e-book The Fundamental Principle of This Universe

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Fundamental Principle of This Universe file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Fundamental Principle of This Universe book. Happy reading The Fundamental Principle of This Universe Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Fundamental Principle of This Universe at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Fundamental Principle of This Universe Pocket Guide.
In the ancient Hungarian world-system the basic categories were the first principle of the Universe, ÉLET (the life-principle), and ILLAT (the.
Table of contents

It bends with the wind, but it overcomes the wind by yielding to it. If the bamboo stick were to remain stiff and try to fight against the wind, it would break, but because it does not remain stiff, it does not break and overcomes power of the wind. Weakness was produced from strength, and strength created weakness. The fundamental principles of Taoism govern the ways to live and view life.


  • This Quote Is From?
  • EMPOWER: It doesnt get easier you get stronger..
  • Mindfulness: Ultimate Beginners Guide to Embrace Peace, Happiness, and Zen by Eliminating Stress and Anxiety!

Jump to: navigation , search. Personal tools Log in. The first three factors have been important in the evolution of modern science.

What's Really Fundamental In Physics?

The latter two have acquired more importance in recent times. As members of a professional group, scientists share a set of common values, aspirations, training, and work experiences. A set of general norms are imbedded in the methods and the disciplines of science that guide individual, scientists in the organization and performance of their research efforts and that also provide a basis for nonscientists to understand and evaluate the performance of scientists.

But there is uncertainty about the extent to which individual scientists adhere to such norms. Most social scientists conclude that all behavior is influenced to some degree by norms that reflect socially or morally supported patterns of preference when alternative courses of action are possible. However, perfect conformity with any rele-. The strength of these influences, and the circumstances that may affect them, are not well understood. In a classic statement of the importance of scientific norms, Robert Merton specified four norms as essential for the effective functioning of science: communism by which Merton meant the communal sharing of ideas and findings , universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism Merton, Neither Merton nor other sociologists of science have provided solid empirical evidence for the degree of influence of these norms in a representative sample of scientists.

And the British physicist and sociologist of science John Ziman, in an article synthesizing critiques of Merton's formulation, has specified a set of structural factors in the bureaucratic and corporate research environment that impede the realization of that particular set of norms: the proprietary nature of research, the local importance and funding of research, the authoritarian role of the research manager, commissioned research, and the required expertise in understanding how to use modern instruments Ziman, It is clear that the specific influence of norms on the development of scientific research practices is simply not known and that further study of key determinants is required, both theoretically and empirically.

Commonsense views, ideologies, and anecdotes will not support a conclusive appraisal. Science comprises individual disciplines that reflect historical developments and the organization of natural and social phenomena for study. Social scientists may have methods for recording research data that differ from the methods of biologists, and scientists who depend on complex instrumentation may have authorship practices different from those of scientists who work in small groups or carry out field studies.

Even within a discipline, experimentalists engage in research practices that differ from the procedures followed by theorists. The disciplines have traditionally provided the vital connections between scientific knowledge and its social organization. Scientific societies and scientific journals, some of which have tens of thousands of members and readers, and the peer review processes used by journals and research sponsors are visible forms of the social organization of the disciplines.

Anthropic principle

The power of the disciplines to shape research practices and standards is derived from their ability to provide a common frame of reference in evaluating the significance of new discoveries and theories in science. The disciplines' abilities to influence research standards are affected by the subjective quality of peer review and the extent to which factors other than disciplinary quality may affect judgments about scientific achievements. Disciplinary departments rely primarily on informal social and professional controls to promote responsible behavior and to penalize deviant behavior.

These controls, such as social ostracism, the denial of letters of support for future employment, and the withholding of research resources, can deter and penalize unprofessional behavior within research institutions. Many scientific societies representing individual disciplines have adopted explicit standards in the form of codes of ethics or guidelines governing, for example, the editorial practices of their journals and other publications.

In the past decade, the societies' codes of ethics—which historically have been exhortations to uphold high standards of professional behavior —have incorporated specific guidelines relevant to authorship practices, data management, training and mentoring, conflict of interest, reporting research findings, treatment of confidential or proprietary information, and addressing error or misconduct. The methods by which individual scientists and students are socialized in the principles and traditions of science are poorly understood. The principles of science and the practices of the disciplines are transmitted by scientists in classroom settings and, perhaps more importantly, in research groups and teams.

The social setting of the research group is a strong and valuable characteristic of American science and education. The dynamics of research groups can foster —or inhibit—innovation, creativity, education, and collaboration. One author of a historical study of research groups in the chemical and biochemical sciences has observed that the laboratory director or group leader is the primary determinant of a group's practices Fruton, Individuals in positions of authority are visible and are also influential in determining funding and other support for the career paths of their associates and students.


  • [] Multi-fluid cosmology: An illustration of fundamental principles!
  • Behind the Stars: The Sunspacers Trilogy Book 3 (Sunspacers Triogy).
  • Cosmological principle.

Research directors and department chairs, by virtue of personal example, thus can reinforce, or weaken, the power of disciplinary standards and scientific norms to affect research practices. To the extent that the behavior of senior scientists conforms with general expectations for appropriate scientific and disciplinary practice, the research system is coherent and mutually reinforcing. When the behavior of research directors or department chairs diverges from expectations for good practice, however, the expected norms of science become ambiguous, and their effects are thus weakened.

Thus personal example and the perceived behavior of role models and leaders in the research community can be powerful stimuli in shaping the research practices of colleagues, associates, and students. The role of individuals in influencing research practices can vary by research field, institution, or time. The standards and expectations for behavior exemplified by scientists who are highly regarded for their technical competence or creative insight may have greater influence than the standards of others. Individual and group behaviors may also be more influential in times of uncertainty and change in science, especially when new scientific theories, paradigms, or institutional relationships are being established.

Universities, independent institutes, and government and industrial research organizations create the environment in which research is done. As the recipients of federal funds and the institutional sponsors of research activities, administrative officers must comply with regulatory and legal requirements that accompany public support. Academic institutions traditionally have relied on their faculty to ensure that appropriate scientific and disciplinary standards are maintained. A few universities and other research institutions have also adopted policies or guidelines to clarify the principles that their members are expected to observe in the conduct of scientific research.

Institutional policies governing research practices can have a powerful effect on research practices if they are commensurate with the norms that apply to a wide spectrum of research investigators. In particular, the process of adopting and implementing strong institutional policies can sensitize the members of those institutions to the potential for ethical problems in their work.

Institutional policies can establish explicit standards that institutional officers then have the power to enforce with sanctions and penalties. Institutional policies are limited, however, in their ability to specify the details of every problematic situation, and they can weaken or displace individual professional judgment in such situations.

Currently, academic institutions have very few formal policies and programs in specific areas such as authorship, communication and publication, and training and supervision. Government agencies have developed specific rules and procedures that directly affect research practices in areas such as laboratory safety, the treatment of human and animal research subjects, and the use of toxic or potentially hazardous substances in research. But policies and procedures adopted by some government research agencies to address misconduct in science see Chapter 5 represent a significant new regulatory development in the relationships between research institutions and government sponsors.

The standards and criteria used to monitor institutional compliance with an increasing number of government regulations and policies affecting research practices have been a source of significant disagreement and tension within the research community. In recent years, some government research agencies have also adopted policies and procedures for the treatment of research data and materials in their extramural research programs.

For example, the National Science Foundation NSF has implemented a data-sharing policy through program management actions, including proposal review and award negotiations and conditions. In seeking to foster data sharing under federal grant awards, the government relies extensively on the scientific traditions of openness and sharing.

Research agency officials have observed candidly that if the vast majority of scientists were not so committed to openness and dissemination, government policy might require more aggressive action. But the principles that have traditionally characterized scientific inquiry can be difficult to maintain. Research scientists are part of a larger human society that has recently experienced profound changes in attitudes about ethics, morality, and accountability in business, the professions, and government.

These attitudes have included greater skepticism of the authority of experts and broader expectations about the need for visible mechanisms to assure proper research practices, especially in areas that affect the public welfare. Social attitudes are also having a more direct influence on research practices as science achieves a more prominent and public role in society. In particular, concern about waste, fraud, and abuse involving government funds has emerged as a factor that now directly influences the practices of the research community. Varying historical and conceptual perspectives also can affect expectations about standards of research practice.

The criticism suggests that all scientists at all times, in all phases of their work, should be bound by identical standards. Yet historical studies of the social context in which scientific knowledge has been attained suggest that modern criticism of early scientific work often imposes contemporary standards of objectivity and empiricism that have in fact been developed in an evolutionary manner.


  • Darkhawk #3 (Darkhawk Vol. 1).
  • Children of Tomorrow;
  • Angels in the Shadows.
  • Attracting His Attention: A Crossdressing Story.

But such practices, by today 's standards, would not be acceptable without reporting the justification for omission of recorded data. In the early stages of pioneering studies, particularly when fundamental hypotheses are subject to change, scientists must be free to use creative judgment in deciding which data are truly significant. In such moments, the standards of proof may be quite different from those that apply at stages when confirmation and consensus are sought from peers. Scientists must consistently guard against self-deception, however, particularly when theoretical prejudices tend to overwhelm the skepticism and objectivity basic to experimental practices.

Thus, in some cases, their observations may come closer to theoretical expectations than what might be statistically proper.

The Principle of Correspondence

This source of bias may be acceptable when it is influenced by scientific insight and judgment. But political, financial, or other sources of bias can corrupt the process of data selection. In situations where both kinds of influence exist, it is particularly important for scientists to be forthcoming about possible sources of bias in the interpretation of research results. The coupling of science to other social purposes in fostering economic growth and commercial technology requires renewed vigilance to maintain acceptable standards for disclosure and control of financial or competitive conflicts of interest and bias in the research environment.

Crain's Petrophysical Handbook | Basic Physics - Laws and Theories

The failure to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sources of bias in research practices can lead to erosion of public trust in the autonomy of the research enterprise. In reviewing modern research practices for a range of disciplines, and analyzing factors that could affect the integrity of the research process, the panel focused on the following four areas:. Commonly understood practices operate in each area to promote responsible research conduct; nevertheless, some questionable research practices also occur.

Some research institutions, scientific societies, and journals have established policies to discourage questionable practices, but there is not yet a consensus on how to treat violations of these policies.

Fundamentals of Physics: Crash Course

For example, promotion or appointment policies that stress quantity rather than the quality of publications as a measure of productivity could contribute to questionable practices. Scientific experiments and measurements are transformed into research data. Research data are the basis for reporting discoveries and experimental results.

Scientists traditionally describe the methods used for an experiment, along with appropriate calibrations, instrument types, the number of repeated measurements, and particular conditions that may have led to the omission of some datain the reported version. Standard procedures, innovations for particular purposes, and judgments concerning the data are also reported.

Navigation menu

The general standard of practice is to provide information that is sufficiently complete so that another scientist can repeat or extend the experiment. When a scientist communicates a set of results and a related piece of theory or interpretation in any form at a meeting, in a journal article, or in a book , it is assumed that the research has been conducted as reported. It is a violation of the most fundamental aspect of the scientific research process to set forth measurements that have not, in fact, been performed fabrication or to ignore or change relevant data that contradict the reported findings falsification.

On occasion what is actually proper research practice may be confused with misconduct in science. Thus, for example, applying scientific judgment to refine data and to remove spurious results places. Responsible practice requires that scientists disclose the basis for omitting or modifying data in their analyses of research results, especially when such omissions or modifications could alter the interpretation or significance of their work.

In the last decade, the methods by which research scientists handle, store, and provide access to research data have received increased scrutiny, owing to conflicts, over ownership, such as those described by Nelkin ; advances in the methods and technologies that are used to collect, retain, and share data; and the costs of data storage.