Science - Science topic

One more opportunity of work on the science area.

Title- Scientific Reviewer

Duration – 12+months (extension)

Location – Bethesda, MD

Work Details:

Complete the administrative review of grant applications for completeness and compliance with the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)

Schedule review meetings; prepare materials for reviewers.

Interact and coordinate review activities with SRB staff, such as preparing review meeting materials and accomplishing tasks in an orderly and efficient manner.

Performs administrative review of research grant applications.

Provide the application, reviewer, and meeting-specific recommendations for consideration by the Scientific Review Officer and staff.

As requested, correspond with potential reviewers and complete recruitment of the review panel.

Minimum Education:

PhD

Additional Qualifications:

Certifications & Licenses:

Ph.D.

Field of Study:

Chemistry

Biochemical Sciences

Biology

Microbiology

Molecular Biology

Neuroscience

Genetics

Biomedical

Engineering

Pharmacology

Physiology

Community and Public Health

Software:

Outlook

QVR

Microsoft Teams

Microsoft Office

Skills:

Communication Skills (Oral & Written)

Scientific Writing and Editorial Skills

Peer Review Process for Grants

Kindly email me your resume in Word format at [email protected]

And answering the following questions:

Hourly Rate __________ (Please mention)

Earliest availability for the assignment:

Earliest availability for the Interview:

Current location:

Are you ready to relocate?

Preferred contact number:

Best of luck

Pedro

In the context of research that intersects economics and business science with psychology, how can a researcher explore subjects from the latter field, and what percentage of their time would be considered appropriate to successfully integrate this multidisciplinary approach into their research?

Enough to expand science.

1)

2)

Science Citation Index (SCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) are both considered gold standards for scientific research. SCI journals are generally considered more prestigious and have higher impact factors than SCIE journals, but SCIE journals are more comprehensive.

There are some who advocate the perpetuation of our ignorance because they fear that science will undermine the mystical concepts that they have substituted for reality. (Alfred Kinsey)

Science is the inquiry about and successful discoveryof to relations, principles, linear causal identities of the quantitative aspects of the physical world in line with the correspondence theory of truth and functional theory of truth.

Its aim beyond discovery is to improve or provide the control and Interventions, over physical world to the use on human easing of quality of life and empowerment.

It accepts its quantitative focus is a limited one in principle but still wide yielding and resourceful for the general aim of control and Interventions for bettering human conditions.

There are many indications that artificial intelligence technology can be of great help in terms of discovering and creating new drugs. Artificial intelligence can help reduce the cost of developing new drugs, can significantly reduce the time it takes to design and create new drug formulations, the time it takes to conduct research and testing, and can thus provide patients with new therapies for treating various diseases and saving lives faster. Thanks to the use of new technologies and analytical methods, the way healthcare professionals treat patients has been changing rapidly in recent times. As scientists manage to overcome the complex problems associated with lengthy research processes, and the pharmaceutical industry seeks to reduce the time it takes to develop life-saving drugs, so-called precision medicine is coming to the rescue. It takes a lot of time to develop, analyze, test and bring a new drug to market. Artificial intelligence technology is particularly helpful in this regard, including reducing the aforementioned time to create a new drug. When creating most drugs, the first step is to synthesize a compound that can bind to a target molecule associated with the disease. The molecule in question is usually a protein, which is then tested for various influencing factors. In order to find the right compound, researchers analyze thousands of potential candidates of different molecules. When a compound that meets certain characteristics is successfully identified, then researchers search through huge libraries of similar compounds to find the optimal interaction with the protein responsible for the specific disease. In contrast, many years of time and many millions of dollars of funding are required to complete this labor-intensive process today. In a situation where artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning are involved in this process, then the entire process can be significantly reduced in time, costs can be significantly reduced and the new drug can be brought to the pharmaceutical market faster by pharmaceutical companies. However, can an artificial intelligence equipped with artificial neural networks that has been taught through deep learning to carry out the above-mentioned processes get it wrong when creating a new drug? What if the drug that was supposed to cure a person of a particular disease produces a number of new side effects that prove even more problematic for the patient than the original disease from which it was supposed to be cured? What if the patient dies due to previously unforeseen side effects? Will insurance companies recognize the artificial intelligence's mistake and compensate the family of the deceased patient? Who will bear the legal, financial, ethical, etc. responsibility for such a situation?

I described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I need assistance to search articles on the Web of Science (WoS). I access WoS through my university login, but I am encountering an issue with the search options.

I can only see options for searching by author name and affiliation (organization). The document search option appears to be hidden and unavailable.

Can you advise me on how to search for articles on WoS? I am interested in applying the VOSviewer software to develop clusters on WoS.

Best Regards

Mudassar Ali

1. World Order has shown changes, especially after 2020 in almost all major fields of Politics, Economics, Social, Geopolitical etc.

2. Where the world order in real is diverting?

3. What will be the ultimate outcomes?

4. The alteration & changes of systems on Earth will change anything in Space?

5. Which systems will lose centuries-long grounds and what new will rise?

6. Is the current scenario being same as the Rise/Fall of Nations, Games of Thrones etc. or there is something significantly different this time?

7. Ultimately what impact will the Next World Order make on the entire human race and especially on the Bio-sphere?

8. How much was any World Order got impacted/formed/shaped through/by religious education directly/indirectly and why did such neuroplasticity/mind exercises base practices remain an integral part of World Orders in past? Can humans afford to continue past practices to build any new future?

9. What changes do you suggest in Next World Order, and Why?

10. Are Human going to accept defeat & surrender in front of Alien powers like gods, AIs, energy, any other life forms etc.?

11. How long more humans have the current status of rapidly shrinking freedom?

12. Will the current form of human life exist after such surrenders and what will be the expected shape of any of such life?

13. Its understood that human have to sacrifice current systems and life forms for existence, but, Is it necessary? Any workable solutions ?

the quantity of credentials or problems solved?

Dear colleagues,

I require urgent assistance regarding the authenticity of the "Plasma Science and Technology" journal. Upon investigation, I found two websites bearing the same name and ISSN number "ISSN: 1009-0630":

This discovery raises concerns about the legitimacy of one of these platforms. I seek your expertise in discerning the genuine journal from any potential fraudulent counterpart.

Your prompt assistance in clarifying this matter is greatly appreciated.

Warm regards,

Most of the researchers use to teach at university. In some careers, professionals who exert their profession without doing research share teaching spaces. When I was a chemistry student, 100% of my teachers were researchers ranging from PhD candidates to experts in their respective fields. While it may seem logical for researchers to be the best candidates to teach in fields such as chemistry or biology, what about healthcare-related fields like medicine, pharmacy, or biochemistry? Who is better suited to lead a class, a researcher or a professional, or both, each one in different subjects? We can distinguish between basic and clinical subjects. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.

Dear Prof,

Greetings .....

I'm Sebastian, would like to do research on paper publication and its impact in the ResearchGate database, like Web of Science and Scopus. So if you all have any idea or any direction, please suggest.

Thanks in Advance

Exploring the scientific foundation of Geographic Information Systems to establish geography or GIS as a science was once a significant issue in 1990s. However, the emergence of deep learning and AI has gradually shifted the focus of GIS towards application, gradually eroding its disciplinary independence.

There is a new open access platform where articles may be submitted as both preprints and final articles. According to their website, preprints are indexed in Europe PMC, but final papers are not listed in PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science. papers are selected depending on reviewer acceptance. Anyone have any experience with this?

"Should there be a BS in 'Doctor of Psychotherapy' degree to meet the growing demand for mental health problems?? and if so, what might such a program entail?"

While "Doctor of Physiotherapy" is indeed a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, there's no inherent reason why there couldn't be a "Doctor of Psychotherapy" degree. There are already doctoral-level degrees in psychology and counseling fields that prepare individuals for careers in psychotherapy, such as Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Clinical Psychology, Counseling Psychology, or related fields. However, such degrees mainly focus on the research side. The world is facing a pandemic of mental health issues, there is a dearth of mental health professionals who can use their counseling and therapy skills to treat patients with various mental illnesses.

These programs typically involve rigorous academic coursework, supervised clinical training, and research, preparing graduates to become licensed clinical psychologists or counselors who can provide psychotherapy services. So, a BS in Doctor of psychotherapy would solve this problem.

Je veux indexer ma revue scientifique intitulé international journal of sciences and Technology dans votre plate-forme et je veux savoir les étapes à suivre

I submitted a paper to the Iranian Journal of Science in December 2023. required reviews completed in the first week of January 2024, till now, no comments from the editor about the paper, i.e., corrections or accepted or rejected, even after multiple reminder emails.

Hi everyone, I want to export literature data from web of science for analysis in citespace software.But this interface changed and I found that the citespace software would remind me "No data files found in C:Usersl0000Desktoplcitespace-testidata" or "The time slicing setting is outside of your data."Do you know how to fix it?

My English expression is not very skillful, if I didn't express it clearly, I hope you can point it out, thank you!

Chalmers in his book: What is this thing called Science? mentions that Science is Knowledge obtained from information. The most important endeavors of science are : Prediction and Explanation of Phenomenon. The emergence of Big (massive) Data leads us to the field of Data Science (DS) with the main focus on prediction. Indeed, data belong to a specific field of knowledge or science (physics, economy, ....).

If DS is able to realize prediction for the field of sociology (for example), to whom the merit is given: Data Scientist or Sociologist?

10.1007/s11229-022-03933-2

#DataScience #ArtificialIntelligence #Naturallanguageprocessing #DeepLearning #Machinelearning #Science #Datamining

I have installed R-cran, then RStudio and all the related packages but I can't import raw dataset from web of science in biblioshiny package of RStudio. Please see the error mgs attached herewith and suggest solution if possible.

Which are the (or, Are there) what may be termed the most reliable principles or ways of selecting a range of phenomena and data within the experimental sciences? Are there ways (methods) of empirically dealing with them? Or, can there be the involvement of theoretical principles completely devoid of experiment (or primarily based on reason alone), which are inevitable in experimental sciences?

How to select phenomena and data in a satisfying manner?

Raphael Neelamkavil

Statistical Causality: In my opinion, the scientific, analytic-philosophical and scientific-philosophical concepts of causation and “causal explanation” (20thcentury) follow one type of admixture or other of the above two. Here follow the dire – science-debilitating – consequence of such an attitude of ignominy of Causality in science and philosophy. I shall exemplify this by critiquing the physical and cosmological turn in statistical causality and its consequences.

The first mistake that statistical causalists make is the confusion between the epistemic and the metaphysical, because they (just like all of us, most scientists and philosophers) they make us to think that, what we discover is the whole reality about whatever object is under inquiry at that time, merely and directly because (1) our causal discovery or non-discovery of something specific is verified experimentally and experimental-theoretically, (2) the statistical method yields the “scientific” truths just like the “experimental” method does, (3) “scientific” truth is the only possible mode of truths, and (4) in most cases in most sciences we have only the statistical method to fall back upon.

The technological economic, and daily-life orientation of truth is to blame. Not merely are scientists but also technologists, politicians, and the medical industry who refuse to recognize the problem. The above is one of the most terribly unassuming fallacies that humankind has got trapped in. I have mentioned it earlier as the worst epistemological mistake of humanity. If the experimentally based method of statistical reasoning concerning causation in the sciences concludes that there is causation at some spots in existent physical processes and there is no causation at some other spots, a rationally justified objection is as follows.

A mode of thinking, logic, mathematics, philosophy, and science that can at least attempt to transcend this problem by assuming the utmost importance to the fundamental Categories and truths is yet to emerge. That alone can annihilate the politically and economically religious and scientific use of truths and Nature in Asia, Africa, the Americas, Eastern Europe, and most parts of western Europe. This alone will change the power-political scenario in the world. This may ultimately change humanity into a democratically peaceful place to continue to exist. All other sorts of attempts will be quick-fix solutions, but short-lived, and destructive.

The statistician, statistical physicist, and statistical causalist have the right only to claim that at some spots in physical processes specific kinds of causation may be discovered and at some other spots they are not able to fix or determine the existence of causation at all. This does not mean that their effort was to discover all possible sorts of causation in their sample.

Now, converting this indecision into not admitting Universal Causality and into the claim that there are some spots in physical nature where there is no causation is absolutely unwarranted, because the scientist here is not trying to nor is capable of discovering all sorts of causation within the field of inquiry, and instead, only some kinds of it. Therefore, the epistemically based and oriented conclusion of discovery of some causes cannot be converted into a metaphysically based and oriented conclusion, that is, a conclusion that treats of the existent processes as being causal.

A metaphysical conclusion saying that the statistically attained state of non-attainment of all sorts of causes is the nature of all existents is unacceptable from a rational viewpoint, however great and appealing the empirical appeal exerted by such scientists is. I agree that there have been great empirical discoveries and theoretical edifices where only and merely statistically characterized methods have been used.

This is merely because the statistical inquiry in such sciences is for some specific kinds of causes – not for all possible sorts of causes that there can be in the whole system of existent processual objects under consideration! It is beyond their field of study to ask after the causal or non-causal nature of all that exist.

Does that mean that they must now reach their hands in fields where they cannot reach by their own choice and make mysterious, mystery-mongering, and irrational statements about the already pre-scientifically Universal-Causal characteristic of Reality-in-total, or call all theories of Causality as mechanistic?

All their arguments in favour of the above-said position of ignominy of the pre-scientifically metaphysical (physical-ontological) concept of Universal Causality would finally imply at least that the creation of a cosmos and even the normal processual events in any part of the cosmos will then have to be a statistical, stochastic, probabilistic process. That is, if creation, or for that matter any event in the cosmos, has happened once, it could have happened many times, and it would happen many more times in the future.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

By reason of the application of the Lorentz Factor [(1 - (v squared / c squared)) raised to the power of 1/2] in the denominator of equations, luminal and other comparable energy propagations take on one and the same velocity. This is the relativity-effect (better, comparative effect) between v of objects, compared to c of the speed of light. That is, it is presupposed here that c is the object of comparison for determining the speed effect of velocity difference across a duration.

It is against the criterion-velocity itself c that c becomes unsurpassable! Hence, I am of the opinion that the supposed source-independence is nothing but an effect of OUR APPARATUS-WISE OBSERVATION LIMIT AND OUR FIXING OF THE CRITERION OF OBSERVATION AS THE OBSERVED VELOCITY OF LIGHT.

In this circumstance, it is useless to claim that (1) luminal and some other energy propagations with velocity c are source-independent, and (2) these wavicles have zero rest mass, since the supposed source-independence have not been proved theoretically or experimentally without using c cas the criterion velocity. The supposed source-independence is merely an effect of c-based comparison.

Against this background, it is possible to be assured that photons and other similar c-wavicles are extended particles -- varying their size throughout the course of motion in the spiral manner. Hence the acceptability of the term 'wavicle'. Moreover, each mathematical point of the spiral motion is to be conceived not as two-, but as three-dimensional, and any point of motion added to it justifies its fourth dimension. Let us call motion as change.

These four dimensions are measuremental, hence the terms 'space' (three-dimensional) and 'time' (one-dimensional). This is also an argument countering the opinion that in physics and cosmology (and other sciences) time is not attested!

The measurements of the 3-space and measurements of the 1-time are not in the wavicles and in the things being measured. The measurements are the cognitive characteristics of the measurements.

IN FACT, THE EXTENSION OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'SPACE', AND THE CHANGE OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'TIME'. Hence, the physically out-there-to-find characteristics of the wavicles and objects are EXTENSION AND CHANGE.

Extension is the quality of all existing objects by which they have parts. This is not space. Change is the quality by which they have motion, i.e., impact generation on other similar wavicles and/or objects. This is not time. Nothing has space and time; nothing is in space and time. Everything is in Extension-Change.

Any wavicle or other object existing in Extension-Change is nothing but impact generation by physically existent parts. This is what we term CAUSATION. CAUSALITY is the relation of parts of physical existents by which some are termed cause/s and the others are termed effect/s. IN FACT, THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE PARTS, WHICH BEGINS THE IMPACT, IS THE CAUSE; AND THE SECOND ASPECT IS THE CAUSE. Cause and effect are, together, one unit of continuous process.

Since energy wavicles are extended, they have parts. Hence, there can be other, more minute, parts of physical objects, which can define superluminal velocities. Here, the criterion of measurement of velocity cannot be c. That is all...! Hence, superluminal velocities are a must by reason of the very meaning of physical existence.

THE NOTION OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ('TO BE') IS COMPLELTEY EXHAUSTED BY THE NOTIONS OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. Hence, I call Extension and Change as the highest physical-ontological Categories. A metaphysics (physical ontology) of the cosmos is thus feasible. I have been constructing one such. My book-length publications have been efforts in this direction.

I invite your contributions by way of critiques and comments -- not ferocious, but friendly, because I do not claim that I am the last word in any science, including philosophy of physics.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

Experimentally, observationally, and observational-theoretically, some of the generalizations of any physical ontology of cosmology may, strictly speaking, be non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

But the empirical method of the sciences is continuous with the theoretical. Both, together, form part of "reason". Note also this: Reason is not equivalent to logic. There are many sorts of logic. Reason is the general set, and the various logics are sub-sets or members.

From this viewpoint, would you admit that there seems to be the possibility of obtaining SOME REASON from the suggestion that a PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY OF THE REASON WITHIN THE COSMOS be constructed? I CALL THIS REASON UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY.

I have developed an MMM (maximal-medial-minimal) method, where the approachable values are zero, finite, and infinite -- all others being strictly of the realm of the positive sciences. Zero, finitude, and infinity may be available in the positive sciences. But in the case of zero and infinity, the attitude is that of limiting values.

Finitude is a general term. In the positive sciences there must be specific values, not generally finite values!

Of course, we do not know of infinite values in the strictest sense of the term. But on the same count we do not also know zero value except as the absence of WHAT WE CONSIDER at a given instance.

I feel that a sort of "axiomatization" is perhaps possible -- at least as a physical ontology of the cosmos, PROVIDED UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY IS DERIVABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE CONCEPT OF EXISTENCE (TO BE).

SEE:

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

For millennia the questions of CAUSALITY and FREEDOM have been conceived as opposites in both sciences and philosophies. If they can be unified (possibly, freedom brought under the other's explanation), is it possible to bring the physical, natural, and social sciences together under one set of basic notions?

I have a unique manner of argument in the direction of a solution for the reconciliation of causality and freedom.

Why are numbers and shapes so exact? ‘One’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are all exact. But irrational numbers are not so. The operations on these notions are also intended to be exact. If notions like ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are defined to be so exact, then it is not by virtue of the exactness of these substantive notions, but instead, due to their being defined so, that they are exact, and mathematics is exact.

But on the other side, due to their being adjectival: ‘being a unity’, ‘being two unities’, ‘being a non-extended shape’, etc., their application-objects are all processes that can obtain these adjectives only in groups. These are pure adjectives, not properties which are composed of many adjectives.

A quality cannot be exact, but may be defined to be exact. It is in terms of the exactness attributed to these notions by definition that the adjectives ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are exact. This is why the impossibility of fixing these (and other) substantive notions as exact misses our attention.

If in fact these quantitative qualities are inexact due to their pertaining to groups of processual things, then there is justification for the inexactness of irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, etc. too. If numbers and shapes are in fact inexact, then not only irrational and other inexact numbers but all mathematical structures should remain inexact except for their having been defined as exact.

Thus, mathematical structures, in all their detail, are a species of qualities, namely, quantitative qualities. Mathematics is exact only because its fundamental bricks are defined to be so. Hence, mathematics is an as-if exact science, as-if real science. Caution is advised while using it in the sciences as if mathematics were absolutely applicable, as if it were exact.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

I begin my cosmologically metaphysical critique of the foundations of Heidegger’s work, with a statement of concern. Anyone who attempts to read this work without first reading my arguments in the book, Physics without Metaphysics?, (1) without being in favour of a new science-compatible metaphysics and concept of To Be, and (2) without a critical attitude to Heidegger – is liable to misunderstand my arguments here as misinformed, denigrative, or even trivial. But I do this critique in search of very general means of constructing a metaphysics capable of realising constant guidance and enhancement to scientific practice.

Contemporary mathematics, physics, cosmology, biology, and the human sciences have a shape after undergoing so much growth that we cannot think philosophically without admitting the existence (termed “To Be”) of all that exist, the cosmos and its parts. The general concept of existence is always as “something-s” that are processually out there, however far-fetched our concepts of the various parts of or of the whole cosmos are. “The existence of the totality (Reality-in-total) as the whole something whatever” and “particular existence in the minimally acceptable state of being something/s whatever that is not the whole totality” are absolutely trans-subjective and thus objectual presuppositions behind all thought.

Today we do not have to theoretically moot any idea of non-existence of the cosmos and its parts as whatever they are. This is self-evident. That is, basing philosophical thinking – of the very nature of the existence-wise metaphysical presuppositions of all that are subjective and objective – upon the allegedly subjective origin of thought processes and concepts – should be universally unacceptable.

Therefore, I think we should get behind Heidegger’s seemingly metaphysical words – all based on the human stage on which Being is thought – by chipping his prohibitively poetical and mystifying language off its rhetorically Reality-adumbrating shades, in order to get at the senses and implications of his Fundamental Ontology as Being-historical Thinking. It suffices here to admit that the history of Being is not the general concept of the history of the thought of Being, and not the history of the thought of Being.

Moreover, it is not a necessity for philosophy that the Humean-Kantian stress on the subject-aspect of thought be carried forward to such an extent that whatever is thought has merely subjectively metaphysical Ideal presuppositions. All subjective presuppositions must somehow be taken to possess the merely subjective character.

There are, of course, presuppositions with some conceptual character. But to the extent some of them are absolute, they are to be taken as absolutely non-subjective. These presuppositions are applicable without exception to all that is, e.g. To Be and all Categories that may be attributed to all that exist. HENCE, SUBJECTIVE PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONCEPTUAL PRESUPPOSITIONS.

This fact should be borne out while doing philosophy, without which no philosophy and science are possible. The weight of the subject-aspect continues to be true of thought insofar as we go to non-absolute details of metaphysical presuppositions and empirical details, and not when we think only of the metaphysical Ideals of all existents in themselves.

It is true that there is no complete chipping off of the merely subjective or anthropological aspect of the Heideggerian theory. Nor is there an analysis without already interpreting anything. The guiding differentiation here should be that between “the subjective” and the “conceptual”. The conceptual is not merely subjective, but also objective. It is objective due to the inheritance pattern behind it from the objectual.

Such a hermeneutic is basic to all understanding, speculation, feeling, and sensing. The linguistically and otherwise symbolic expression of concepts and their concatenations is to be termed as the denotative universals and their concatenations.

At the purely conceptual level we have connotation. These are purely conceptual universals and their concatenations. Since these are not merely a production of the mind but primarily that by the involvement of the generated data from the little selection of the phenomena from physical processes, which are from a highly selected group of levels of objectual processes, which belong to the things themselves.

At the level of the phenomena, levels of objectual processes, and the things themselves there are universals, which we shall term ontological universals and their conglomerations. These conglomerations are termed so because they have the objectual content at the highest level available within the processes of sensing, feeling, understanding, speculation, etc.

The above should not necessarily mean (1) that we cannot base thought fully on the Metaphysical Ideals of “To Be” and “the state of existents as somethings”, and (2) that we cannot get sufficiently deep into the fundamental implications of his work by side-lining the purely subjective concepts of the fundamental metaphysical concepts. This claim is most true of the concept of To Be.

To Be is the simultaneously processual-verbal and nomic-nominal aspect of Reality-in-total, and not merely that of any specific being, phenomenon, or concept. For Heidegger, To Be (Being) is somehow a private property of Dasein, the Being-thinking being. To Be which is the most proper subject matter of Einaic Ontology (metaphysics based completely on the trans-thought fact of the Einai, “To Be” of Reality-in-total) is not the Being that Dasein thinks or the Being that is given in Dasein, because To Be belongs to Reality-in-total together and in all its parts.

Even in Heidegger’s later phase highlighted best by his Contributions to Philosophy: From Enowning, his concept of To Be as belonging to the Dasein which is the authentically Being-thinking human being has not changed substantially. Even here he continues to project positively the history of Being-thinking human being as the authentic Being-historical process and as the essence of the history of all that can be thought of.

Against the above metaphysical backdrop of essentially anthropocentric definitions, I write this critique based on cosmological-metaphysical necessities in philosophy, and indirectly evaluate what I consider as the major ontological imperfection in Heidegger’s thought from the viewpoint of the Categorial demands of the history of metaphysics, various provincial ontologies and scientific ontology, and of the way in which I conceive the jolts and peaks in such history.

Along with the purely meta-metaphysical To Be, (1) I present the metaphysical abstract notions of Extension (= compositeness: i.e., having parts) and Change (= impacts by composites: i.e., part-to-part projection of impact elements) as the irreducibly metaphysical Categories of all existents and (2) argue that Extension-Change existence in their non-abstract togetherness as existents is nothing but Universal Causation (= everything is Existence-Change-wise existent, i.e. if not universally causal, existence is vacuous).

These are metaphysical principles that Heidegger and most philosophers till today have not recognized the primordiality of. Most of them tend to fix to existence universal or partial or absolutely no causality. In short, Universal Causation, even in some allegedly non-causal aspects of cosmology, quantum physics, philosophy of mind, and human sciences, is to be the taken as a priorias and co-implied by existence (To Be), because anything existent is extended and changing...! No more should sciences or philosophy doubt Universal Causality. Herein consists the merit of Einaic Ontology as a universally acceptable metaphysics behind all sciences – not merely of human sciences.

To Be is the highest Transcendental Ideal; Reality-in-total is the highest Transcendent Ideal; and Reality-in-general is the highest Transcendental-Transcendent Ideal of generalized theoretical concatenation of ontological universals in consciousness. These are meta-metaphysical in shape. They are not at all classificational (categorizing) of anything in this world or in thought.

Although Heidegger has not given a Categorial scheme of all existents or Categorial Ideals for all metaphysics and thinking, he is one of the few twentieth century thinkers of ontological consequence, after Aristotle (in favour of an abstract concept of Being) and Kant (against treating the concept of Being as an attribute), to have dealt extensively with a very special concept of Being and our already interpretive ability to get at To Be.

I present here in gist the difference between the Dasein-Interpreted concept of Being and the ontologically most widely committed, Einaic Ontological, nomic-nominal, and processual-verbal concept of To Be, which should be metaphysically the highest out-there presupposition of all thought and existence. This is the relevance of metaphysics as a trans-science.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

If induction and deduction are mutually connected, what is the framework upon which they may be connected? Will such a framework of connecting induction and deduction be a mere perspective or something fundamental?

Courses in logic, philosophy of science, etc. begin always with a detailed study of induction and deduction. Most courses tell us that these are typically different kinds of reasoning. But are they?

I would happily obtain your arguments for or against the so-called mutual exclusiveness of induction and deduction.

I believe that relativising induction and deduction and connecting them with one another under some very general framework of thought will be a grand starting point to revolutionize the foundations of the whole of philosophy and science, and of logic and linguistic analytic philosophy in particular.

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?

They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.

Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.

Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.

Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.

Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.

Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?

Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.

Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.

The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Realit-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.

Bibliography

In celebration of the release of the 3rd edition of my book 'Effective Science Communication', IOP publishing is making the 2nd edition FREE via open access until the end of May!

All you need to do is follow this link and fill in a super short (7 questions; 1 minute) survey:

https://comms.ioppublishing.org/k/Iop/effective_science_communication_free_ebook

I hope some of you find this useful.

Sam

For instance, if we want to reach for the stars physically with science and technology, to climb a ladder to the stars with science and technology, and having been briefed on all of our imaginative Star Trek scenario hypotheses, are we asking the right questions about the stars if we are still having trouble getting there?

Or, are the stars actually not what science thinks they are yet something more in-line with how we formulate Star Trek, namely a type of imaginative expression of our consciousness? Could the stars be an apparition for instance, a great natural hologram?

When is a spade a spade?

I work in different disciplines (biology, history of science) and would like to list my publications in these field under these categories. Under each category I want to list them by year of publication. Is this possible?

Jitse

Are you a full-fledged empiricist and see a totally empirical Psychology?

Maybe if you don't see that you will after reading about 1000 pages of my writings :

Springer Nature is launching a new series of open access journals, the journal "Discover Sustainability" being one of them. Discover Sustainability is a completely open access journal, which means that its contents are freely available and can be accessed by a world audience.

I am currently serving as a Guest Editor and would like to invite you and your team to contribute to my Topical Collection titled " Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms (PGPMs): Applications and Mechanisms in Sustainable Agricultural, Horticultural Sciences and Soil Science ". I believe that your research would be a great fit for this Topical Collection.

[Short instruction for the TC]

The submission deadline for this collection is 31/10/2024. You can submit your manuscript any time before that, and all articles published by Discover Sustainability are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication. You can access the Topical Collection homepage via the following link:

To submit your manuscript for consideration at Discover Sustainability as part of this Topical Collection, please follow the steps detailed on this Submission Guidelines. When submitting a manuscript, you will need to indicate that you are submitting your manuscript to a Collection. To do so, on the ‘Topical Collection Name " Topical Collection from the drop-down list. Authors should also express their interest in the Collection in their cover letter.

If this Call for Participation receives your favorable consideration, we look forward to our future collaboration.

Best wishes,

Dr. M. H. Shahrajabian

AI is coming fast, and we have to adapt.

In material science, steel have more group, So what is the best explain answer according in metallurgy science?

Is the journal of nanotechnology research a predatory Journal?

Berger Science Press is an academic publisher that specializes in peer-reviewed, open access journals for a wide range of subject areas, including engineering, economics, business, education, social sciences, humanities, and sciences.

All journals are google scholar indexed, and all articles will have its DOI immediately.

Currently, there is without any publication charge, including article processing and submission charges. You are invited to submit your works to our journals.

Recently, rapid development of ICT and Industry 4.0/5.0 technologies is taking place, including Big Data, Internet of Things, cloud computing, digital twins, multi-criteria simulation models, machine learning, deep learning and generative artificial intelligence, among others. Developments in generative artificial intelligence technology are being made through the use of artificial neural networks, among others. New applications of generative artificial intelligence are determined by the previously carried out process of GAI system training, i.e. teaching the implementation of specific skills, performing complex tasks, performing new functions, solving specific problems intelligently using deep learning technology. Increasingly, generative artificial intelligence technology is being trained to intelligently perform complex research and analysis processes. Among other things, this kind of application of generative artificial intelligence is the implementation of this technology for business analytics carried out using large sets of data and information, i.e. analytics carried out on computerized business intelligence and Big Data Analytics platforms. This type of analytics is being applied in various fields of knowledge, various sectors of the economy, various companies, enterprises, financial and public institutions. This type of analytics is also increasingly used in improving research processes and increasing the efficiency of complex analytical processes carried out as part of ongoing research in various scientific disciplines. Since OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot was made available on the Internet, i.e. since November 2022, more similar intelligent chatbots created by other leading technology companies have been successively appearing. The intelligent chatbots made available on the Internet are used, among other things, in the development of the results of scientific research conducted, in the execution of certain stages of analytical processes, in the processing of results obtained from scientific research conducted, etc. The increase in the application of intelligent chatbots in research and analytical processes is due to the simplicity of operation of these chatbots, their availability on the Internet in the formula of open access, the ability of these tools to implement complex research processes, multi-criteria analysis, intelligent problem solving. On the other hand, the possibilities of applying the aforementioned chatbots in the processes of conducted scientific research are still severely limited due to the many imperfections of the databases on which certain generative artificial intelligence systems were trained. It still happens that the databases of data and information on which the said GAI systems were trained contain data and information in many respects outdated, incomplete, in the course of the "work" of these tools certain data and information can be "creatively" combined so that in the results of the work of a certain intelligent chatbot there are often "fictitious facts", ie. generated new and factually inconsistent content, factual errors, misrepresentations, falsehoods, which can be presented and described within the phraseologically, syntactically, stylistically correct essays, papers, articles, etc., written by generative artificial intelligence. Besides, the textual and other studies created by these tools often do not show all the data sources, all the source publications, all the materials that the chatbot used in drawing certain data and information while creating the commissioned human textual, graphic work, etc. Besides, even if the sources of data and information are partially shown, they are often shown in an incomplete way, inconsistent with the current standards for showing and compiling source and bibliographic footnotes. Perhaps, in the future, the aforementioned, used currently made available on the Internet intelligent chatbots will be sufficiently improved, corrected, supplemented so that they can be used by researchers and scientists in specific research, analytical processes within the framework of ongoing scientific research to a fuller extent and without the currently existing risks. Therefore, the development of intelligent chatbots available on the Internet based on generative artificial intelligence currently both negatively and positively can affect the development of science, the development of scientific research, the analysis of data from conducted research, the description of results obtained from conducted research, the writing and publishing of scientific texts, etc. Whether serious risks are generated or rather positive aspects prevail with the application of currently available intelligent chatbots on the Internet in certain aspects of the research and analysis processes carried out as part of the scientific research conducted depends on a number of factors. On the one hand, it depends on whether the technology company developing the said intelligent chatbots keeps improving them, enhancing them and expanding them with new functions and skills. On the other hand, it also depends on whether such cultivated specific research and analytical tools are used prudently by researchers and scientists with knowledge of the drawbacks and limitations associated with the use of these tools.

I described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In an manuscript, I need to cite a paper. Since the article was recently published and the page number information has not been updated in Web of Science, so I can't get a full quote for it. how should I deal with this question?

Because the article could be searched in Web of Science, I can't ignore this article.

Could I just cite it with the information already available, but without the page number information?

or any other good ways?

If humans are so "complex", is it always harder to understand human behavior [patterns] than to understand similarly functioning patterns in other animals? NO !!

Of course not: we see as other humans see and, to some notable extent, what they see; we hear what they can hear; we smell what they can smell; we understand the types of things they are trying to understand and master; and we understand (roughly) what they are trying to accomplish at each stage of life ('stage' both in the strict sense, of the ontogeny that is child development, and otherwise). WITH RESPECT TO NO OTHER ANIMAL DO WE HAVE THESE COMMONALITIES TO USE AS PART OF OUR UNDERSTANDING.

Then, how is it that all this does not help us; I , for one, am not willing to believe that we are yet otherwise extremely complex to any point of not being able to come to understand humans (ourselves). [( In most cases, claims of complexity can be regarded as simply indications of confusion* (and ignorance) -- and not necessarily anything more. And, the confusions are often not necessary at all, even in the first place.)]

FOOTNOTE: Try the proposed word substitution ("confused/confusion" for "complex/complexity") and see.

Let me explain:

It is as if bad philosophy has put a "spell" (actually: blocks and limitations, over-generalizations and other wrongful mental behavior patterns, aka "thought") on us that incapacitate our moving forward, thinking along/upon more constructive lines such as (in small part) indicated above [(but much more clearly indicated, and then outlined, in other parts of my writings)]. We very much too often ask "what have the philosophers thought?" when, frankly, that hardly matters at all (they may have had some point sometimes at some junctures but, with their same body of philosophy, they commonly very much over-"define" (notably wrongly and falsely), and then overgeneralize their 'position' to make unsubstantiated CLAIMS -- yet these thought-out armchair claims are accepted!! BIG EXAMPLES OF THEIR WRONGFULNESS COME UP in statements beginning "ONLY Man can ... ". And this is in addition to THEM saying in other ways (which I am now characterizing in vague outline and obviously paraphrasing): only some 'this' or 'that' [way] will work or only some 'this' or 'that' can be the "way it is", as they "determined". They analyze any single words they choose (e.g. how we can supposedly "understand" our "will" or understand certain particular other things) as if any of these are well established concepts, when they are not; THEY then "define" other things and move on from there, both of these wrongful ways [further] making a fundamental breach with empiricism and then necessarily also with science (AND all this CAUSES CONFUSION (and it should be clear it is based on ignorance)).

Those large aspects of many, many of the philosophies are not only incongruent with science, but lead to unnecessary confusions (on larger "related" topics, like "consciousness" -- something they go on to develop ideas about, based on their initial "definitions", all that yielding the "complex" "understanding" and then also "finding" that which "cannot be understood" (e.g. the " 'hard problem' of "consciousness" " -- [a problem I see as nonexistent from another standpoint]) .

I begin scientific inquiry by somewhat philosophizing. Science approximately derives from philosophy. Engineering is roughly derived from science.

Another try to make progress in eliminating ignorance/delusion and arrogance and conceit in behavioral SCIENCE.

For science , for empiricism (and for AI (<-- to enlist, YET eventually dispel, the greed motivator)) : the truly empirical behavioral scientists, those who ARE empirical in studying behavior PATTERNS (SO: just and only all the involved overt behavioral PATTERNS will do, when looked at developmentally, for ALL explanation), must work in a way to come to see that THE MAJOR TYPES OF LEARNING (and these occur during ontogeny) ___ ARE ___ found (discovered, like the naturalist) to BE major kinds/types of INDUCTION (as is true of all other developed organisms). We cannot be that different for it to be otherwise.

As true factual and empirical as classical and operant conditioning (and habituation, etc.) ARE, THESE ARE the extreme trivial details. [ AND, one must realize : "Social leaning" is a farce, for such a vague concept looses the individual organism as the ONLY true empirical unit-of-analysis -- which it IS (MUST be, that's biology, friends). ] MY system of understanding, in my two major papers, OUTLINES what one should find concretely IN OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (and never leave the word "patterns" out ) -- reflecting the major types/kinds of induction.

[ And, though big on induction, the proximate causes are [ attentional / ] perceptual shifts . (I hate to say it, but one can reason-out the necessity of this being the case.) ]

Starting with this attitude and outlook, only then can we find (AS IS NECESSARY for ALL good reasons and science) the was-ness in the is-ness ( i.e.; previous grand well-developed units as THE units, or portions as part-units, USED IN more advanced inductive reasonings). This all (all the above) is absolutely the shortest way of saying what we MUST realize (<-- not "just subjectively" at all) ). AND: one cannot argue an excuse, or THAT ITSELF is THE VERY damning premature hypothetico-deductive "reasoning" , the very essence of arrogance and conceit AND that which necessarily derails science -- that being the necessary consequence of "jumping the gun" on prediction .

Any questions? I am 70 years old, so one will find further true leads / clues (or that which will result in true leads IN my WORK (science essays and the theory outlines)) , I have introduced before in my writings, beginning 40 years ++ ago.

[ FOOTNOTE : the descriptors provided by researchgate ARE GROSSLY INCOMPLETE and INADEQUATE. Just one example : NO "inductive reasoning" ! : this is the premature know-it-all stance that has been, and is, destroying science (AND us). ALSO : no "innate action pattern" !! No : "hypotheses" -- enabling THAT to be a SUBJECT itself ! Come on ! It's sickening -- and NOT the way to make progress, but the way to fail. (One used to be able to add non-existing descriptors, but THAT is gone, obviously WAY TOO SOON.) ]

Ethogram Theory and the Theories of Copernicus "et al" : beyond analogy, but a real similarity

Back in the 1500s, Copernicus "stepped back" and looked at more and more carefully. He gave us a reason to think that, indeed, everything does NOT revolve around the Earth.

In the next century, Galileo Galilei and Keplar gave us more reasons to think this way. Keplar described orbits of the planets as elliptical and Galileo showed that OTHER non-Earth objects had things going around them (e.g. Saturn -- the moons). Finally, with Newton's work, the orbits of the planets were mathematically described.

Now, I firmly think Ethogram Theory is more than an analogy to that above, but has REAL similarity. Ethogram Theory "steps back" and looks at more (and more carefully as well). Ethogram Theory looks at cognitive development in a way like Piaget, but Piaget's theory is merely just descriptive and puts forward nothing like proximate causes; thus, in a way Ethogram Theory, with regard to Piaget's particular theory, is only an analogy to Piaget's, with Ethogram Theory empirical and totally investigateable ; the weakness is not with Ethogram Theory but with Piaget's. Ethogram Theory, like Piaget's , reckons cognitive development as central to most major developments in Psychology. Ethogram Theory yet sees way to see similar stages, not only with Piaget's. but phenomenology described by other major stage theorists. Some of these stage theories, Piaget's in particular, actually have good evidence of universality among peoples (despite being only descriptive); such is seen in all cultures tested. But, by being just descriptive, Piaget doesn't NOT even point us at proximate causes, AND to totally empirical things that could be empirically investigated -- exactly verified or amended, totally INVESTIGATABLE with modern eye-tracking technology.

This is what Ethogram Theory does. If you are familiar with Ethogram Theory, indeed : material, empirical, actual, directly observable phenomenon are cited for the cognitive stage transitions. These are perceptual shifts, often attentional/perceptual shifts (in what the subject looks at, and seeks to see better and more of).

I would argue that something like these shifts is necessary. Nothing except something like Ethogram Theory stages, points clearly to anything fully empirical.

Finally : The productive thinking about Ethogram Theory would be BY FAR mainly inductive processes. And, in fact, inductive processes ARE the very main way [ at least ] ALL other mammals process information and learn. I firmly think that the major types of learning in humans are via such inductive processes, in both child and adult -- for most processing of information both for advanced scientists and babies. [ There are qualitatively different types of inductive learning, varying with the stages. ]

I am going downhill hard and fast (related to age and me); I would guess this is my last post.

August 25th, 2023

Those methodologies, we have to assume that are not the better ones, are being used to claim humans are 'making progresses' with regards the 2030 SDGs agenda.

As the ongoing human-sparked climate crisis and the huge Earth's ecology breakdowns seem unstoppable, scientists must ask what are the methodologies that are being used by other scientists to support those claims.

A generalized optimism keep asking time we (humans) do not have to fulfill those goals.

The 21st century science will be all about try to avoid a major planetary disruption sparked by just the biology-based dominant species.

We need metrics to avoid groundless discourses. That task will imply to create a system of systems regarding Earth observation in all scales.

It is relevant to say that the problem is not suitable for a technological perspective only... The problems we are facing are behavioral in nature.

Hernan L. Villagran

When I first had sex, I told my boyfriend that I felt no sensation from intercourse. He replied that other virgins had made the same comment. More importantly I had felt zero erotic arousal. Yet masturbation had always worked. So I decided to ask other women about these porno orgasms that men believe women should have. I have not found a single woman who can explain them. Some female sexologists helpfully refer me to a book. But they all refuse to discuss the topic. Is sexology truly a science?

Science involves challenging the status quo and being willing to ask difficult questions. Scientists need to be curious but also unbiased (not intent on proving any preconceived preferred result but open to accepting any conclusion that is supported by the evidence). There is no research that suggests that women are capable of the orgasms described in erotic fiction. Yet not even female sexologists are willing to discuss the issues that surround our understanding of women’s responsiveness.

or what do you think you will offer him in the future?

Due to memory effect and heredity characteristics fractional calculus is mainly employed in many field of sciences, how can we applied this tool to solve problems in AI systems.

I'm considering submitting a manuscript to this journal (Tobacco Regulatory Science ISSN: 2333-9748 )

Has anyone published in this journal before? I am looking to confirm that this journal is legitimate and not predatory; I am interested in learning more about the reputation of this journal and the typical publication timeline.

Sign the Diamond Initiative for Publishing Open Access Are you upset/frustrated about the unsustainable profiteering of commercial publishers which put papers behind a paywalls and/or require authors to pay the journal to make their paper open access (i.e., "Gold" OA)? Do you want to make a difference and help us change this system, towards a more community led publishing system? The collective action in science committee at freeourknowledge.org is launching a petition to encourage researchers to publish at least one scholarly paper with a non profit / diamond open access agreement within a five-year period. Diamond Open Access refers to a publishing model in which authors are not charged for making their work publicly available to all readers. We hereby invite you to contribute to this initiative by signing the pledge here. By signing the pledge, you will contribute to an increased demand for alternative community-led and university-led publishers. The pledge's activation is contingent on a threshold of 500 people which will demonstrate that researchers can reach a critical mass to change the status quo.

Follow this link: https://freeourknowledge.org/2024-01-30-collective-action-in-science-diamond/

Joint our group: https://freeourknowledge.org/committee/

Dear aspiring young researchers, Tech Science Press recognizes the important role that you play in shaping the future of science and technology worldwide. As such, we are looking to recruit early career editorial board members to enhance the quality and increase the international reputation of our journals. Our goal is to create a diverse and talented pool of professionals for the editorial board of each journal, providing a platform for open, free, and equal communication among young researchers. We firmly believe that by working together, we can achieve mutual success and growth. If you are passionate about your field and want to be part of a professional community that is dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge, we welcome your application. As an early career editorial board member, you will have the opportunity to polish your skills, edit high-quality research papers, provide guidance to fellow researchers, and forward important discoveries to the broader scientific community. Join us at Tech Science Press and let us work together towards a brighter future for science and technology. Sincerely, Tech Science Press

Hello,

For sport in general, between long traditional training and "modern" training (but not necessarily effective) which quickly seeks results sometimes at the expense of the athlete's health (strict diet, high training load, recovery time short or non-existent).

Through this "modern" method of training and sports career management, it can easily be noted that sport has "developed" very well in recent decades, in terms of new performances and new world records, but what really happens to the athlete himself, has he really developed? Doesn't he have health problems or injuries during his career or after? Is his mental or psychological state not affected by the stress generated by the demands of training and competition? Therefore, in the long term, will high-level sport not have an inverse effect on the athlete's health?

Assuming that if man succeeds in building a general, general artificial intelligence, i.e. AI technology capable of self-improvement, independent development and perhaps also obtaining a state of artificial consciousness then perhaps this will mean that man has fully learned the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness. If this happens, what will be the result? Will man first learn the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness and then build a general, general artificial intelligence, i.e. AI technology capable of self-improvement, independent development and perhaps also obtaining a state of artificial consciousness, or vice versa, i.e. first a general artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness capable of self-improvement and development will be created and then thanks to the aforementioned technological progress made from the field of artificial intelligence, man will fully learn the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness. In my opinion, it is most likely that both processes will develop and implement simultaneously on a reciprocal feedback basis.

I have described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion about it?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

This issue is particularly important, because it happens that the data entered into ChatGPT, the information contained in the texts entered for the purpose of automated rewriting, remains in the database that this chatbot uses in the situation of generating answers to questions asked by subsequent Internet users. The problem has become serious, as there have already been situations where sensitive data on specific individuals, institutions and business entities has been leaked in this way. On the other hand, many institutions and companies use ChatGPT in the preparation of reports, editing of certain documents. Also, pupils and students use ChatGPT and other similar intelligent chatbots to generate texts that act as credit papers and/or from which they then compose their theses. On the other hand, functions have been added to some existing anti-plagiarism applications to detect the fact that ChatGPT is being used in the course of students' writing credit papers and theses. In addition to this, the problem is also normative in nature, as it is necessary to adapt the legal norms of copyright law to the dynamic technological advances taking place in the development and application of generative artificial intelligence technology, so that the provisions of this law are not violated by users using ChatGPT or other similar intelligent chatbots. Among the important issues that could significantly reduce the scale of this problem would be the introduction of a mandatory requirement to mark all works, including texts, graphics, photos, videos, etc., that have been created with the help of the said intelligent chatbots, that they have been so created. On the other hand, it is necessary for the AI-equipped chatbots to be improved by their creators, by the technology companies developing these tools, in order to eliminate the possibility of ChatGPT "publishing" confidential, sensitive information from institutions and companies in response to questions, commands, tasks of developing a certain type of text by subsequent Internet users. In addition, the said intelligent chatbots should be improved in such a way that if in the course of automated text generation, including inspiration from other source texts, "quoting" whole sentences, substantial fragments of them, substantive content of other publications but without fully showing the sources, i.e. without a full bibliographic description of all the source publications that the chatbot generating subsequent texts used. In addition, the user of the aforementioned intelligent chatbots does not know to what extent the text they created with the help of these tools is plagiarized from other texts previously entered into them or from publications published on the Internet, including documents of companies and institutions, theses, scientific publications, industry articles, journalistic articles, etc.

I described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion about it?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Astrology: Is it scientific?

For my thesis, my supervisor and I have decided to look at how questions are posed in research across different cultures. In order to do this, we will use framing analysis. The issue is, however, that I need to operationalise the sociology of science before I can start the analysis.

I need to figure out how to operationalise the preoccupation in social research. So what could possibly not be neutral, and where does it come from?

I really hope some of you can give me a helping hand or a direction to look in because I am really struggling.

According to epigenetic science, does it play a role in discovering genes that contain different amino acids that cause the appearance of characteristics or behaviors in people who eat meat and milk from imported animals? Which lived in a special nature other than that in which the importing country lives?

“Equation dooms the universe to chaos” (“Science Illustrated” – Issue #104, pp.80-81) states,

“A physicist would describe entropy as a measure of how much energy is spread between the molecules of a closed system (say, a gold ingot).”

And “… all molecules in the universe will, according to current theory, end up in one big lukewarm mess (in 10^26 years).”

The article illustrates this with the formula Δ S ≥ 0 (change of entropy is bigger than, or equal to, zero).

This is one possible formula. Another is Δ S = 0 (change of entropy equals zero). This alternative is possible because the universe may not be a closed system. In general, most physicists today have faith that a successful theory of Quantum Gravity will be found someday. Such a Theory of Everything would reconcile two theories that are in apparent conflict – our best explanation of the microscopic world (Quantum Mechanics) and the best description we have of gravity (General Relativity).

The molecules in a gold ingot are connected in what appears to be a closed system. Quantum Gravity might conceivably connect all the molecules existing in space-time … in the universe as well as every period of time. But the universe could not be considered a closed system if it’s literally infinite and eternal. Throughout history, and including the present, speculation that the cosmos is infinite and eternal has never gone away. Despite the claim that the universe is finite and began at a definite point in linear time, knowledge of its origin is uncertain (the James Webb Space Telescope could make even the most dedicated proponent of the Big Bang doubtful at some point). We all have our theories and convictions but I believe it’s best to never say our deepest convictions can’t be incorrect.

If the cosmos is not a closed system, the heat produced by each of its seemingly closed systems wouldn’t simply be wasted. The energy created by the entropic 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be diverted into the 1st Law of Thermodynamics i.e. the total mass-energy in the universe would forever remain constant, with mass and energy being converted into one another. It might be said that although no component of the universe can display the perpetual motion of existing forever, it’s plausible to regard the entire universe (entirety of spacetime) as in perpetual motion.

List

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here. https://www.ft.com/content/3405a512-5cbb-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0 1. Academy of Management Journal 2. Academy of Management Review 3. Accounting, Organizations and Society 4. Administrative Science Quarterly 5. American Economic Review 6. Contemporary Accounting Research 7. Econometrica 8. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 9. Harvard Business Review 10. Human Relations* 11. Human Resource Management 12. Information Systems Research 13. Journal of Accounting and Economics 14. Journal of Accounting Research 15. Journal of Applied Psychology 16. Journal of Business Ethics 17. Journal of Business Venturing 18. Journal of Consumer Psychology 19. Journal of Consumer Research 20. Journal of Finance 21. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 22. Journal of Financial Economics 23. Journal of International Business Studies 24. Journal of Management* 25. Journal of Management Information Systems* 26. Journal of Management Studies 27. Journal of Marketing 28. Journal of Marketing Research 29. Journal of Operations Management 30. Journal of Political Economy 31. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 32. Management Science 33. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management* 34. Marketing Science 35. MIS Quarterly 36. Operations Research 37. Organization Science 38. Organization Studies 39. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 40. Production and Operations Management 41. Quarterly Journal of Economics 42. Research Policy* 43. Review of Accounting Studies 44. Review of Economic Studies* 45. Review of Finance* 46. Review of Financial Studies 47. Sloan Management Review 48. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal* 49. Strategic Management Journal 50. The Accounting Review

What is the referencing style used in the frontiers of chemical science and engineering journal?

This doesn't fit into science. Perhaps Buddhists are familiar with this?

I ask you to let me know, maybe someone has encountered this.

I personally photographed this at the end of the sunset in Haifa over the sea.

January 7, 2024.

relationship between science and art and how these are related to management

as part of a systematic literature search on the subject of comics in science

lessons, we are looking for articles that have not yet been published.

We would be pleased to receive any contribution that meets the following criteria

and thank you in advance for your support.

- Science education (e.g. biology, natural sciences)

Does your article meet the criteria for our systematic literature review? Are you

interested in having your contribution included in our SLR?

Please send your contribution to the following e-mail: tom.jungbluth@ph-

Kind regards

Tom Jungbluth & Martin Schwichow

University of Education Freiburg, Deutschland

Couldn't any field of research, either from Humanities, arts or exact sciences, be on behalf of Palestine Issue ? Couldn't science, Professors and/or Researchers, cowork to find a solution for the holy Palestinian land ? 🤔

Your view points, what Ever would be your research field, would be welcome 🙏

Read the article at http://surl.li/qiggy, which was recently published by Science this January 2024.

How to make science learning more culturally relevant?

What is science capital?

I am seeking your assistance in recommending a reputable unpaid journal indexed with Web of Science (Q1-Q4), known for its efficient peer-review process (around 3 months from Submission to Acceptance). The domains include IT, CS, Cybersecurity, HCI, and Information Systems. Thanks

I am looking for ways teaching specifically science teaching can be improved by using visualisers in classroom .This should to help student to understand clearly ,avoid any misconceptions and reduced cognitive load