Publications - Publikationer

Blomstens følelser

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 29 Nov 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Beskedne genier

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:43:10 +0100

En bredere fysik

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 01 Nov 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Mathematical understanding – Common themes in philosophy and mathematics education

Carter, J. — Sun, 01 Dec 2024 01:43:10 +0100

We present different characterizations of mathematical understanding given by mathematicians, philosophers of mathematics, and mathematics educators. One purpose is to illustrate the diversity of these characterizations. Although the descriptions of understanding may seem incompatible, the paper ends by pointing to some shared themes. They include an emphasis on qualities such as relations and unification. Additionally, we note that re-presentation, including visual representations, is thought to play a role in understanding.

Ten Years and Farewell

Wray, K. B. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Vinderen tager det hele

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Fupkonferencer

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 04 Oct 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Modvækst i modvind

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Trust as an intercultural lens for addressing challenges in science communication

Nielsen, K. H., Fage-Butler, A., Ledderer, L. K. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

UNESCO as a teacher of norms in science popularization

Nielsen, K. H., Andersen, C. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

A hobbit’s guide to technology ethics

Wray, K. B. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Transforming research and public libraries into catalysts for citizen science

Mon, 30 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Mdma afvist

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Ingeniørkunst på isen

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 13 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Discussion Note on Hasok Chang: Realism for Realistic People

Hoyningen-Huene, P., Wray, K. B. — Sun, 01 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

A review of Hasok Chang's Realism for Realistic People.

Conclusion

Fage-Butler, A., Nielsen, K. H., Ledderer, L. K. — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 01:43:10 +0100

Introduction

Fage-Butler, A., Ledderer, L. K., Nielsen, K. H. — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 01:43:10 +0100

Eyeing up the master's tools

Nyrup, R. — Tue, 20 Aug 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Idealism, realism, pragmatism

Nyrup, R., Cibralic, B. — Tue, 16 Jul 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Healthcare applications of artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to produce great benefit, but also come with significant ethical risks. Scholars, practitioners and policymakers continue to debate the appropriate use of AI in healthcare. To help navigate these debates, we distinguish three general modes of ethical theorising in contemporary secular AI ethics: (1) idealism, which seeks to articulate moral ideals that can be applied to concrete problems; (2) realism, which focuses on understanding complex social realities that underpin ethical problems; and (3) pragmatism, which promotes deliberative methods that allow joint action in the present but also enable future moral growth and progress. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these modes and illustrate their relevance to salient ethical problems arising from the use of AI in healthcare. Finally, we argue that, while all three have merits, the pragmatist approach deserves more attention than it has received thus far.

Den politiske krigsskade

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 09 Aug 2024 01:43:10 +0200

AMOC-alarm

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Hip hurra for videnskabsformidling

Nielsen, K. H. — Sun, 01 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Studenteroprør og nej tak til atomkraft

Nielsen, K. H. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Fra udbredelse af naturlæren til forskningskommunikation

Nielsen, K. H. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Criteria for citizen science – A source of community empowerment or a barrier?

Kragh, G., Dörler, D., Cavalier, D., et al. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Citizen science comes in many shapes and forms, and we use a variety of
different terms to describe what we do. This sometimes causes confusion,
both among researchers, but also when we interact with other citizen science
stakeholders, e.g., funders, evaluators or collaboration partners. This confusion
needs to change to a shared understanding, and there are opportunities to
more clearly delineate what citizen science is, e.g., through use of vignettes
or criteria. The ECSA Working Group on citizen science Networks has, over
the last 3 years, co-created transparent, impartial criteria with citizen science
researchers, practitioners and citizen scientists that can help decide if a project
should be listed as citizen science on online platforms. If implemented, criteria
could facilitate a system change in how citizen science networks collaborate,
enabling citizen science project listings across platforms. The criteria could
also be useful for funding bodies, researchers and other citizen science
stakeholders.
The goal of this workshop is to familiarise participants with the criteria and
discuss how and where citizen science criteria might be useful in their work,
where criteria might be barriers and how to overcome such challenges.
In this workshop, we invite researchers, practitioners and other citizen science
stakeholders to share their experiences with and reflections on criteria for
citizen science and discuss how criteria can be most beneficial for all involved,
especially when applied to create shared understandings between researchers
and other stakeholders in citizen science projects.

After a brief introduction to the developed criteria, participants are invited to join discussions in several ways:
• First through a fishbowl approach, where they share their own experiences,
case studies, and reflections on where and how criteria can most usefully be
applied (20 min.)
• Secondly, through a mind mapping exercise of important topics, raised in the
fishbowl or through new reflections (15 min.)
• And finally, through World Café discussions based on chosen most important
topics from the mindmapping (35 min.)

Criteria for Citizen Science – A source of community empowerment or a barrier?

Kragh, G., Gijsel, L., Luís, C., et al. — Mon, 30 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Citizen science (CS) initiatives are diverse, leading to a complex landscape of approaches and terminology. To address this complexity and foster a shared understanding, criteria were co-created with CS researchers, practitioners and citizen scientists to guide project inclusion on online CS platforms. At the ECSA2024 conference workshop, participants discussed the utility of these criteria, sharing experiences and reflections. The workshop employed a fishbowl exercise followed by a world café setup to delve into key topics such as project evaluation and progression, criteria and terminology application, and potential barriers to inclusion. Participants expressed caution regarding mandatory criteria, emphasizing the need for flexibility, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. While some criteria may enhance project communication and funding prospects, concerns were raised about the Eurocentric nature and global applicability of the criteria. Despite limited familiarity and implementation of existing criteria, there is a growing understanding of their potential importance and usefulness within the CS community. Challenges remain regarding implementation processes and project exclusion concerns, but positive examples showcase the potential benefits of embracing criteria in CS networks and platforms.

Finsen så rødt

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 19 Jul 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Bestilt, bekvem våbenforskning

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 19 Jul 2024 01:43:10 +0200

De første kvindelige akademikere fik stor betydning for dansk videnskabshistorie

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 19 Jul 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Myter om misinformation

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 12 Jul 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Selv verdens mest prestigefyldte pris skal pleje sit brand

Nielsen, K. H. — Thu, 11 Jul 2024 01:43:10 +0200

UNESCO as a teacher of norms in science popularization

Andersen, C., Nielsen, K. H. — Sun, 01 Sep 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Nobelprisen går til...

Nielsen, K. H. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Mennesket ud af landbruget

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 28 Jun 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Hormoner eller ej

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Open Educational Resources on Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation (Open RRI)

Lagido, C., Nielsen, K. H., Kragh, G., et al. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Opening science to society

Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Mandeville, C., Somerwill, L., Kragh, G., Haklay, M. — Wed, 01 May 2024 01:43:10 +0200

A broad understanding of the aims and objectives of the international open science movement was recently adopted with the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, expanding the focus of open science to include scientific knowledge, infrastructures, knowledge systems and the open engagement of societal actors. In response, recent discussions on science policy practice are shifting to the implementation of open science via national policy. While policy instruments to support some aspects of open science are well-studied, guidance on the emerging 'social' aspects of open science has lagged, prompting UNESCO to generate guidance. In this paper, authors of a UNESCO Open Science Toolkit guidance document on 'Engaging societal actors in Open Science' synthesize the scholarly underpinnings behind the guidance document's recommendations. This work draws upon a targeted search from academic, policy, and grey literature in the fields of open science and community engagement, with a special focus on citizen science, to derive guidance on how to overcome barriers to the uptake of societal engagement approaches. The results present building blocks of what an enabling environment for the open engagement of societal actors could look like, identifying key considerations and reflecting on opportunities and challenges for progressing and evaluating sound open engagement of societal actors into regional & national (open) science policies.

Explanatory Stabilization in Situations of Evidential Uncertainty

Schindler, S. — Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Hvid dominans i jernstøberiet

Nielsen, K. H. — Wed, 08 May 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Einsteins problematiske Nobelpris

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 24 May 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Blitzkrig i haven

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 31 May 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Mastering the History of Pure and Applied Mathematics

Mon, 01 Jan 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Introducing the Philosophy of Mathematical Practice

Carter, J. — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 01:43:10 +0100

Fodbold er data

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Operation flere babyer

Nielsen, K. H. — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Normal science

Schindler, S. — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 01:43:10 +0200

When Kuhn first published his Structure of Scientific Revolutions he was accused of promoting an “irrationalist” account of science. Although it has since been argued that this charge is unfair in one aspect or another, the early criticism still exerts an influence on our understanding of Kuhn. In particular, normal science is often characterized as dogmatic and uncritical, even by commentators sympathetic to Kuhn. I argue not only that there is no textual evidence for this view but also that normal science is much better understood as being based on epistemically justified commitment to a paradigm and as pragmatic in its handling of anomalies. I also argue that normal science is an example of what I call Kuhn’s program of revisionary rational reconstruction.

Predicting and describing the use of generative AI in science-related information search

Greussing, E., Guenther, L., Baram-Tsabari, A., et al. — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Using Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) to analyze the research and publication culture in immunology

Wray, K. B., Paludan, S. R., Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R. — Sat, 01 Jun 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) is a method to reveal the historical roots and landmark papers of a research field based on cited references data. RPYS visualizes how frequently cited references occur in the cited reference lists of papers published in the research field. Previous RPYS studies revealed various historical aspects of the research and publication culture in various fields of study (e.g., economy and philosophy of science). Employing RPYS, we examine a dataset of citing publications in immunology. We identify and analyze 20 cited publications occurring very frequently in the cited reference lists of these citing papers. The 20 publications shed light on the epistemic culture and the development of the field of immunology. Whereas 65% of the publications were contributions to the theoretical and empirical understanding of immunology, 35% were contributions to methodology.

Fysikerne mellem videnskab og politik

Nielsen, H., Andersen, C. — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 01:43:10 +0200

Correction to

Bornmann, L., Wray, K. B., Haunschild, R. — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 01:43:10 +0200

In Bornmann, Wray, and Haunschild (2020, p. 1059), the term “like” was inadvertently included in the list of uncertainty terms. We did not use the term “like” for detection of uncertainty, and we did not intend to do so. The correct sentence should read: ‘The final set is as follows: “may”, “could”, “questions”, “might”, “potential”, “seems”, “perhaps”, “likely”, and “sometimes”.’ We apologize for any confusion this mistake might have caused.