Normas de Merton: diferenças entre revisões
Conteúdo apagado Conteúdo adicionado
começando |
traduzir |
||
| Linha 1: | Linha 1: | ||
{{NOINDEX}} |
{{NOINDEX}} |
||
<html> |
|||
<head> |
|||
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow"> |
|||
<meta name="robots" content="noindex"> |
|||
<title>Don't index this page</title> |
|||
</head> |
|||
'''CUDOS''' is an [[Acronym and initialism|acronym]] used to denote principles that should guide good scientific research. |
|||
According to the CUDOS principles, the scientific ethos should be governed by Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Originality and Skepticism. |
|||
CUDOS is based on the '''Mertonian norms''' introduced in 1942 by [[Robert K. Merton]].<ref>{{harvnb|Merton|1973}}</ref> Merton described "four sets of institutional imperatives [comprising] the ethos of modern science": "universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism."<ref name="Macfarlane">{{Cite journal |title=Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientific Norms |author=Bruce Macfarlane & Ming Cheng |publisher=Springer |journal=J Acad Ethics |year=2008 |number=6 |pages=67–78 |DOI=10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y |url=http://web.edu.hku.hk/staff/bmac/docs/Communism_Universalism_and_Disinterestedness.pdf }}</ref> These four terms could already be arranged to form CUDOS, but "originality" was not part of Merton's list. |
|||
{{Info/Livro |
|||
| nome = Se deus fosse um ativista dos direitos humanos |
|||
In contemporary academic debate the modified definition outlined below is the most widely used (e.g. Ziman 2000).<ref>{{harvnb|Ziman|2000}}</ref> |
|||
| imagem = |
|||
| legenda = |
|||
* '''Communalism''' entails that scientific results are the common property of the entire scientific community (Trounce, 2013){{Citation needed|date=June 2013}} |
|||
| autor = [[Boaventura de Souza Santos]] |
|||
| título_língua_pt = |
|||
* '''Universalism''' means that all scientists can contribute to science regardless of race, nationality, culture, or gender (JRD BOSS, 2013){{Citation needed|date=June 2013}} |
|||
| título_original =Se Deus fosse um activista dos direitos humanos |
|||
| idioma = <!-- alternativa: idioma2 --> |
|||
* '''Disinterestedness''' according to which scientists are supposed to act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for personal gain.<ref>{{harvnb|Godfrey-Smith|2003}}</ref> |
|||
| origem = [[Portugal]] |
|||
| assunto = [[Direitos Humanos]], [[Sociologia]], [[História]], [[Religião]], [[Teologia Política]] |
|||
* '''Originality''' requires that scientific claims contribute something new, whether a new problem, a new approach, new data, a new theory or a new explanation.<ref>{{harvnb|Ziman|2000}}</ref> |
|||
| gênero = |
|||
| série = |
|||
* '''Skepticism''' (Organized Skepticism) [[Scientific skepticism|Skepticism]] means that scientific claims must be exposed to [[critical thinking|critical scrutiny]] before being accepted. |
|||
| tempo = |
|||
| espaço = |
|||
==Counternorms== |
|||
| ilustrador = |
|||
{{Unreferenced section|date=June 2013}} |
|||
| artista_capa = |
|||
| editora =[[Editora Almedina]] |
|||
As a balance to the Mertonian norms, the following counter-norms are often discussed <ref>{{harvnb|Mitroff|1974}}</ref> |
|||
| editor = |
|||
| formato = |
|||
* '''Solitariness''' (secrecy, miserism) is often used to keep findings secret in order to be able to claim patent rights, and in order to ensure primacy when published. |
|||
| lançamento = 2013 |
|||
| encadernação =Capa mole |
|||
* '''Particularism''' is the assertion that whilst in theory there are no boundaries to people contributing to the body of knowledge, in practice this is a real issue, particularly when you consider the ratio of researchers in rich countries compared with those in poor countries, but this can be extended to other forms of diversity. In addition, scientists do judge contributions to science by their personal knowledge of the researcher. |
|||
| páginas = |
|||
| isbn = |
|||
* '''Interestedness''' arises because scientists have genuine interests at stake in the reception of their research. Well received papers can have good prospects for their careers, whereas as conversely, being discredited can undermine the reception of future publications. |
|||
| título_br =Se deus fosse um ativista dos direitos humanos |
|||
| tradutor_br = |
|||
* '''Dogmatism''' because careers are built upon a particular premise (theory) being true which creates a paradox when it comes to asserting scientific explanations. |
|||
| artista_capa_br = |
|||
| revisor_br = |
|||
==See also== |
|||
| editora_br = [[Editora Cortez]] |
|||
* [[Robert K. Merton]] |
|||
| lançamento_br = 2013 |
|||
* [[Scientific method]] |
|||
| formato_br =16.00 X 23.00 cm |
|||
* [[Philosophy of science]] |
|||
| páginas_br =174 |
|||
* [[Scientific consensus]] |
|||
| isbn_br =978-85-249-2177-3 |
|||
* [[Open science data]] |
|||
| isbn2_br = <!-- para livros editados em 2 volumes --> |
|||
| título_pt = |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
| tradutor_pt = |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
| artista_capa_pt = |
|||
==References== |
|||
| revisor_pt = |
|||
* {{citation |
|||
| editora_pt =[[Editora Almedina]] |
|||
|last=Merton |
|||
| lançamento_pt =2013 |
|||
|first=Robert K. |
|||
| formato_pt = |
|||
|authorlink=Robert K. Merton |
|||
| páginas_pt =160 |
|||
|year=1973 |
|||
| isbn_pt =9789724052564 |
|||
|chapter=The Normative Structure of Science |
|||
| isbn2_pt = <!-- para livros editados em 2 volumes --> |
|||
|title= The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations |
|||
| precedido_por = |
|||
|editor-last=Merton |
|||
| seguido_por = |
|||
|editor-first= Robert K. |
|||
|publisher= University of Chicago Press |
|||
|location= Chicago| |
|||
isbn= 978-0-226-52091-9 |
|||
|oclc= 755754 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
* {{citation |
|||
'''Se deus fosse um ativista dos direitos humanos''' é um [[livro]] do [[sociólogo]] [[Boaventura de Souza Santos]] que trata da [[contradição]] entre as [[teologia|teologias]], que sugerem a prática do "[[Amai-vos uns aos outros]]" mas suportam sistemas econômicos que causam as injustiças sociais e sofrimento às pessoas que deveriam ser amadas. |
|||
|last=Mitroff |
|||
|first=Ian I. |
|||
|year=1974 |
|||
|title=Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists |
|||
|journal=American Sociological Review |
|||
|volume=39 |
|||
|issue=4 |
|||
|pages=579–595 |
|||
|url=http://www.norfa.no/_img/mitroff.pdf |
|||
|doi=10.2307/2094423 |
|||
}} {{dead link|date=June 2013}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last= Ziman |
|||
|first= John |
|||
|title= Real Science: what it is, and what it means |
|||
|year= 2000 |
|||
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
|||
|location= Cambridge |
|||
|isbn= 978-0-521-77229-7 |
|||
|oclc= 41834678 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last= Godfrey-Smith |
|||
|first= Peter |
|||
|title= Theory and Reality |
|||
|year= 2003 |
|||
|publisher= University of Chicago Press |
|||
|location= Chicago |
|||
|isbn= 978-0-226-30062-7 |
|||
}} |
|||
[[Category:Scientific method]] |
|||
Revisão das 06h52min de 29 de agosto de 2014
<html>
<head>
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow">
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
<title>Don't index this page</title>
</head>
CUDOS is an acronym used to denote principles that should guide good scientific research. According to the CUDOS principles, the scientific ethos should be governed by Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Originality and Skepticism.
CUDOS is based on the Mertonian norms introduced in 1942 by Robert K. Merton.[1] Merton described "four sets of institutional imperatives [comprising] the ethos of modern science": "universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism."[2] These four terms could already be arranged to form CUDOS, but "originality" was not part of Merton's list.
In contemporary academic debate the modified definition outlined below is the most widely used (e.g. Ziman 2000).[3]
- Communalism entails that scientific results are the common property of the entire scientific community (Trounce, 2013)[carece de fontes]
- Universalism means that all scientists can contribute to science regardless of race, nationality, culture, or gender (JRD BOSS, 2013)[carece de fontes]
- Disinterestedness according to which scientists are supposed to act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for personal gain.[4]
- Originality requires that scientific claims contribute something new, whether a new problem, a new approach, new data, a new theory or a new explanation.[5]
- Skepticism (Organized Skepticism) Skepticism means that scientific claims must be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted.
Counternorms
Predefinição:Unreferenced section
As a balance to the Mertonian norms, the following counter-norms are often discussed [6]
- Solitariness (secrecy, miserism) is often used to keep findings secret in order to be able to claim patent rights, and in order to ensure primacy when published.
- Particularism is the assertion that whilst in theory there are no boundaries to people contributing to the body of knowledge, in practice this is a real issue, particularly when you consider the ratio of researchers in rich countries compared with those in poor countries, but this can be extended to other forms of diversity. In addition, scientists do judge contributions to science by their personal knowledge of the researcher.
- Interestedness arises because scientists have genuine interests at stake in the reception of their research. Well received papers can have good prospects for their careers, whereas as conversely, being discredited can undermine the reception of future publications.
- Dogmatism because careers are built upon a particular premise (theory) being true which creates a paradox when it comes to asserting scientific explanations.
See also
Notes
- ↑ Merton 1973
- ↑ Bruce Macfarlane & Ming Cheng (2008). «Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton's Scientific Norms» (PDF). Springer. J Acad Ethics (6): 67–78. doi:10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y
- ↑ Ziman 2000
- ↑ Godfrey-Smith 2003
- ↑ Ziman 2000
- ↑ Mitroff 1974
References
- Merton, Robert K. (1973), «The Normative Structure of Science», in: Merton, Robert K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, OCLC 755754
- Mitroff, Ian I. (1974), «Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists» (PDF), American Sociological Review, 39 (4): 579–595, doi:10.2307/2094423 [ligação inativa]
- Ziman, John (2000), Real Science: what it is, and what it means, ISBN 978-0-521-77229-7, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, OCLC 41834678
- Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003), Theory and Reality, ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7, Chicago: University of Chicago Press