The Experts below are selected from a list of 189 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John D. Greenwood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Social in Social Psychology
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2014Co-Authors: John D. GreenwoodAbstract:In this paper, I make a critical plea for the rehabilitation of the Theoretical Conception of the intrinsically social dimensions of cognition, emotion, and behavior shared by early social psychologists but progressively neglected and abandoned in the last century. Some critical implications of this Theoretical Conception are considered, including its relation to contemporary theories of social cognition and the restrictive methodological prescriptions of experimental social psychology. Finally, I consider the relation between this Conception and alternative Theoretical traditions in social psychology, such as social representation theory and ‘social identity’ theory, cultural psychology, and social constructionism.
Javier Legris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Paul Hertz’s Systems of Propositions As a Proof-Theoretical Conception of Logic
Trends in Logic, 2014Co-Authors: Javier LegrisAbstract:Paul Hertz was an outstanding German physicist, who also devoted himself to mathematical logic and wrote a series of papers that remained rather unnoticed, even if they influenced the development of proof theory and particularly Gentzen’s work. This chapter aims to examine Hertz’s logical theory placing it in its historical context and remarking its influence on Gentzen’s sequent calculus. The analysis of the formal structure of proofs was one of Hertz’s most important achievements and it can be regarded as an anticipation of a “theory of proofs” in the current sense. But also, it can be asserted that Hertz’s systems played the role of a bridge between traditional formal logic and Gentzen’s logical work. Hertz’s philosophical ideas concerning the nature of logic and its place in scientific knowledge will be also analysed in this chapter.
-
paul hertz s systems of propositions as a proof Theoretical Conception of logic
2014Co-Authors: Javier LegrisAbstract:Paul Hertz was an outstanding German physicist, who also devoted himself to mathematical logic and wrote a series of papers that remained rather unnoticed, even if they influenced the development of proof theory and particularly Gentzen’s work. This chapter aims to examine Hertz’s logical theory placing it in its historical context and remarking its influence on Gentzen’s sequent calculus. The analysis of the formal structure of proofs was one of Hertz’s most important achievements and it can be regarded as an anticipation of a “theory of proofs” in the current sense. But also, it can be asserted that Hertz’s systems played the role of a bridge between traditional formal logic and Gentzen’s logical work. Hertz’s philosophical ideas concerning the nature of logic and its place in scientific knowledge will be also analysed in this chapter.
Rein Vihalemm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a whitehead s metaphysical ontology and i prigogine s scientific ontology from a point of view of a Theoretical Conception of science
2007Co-Authors: Rein VihalemmAbstract:Whitehead’s and Prigogine’s philosophies of science are similar in this respect that they both areinterested in ontology built in the light of modern science. This kind of ontological approach, espe-cially Whitehead’s metaphysical reasoning is usually regarded as speculative which should be avoidedin philosophy of science. Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers appreciated, however, Whitehead’s me-taphysics as cosmology in that being the most ambitious attempt to elaborate a philosophy of naturethat, although speculative, is not directed against science or towards separation of philosophy fromthe actual science. Although Whitehead criticized the classical science, he did not identify it withscience in general and did not acknowledge the respective domains and tasks of science and philosop-hy as distinct of principle from each other. According to Prigogine and Stengers Whitehead’s philosop-hy was somewhat the forerunner of Prigogine’s non-classical science which gives a new content to thespeculations of Whitehead. Chemistry was a starting point of Prigogine’s non-classical physical theory.In the present paper Prigogine’s Conception of non-classical science is examined from the point ofview of a Theoretical Conception of science elaborated in the context of philosophy of chemistry.Prigogine and Stengers, as well as Whitehead, have not really presented a Theoretical Conception ofscience. It is argued that the latter, however, offers a key for examining various issues in philosophy ofscience and understanding science in general, including Prigogine’s non-classical science. Apprecia-ting Prigogine’s optimism concerning the chances of science that has liberated itself from the myth,the author still finds that this optimism can also be misleading as it can create a false impression thatthis new science does not deal with idealizations any more, that it is not a means of inquiry resultingfrom special requirements and aims, but will really understand the world “as it is” to the point thatthe problems of so called human world, including those of, e.g., ethics would be, in principle, scienti-fically understandable. In fact, however, if non-classical science manages rid itself from the myth ofclassical science, the only change will be that it does not equate the scientific picture of world andscientifically modelled reality with the real world “as it is”.Keywords: non-classical science, philosophy of chemistry, Prigogine’s scientific ontology, theoreti-cal model of science, Whitehead’s metaphysical ontology.
-
whiteheado metafizinė ontologija ir i prigogine o mokslinė ontologija teorinės mokslo koncepcijos požiūriu
Problemos, 2007Co-Authors: Rein VihalemmAbstract:Whiteheado ir Prigogine’o mokslo filosofines koncepcijas jungia tai, kad juos abu domina ontologija, grindžiama modernaus mokslo duomenimis. Mokslo filosofija ontologinį požiūrį, ypac tokį kaip Whiteheado metafizinis mąstymas, paprastai laiko spekuliatyviu, todėl vengtinu. Taciau Ilya Prigogine’as ir Isabelle Stengers į Whiteheado metafiziką žvelgė kaip į kosmologiją ir vertino ją už tai, kad, būdama ambicingiausias, tegu spekuliatyvus, gamtos filosofijos projektas, ji vis dėlto nėra nei nukreipta pries mokslą, nei siekia supriesinti filosofiją ir dabarties mokslą. Whiteheadas kritikavo klasikinį mokslą, taciau netapatino jo su mokslu bendrąja prasme ir tyrimo sricių bei siekiamų tikslų požiūriu nepripažino principinio skirtumo tarp mokslo ir filosofijos. Pasak Prigogine’o ir Stengers, Whiteheado filosofija turėtų būti vertinama kaip Prigogine’o ne-klasikinio mokslo pirmtakė. Toks požiūris suteikia naują turinį Whiteheado spekuliacijoms. Prigogine’o ne-klasikinės fizikos koncepcijos atspirties taskas yra chemija. Siame straipsnyje Prigogine’o koncepcija nagrinėjama chemijos filosofijos siūlomos teorinės mokslo sampratos požiūriu. Is tikrųjų nei Prigogine’as ir Stengers, nei Whiteheadas nepateikė teorinės mokslo koncepcijos. Taciau straipsnyje teigiama, kad būtent teorinė mokslo samprata duoda raktą, padedantį atrakinti ne vieną mokslo filosofijos, mokslo bendrąja prasme, taip pat ir Prigogine’o ne-klasikinio mokslo keliamą klausimą. Autorius simpatizuoja Prigogine’o optimizmui, kad mokslas issilaisvino is mito, taciau, autoriaus požiūriu, sis optimizmas visgi klaidina. Gali susidaryti įspūdis, kad ne-klasikinis mokslas neturi nieko ben dra su idealizacijomis, kad jis nėra vien tyrimo būdas, priklausantis nuo konkrecių reikalavimų ir tikslų, kad naujasis mokslas is tikrųjų supras pasaulį „tokį, koks jis yra“, kad net vadinamojo žmogaus pasaulio problemos (pvz., etikos) taps is principo moksliskai suprantamos. Taciau jei ne-klasikinis mokslas gebėtų atsikratyti klasikinio mokslo mito, tai vienintelė skirtybė būtų ta, kad jis netapatintų mokslinio pasaulio vaizdo ir moksliskai sumodeliuotos realybės su pasauliu, „koks jis yra“ is tikrųjų. Pagrindiniai žodžiai : ne-klasikinis mokslas, chemijos filosofija, Prigogine’o mokslinė ontologija, teorinis mokslo modelis, Whiteheado metafizinė ontologija. Whitehead’s Metaphysical Ontology and I. Prigogine’s Scientific Ontology: From a Point of View of a Theoretical Conception of Science Rein Vihalemm Summary Whitehead’s and Prigogine’s philosophies of science are similar in this respect that they both are interested in ontology built in the light of modern science. This kind of ontological approach, especially Whitehead’s metaphysical reasoning is usually regarded as speculative which should be avoided in philosophy of science. Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers appreciated, however, Whitehead’s metaphysics as cosmology in that being the most ambitious attempt to elaborate a philosophy of nature that, although speculative, is not directed against science or towards separation of philosophy from the actual science. Although Whitehead criticized the classical science, he did not identify it with science in general and did not acknowledge the respective domains and tasks of science and philosophy as distinct of principle from each other. According to Prigogine and Stengers Whitehead’s philosophy was somewhat the forerunner of Prigogine’s non-classical science which gives a new content to the speculations of Whitehead. Chemistry was a starting point of Prigogine’s non-classical physical theory. In the present paper Prigogine’s Conception of non-classical science is examined from the point of view of a Theoretical Conception of science elaborated in the context of philosophy of chemistry. Prigogine and Stengers, as well as Whitehead, have not really presented a Theoretical Conception of science. It is argued that the latter, however, offers a key for examining various issues in philosophy of science and understanding science in general, including Prigogine’s non-classical science. Appreciating Prigogine’s optimism concerning the chances of science that has liberated itself from the myth, the author still finds that this optimism can also be misleading as it can create a false impression that this new science does not deal with idealizations any more, that it is not a means of inquiry resulting from special requirements and aims, but will really understand the world “as it is” to the point that the problems of so called human world, including those of, e.g., ethics would be, in principle, scientifically understandable. In fact, however, if non-classical science manages rid itself from the myth of classical science, the only change will be that it does not equate the scientific picture of world and scientifically modelled reality with the real world “as it is”. Keywords: non-classical science, philosophy of chemistry, Prigogine’s scientific ontology, Theoretical model of science, Whitehead’s metaphysical ontology.
Keiko Kumagai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Attention deficit and attention training in early twentieth-century Japan
ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 2015Co-Authors: Toshinobu Takeda, Mizuho Ando, Keiko KumagaiAbstract:Yuzero Motora (1856–1912), regarded as the first professional Japanese psychologist, tried to address students’ attention difficulties through attention training methods of his own design. His reports contain the first description of ADHD-like symptoms in the history of Japan. Motora viewed “distractibility” as the irregular transition of attention. Students with low scores and attention difficulties who participated in Motora’s exercises showed improvement in arithmetic, psychological testing, and certain aspects of daily life. This article describes Motora’s Theoretical Conception of attention and attention training methodology, the history of attention deficit and attention training, and the significance of Motora’s experiments.
Yi Liu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A review of knowledge management about Theoretical Conception and designing approaches
International Journal of Crowd Science, 2018Co-Authors: Tingwei Gao, Yueting Chai, Yi LiuAbstract:Purpose The main purpose of this paper is to conduct an in-depth Theoretical review and analysis for the fields of knowledge management (KM) and investigate the future research trend about KM. Design/methodology/approach At first, few Theoretical basis about KM which include definitions and stages about KM have been summarized and analyzed. Then a comprehensive review about the major approaches for designing the KM system from different perspectives including knowledge representation and organization, knowledge sharing and performance measure for KM has been conducted. Findings The contributions of this paper will be useful for both academics and practitioners for the study of KM. Originality/value For this research, the focus is on conducting an in-depth Theoretical review and analysis of KM.
