Duhem supports this statement using an analogy with the trajectoryof a ball. We cannot guess its end point with an instant glance at theball, but we can prolong its trajectory if we followed the ball fromthe moment it was struck. So we cannot guess the end point of physicaltheory, the natural classification, by looking at any particulartheory. We must appeal to the trajectory of physical theory, to itshistory, to enable us to tell whether any particular theory is likelyto contribute toward the ultimate natural classification. Duhem'sdoctrine of natural classification provides the grounds for variouscommentators to argue that Duhem is not an instrumentalist, that hisphilosophy of science considered as a whole looks more like convergentor motivational realism (see Maiocchi in Ariew and Barker 1990 andothers).
Choice blindness is the finding that participants both often fail to notice mismatches between their decisions and the outcome of their choice and, in addition, endorse the opposite of their chosen alternative. But do these preference reversals also carry over to future choices and ratings? To investigate this question, we gave participants the task of choosing which of a pair of faces they found most attractive. Unknown to them, we sometimes used a card trick to exchange one face for the other. Both decision theory and common sense strongly suggest that most people would easily notice such a radical change in the outcome of a choice. But that was not the case: no more than a third of the exchanges were detected by the participants. We also included a second round of choices using the same face pairs, and two stages of post‐choice attractiveness ratings of the faces. This way we were able to measure preference strength both as choice consistency and by looking at measures of rating differences between chosen and rejected options. We found that the initially rejected faces were chosen more frequently in the second choice, and the perceived attractiveness of these faces was increased even in uncoupled individual ratings at the end of the experiment. This result is discussed in relation to Chen and Risen’s recent criticism of the Free Choice Paradigm, as it shows that choices can affect future preferences.
Koyré's work influenced Thomas Kuhn and others who made“scientific revolutions” a central feature of theirhistorical accounts. Still, the work of Kuhn and later historicallyoriented philosophers and sociologists of science did attempt toreintegrate the philosophical and historical studies that Duhem pursuedtogether but that were separated for a good part of the twentiethcentury.
There is a good chance that this test will be applied: sometime after you have left, another researcher will want to do a similar experiment either with your gear, or on a new set-up in a foreign country.
Duhem's essays on Leonardo de Vinci concluded with aspeculation about the means for the transmission of medieval ideas tomodern science. Since the studies of Buridan and Oresme had remained inlarge part in manuscript, Duhem suggested that Albert of Saxony, whoseworks were printed and reprinted during the sixteenth century, was thelikely link to Galileo. Duhem's key to understanding thetransmission of medieval science was Galileo's use of the phraseDoctores Parisienses, a conventional label denoting Buridanand Oresme, among others. Based on evidence including references tocertain unusual doctrines and the particular order in which thequestions were arranged, Duhem conjectured that Galileo had consultedGeorge Lokert's compilation of Albert of Saxony, Themo Judaeus,and others, and the works of the Dominican Domingo de Soto (1906–13,III.582–83). Duhem's conjecture has been revised and expandedupon: The means of transmission has been made clearer because of thelabor of A. C. Crombie, Adriano Carugo, and William Wallace.
The famous experiments that psychologist Harry Harlow conducted in the 1950s on maternal deprivation in rhesus monkeys were landmarks not only in primatology, but in the evolving science of attachment and loss. Harlow himself repeatedly compared his experimental subjects to children and press reports universally treated his findings as major statements about love and development in human beings. These monkey love experiments had powerful implications for any and all separations of mothers and infants, including adoption, as well as childrearing in general.
The dissociative chemisorption of methane on a metal catalyst is the rate limiting step in the steam reforming of natural gas, our primary source for the molecular hydrogen used in the Haber-Bosch process. In collaboration with the experimental group of Rainer Beck at the École Polytechnic Fédéral de Lausanne, we examined this reaction on a Pt surface containing step defects. We were able to differentiate between reactions at the step edges and the terrace sites, using both UHV molecular beam experiments and high-dimensional quantum scattering theory. Both approaches were also able to resolve the reaction probability with respect to the velocity and vibrational state of the methane molecule and the surface temperature, providing additional details about the reaction mechanism.
In his University of Wisconsin laboratory, Harlow probed the nature of love, aiming to illuminate its first causes and mechanisms in the relationships formed between infants and mothers. First, he showed that mother love was emotional rather than physiological, substantiating the adoption-friendly theory that continuity of care—“nurture”—was a far more determining factor in healthy psychological development than “nature.” Second, he showed that capacity for attachment was closely associated with critical periods in early life, after which it was difficult or impossible to compensate for the loss of initial emotional security. The critical period thesis confirmed the wisdom of placing infants with adoptive parents as shortly after birth as possible. Harlow’s work provided experimental evidence for prioritizing psychological over biological parenthood while underlining the developmental risks of adopting children beyond infancy. It normalized and pathologized adoption at the same time.
How did Harlow go about constructing his science of love? He separated infant monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth, then arranged for the young animals to be “raised” by two kinds of surrogate monkey mother machines, both equipped to dispense milk. One mother was made out of bare wire mesh. The other was a wire mother covered with soft terry cloth. Harlow’s first observation was that monkeys who had a choice of mothers spent far more time clinging to the terry cloth surrogates, even when their physical nourishment came from bottles mounted on the bare wire mothers. This suggested that infant love was no simple response to the satisfaction of physiological needs. Attachment was not primarily about hunger or thirst. It could not be reduced to nursing.
Gierasch stated, “The environment in a cell is extremely complex and challenging for the process of protein folding, leading to a need for a network of species that protect protein states that are susceptible to aggregation—the protein homeostasis network. We are working with colleagues and collaborators to understand the underlying mechanisms of protein homeostasis from the level of the molecular chaperone machines that act on protein clients to the coordinated action of the network in all of its complexity. We would love to witness and contribute to new discoveries related to these questions, both because of the fascinating basic science involved and because failures in these systems are implicated in a wide array of diseases, including neurodegenerative diseases.”
For example, if your data aremeasurements of growth at intervals of time, time passes independent ofany experimental manipulation, while the amount of growth measureddepends on what time the measurement was made. Therefore, the x axiswould be time, and would be labeled in the unit of time that was used,such as minutes, days, or years. The y axis would be growth and wouldbe labeled in the unit of growth that was measured, such as cm, kg,individuals, or optical density. Other parameters manipulated in theexperiment, such as nutrients, would be represented on the graph byseparate curves or bars. Because the reader can see the differencesbetween the curves or bars of the graph, the graph provides a visualinterpretation of the results.