital technologies have dominated IST nowadays. Another
example was considering computer systems such as “Memex” as standalone discrete
units, although the idea of hypertext was fundamental to the emergence of
Internet, which connects computer to form a network.
Second, from the perspective of “People”, Bush’s
vision was limited to scientists and scientific research. He did not pay much
attention to the civil use and the social contexts of new technologies, while
they are crucial for the success of new technologies. For example, the “Memex”
system was primarily designed for academic purpose. However, modern computers owe
a great deal of their success to ordinary people, who use computers for
business, entertainment and everyday life.
Third, from the perspective of “Information”, the
article did not distinguish “record”, “information” and “knowledge”, although
the three ideas are different from each other.
Even though technology has changed tremendously during
the past 63 years and some predictions in this article may now seem odd or
out-dated, I was still impressed by the author’s vision. It took not only
knowledge in one’s own discipline, but also a clear overview and a deep
understanding of human being’s scientific research, to come up with so many great
insights. I thus consider this article as a giant leap, not only for IST, but
also for science as a whole.
Reference:
[1] Wikipedia. Vannevar Bush.
2008 [cited Jan 14, 2008]; Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush.
[2] Wikipedia. Memex. 2008 [cited Jan 14, 2008]; Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex.
The chapter by
Asimov gave a chronicle review of the development of science. It started from how
human beings became interested in learning about the world, how science differed
from fine arts, how mythology, religion, and science were interweaved and
developed. It reviewed the ancient Greek scientists’ work and their limitation.
The work on induction by Galileo and
In this chapter,
the goal of science was attributed to curiosity. In Paul Reynolds’ “A Primer in Theory Construction”, it is
argued that science serves four purposes (providing typologies, explanation,
predication and a sense of understanding), all of which can be related to human
curiosity.
The development of
Greek science reminds me of the development of science in ancient
The modern science
proposed on this chapter is similar to that proposed by Popper in his book “The
Logic of Scientific Discovery”. Similarly, Paul Reynolds wrote in his book “A
Primer in Theory Construction” that a scientific theory must have abstractness,
intersubjectivity (explicitness and rigorousness) and empirical relevance. It
is argued that science does not always contain truth about the world. Instead,
it is a collection of ideas that are inducted from observations and have
survived systematic tests that aimed at falsifying them.
Another thought of
mine was inspired by the discussion of the problems in modern science. There
are basically two approaches in science nowadays: First, focus on a specific
domain to explore in-depth knowledge (e.g. analyze the DNA of humans). Second,
bring different disciplines together in multi- or inter-disciplinary research
(e.g. the iSchool movement). I would assume that both approaches have been beneficial
for the development of science. However, the specialization of science has made
it more and more difficult for one person to be an expert in multiple
disciplines. It is thus rare in modern science to have someone like Galileo
Galilei, who has made great contributions to mathematics, physics, astronomy
and philosophy.
Is the high specialization
a good thing? Maybe, because it has enabled us to know more about us and
the world. However, I am afraid that when more and more scientists focus only
on his narrow topics and dig deeper and deeper without a good knowledge of the
consequences in other areas, the outcome of their research may not be beneficial to human
beings any more.
