Mathematical Philosophy

Mathematics and philosophy are two words with different meanings and the same thing. With various historical evidence, mathematics as the basis of science is not part of or born from philosophy. In the same position in knowledge, mathematics confirm the answers to intimate problem in philosophy. Often there is confusion in philosophy because of conflicting concepts with one another. Mathematics without philosophy does not move swiftly, because without the meanings that are sometimes driven by philosophy. Logically, truth is not well developed in evidence except when mathematics and philosophy get long. It is to provide an understanding of the need for a foundation of truth thought, which generally reveals in the comprehension of mathematics, namely in meta-mathematics and philosophy

Washington University Record, August 14, 2008

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/record/2147/thumbnail.jp

Philanthropy Annual: 2009 Review

Be in the know. Stay on top of the issues, trends, and people in the field. Philanthropy Annual, our compendium of highlights from the year, includes:Exclusive interviews with leaders in our fieldCommentary by respected thinkersNotable leadership changes and sector awardsA roundup of books, periodicals, and blogsKey stats on foundation givingA handy desk reference section with listings of sector organizations and contact

Dual-Use Science and Bioethics: Governance of Biotechnology in Post-Soviet Russia

Throughout the world, systems of life science governance carry historical, cultural, and political legacies, which now confront the revolutionary and pervasive advances of twenty-first century biotechnology. Nations' adaptability to the twin challenges of attempting to secure the benefits while reducing the risks and threats is a large and still burgeoning governance challenge. The legacy of the Soviet Union is particularly important in this regard, since its history of prolonged authoritarian rule and intense development of biological weapons in combination with the continuing scientific and technological prowess of Russia is a governance challenge, unprecedented in its nature and scale. The aim of the dissertation therefore is to examine to what extent and by what means it is possible for Russia to reconcile its on-going expansion in biotechnology with the institutional and normative inertia arising from its Soviet past. The first part of the dissertation (Chapters 1-4) seeks to uncover and analyse both the growth and consolidation of the governance of biotechnology and the multifaceted governance challenges brought about by the rapid advancement of the life sciences in the twenty-first century. The second part (Chapters 5-8) examines the extent to which the Soviet institutional and infrastructural legacies in the culture of life science research still persist in Russia and impact the governance of biotechnology in that country. The concluding chapter offers an assessment of the current state of the governance of biotechnology in Russia and outlines a scope for further research.Wellcome Trus

Examining the Role of Liaison Librarians as Research Collaboration Partners: A Mixed-Methods Multiple-Case Study

This sequential, mixed-methods study explored the professional relationship-building experiences of academic liaison librarians and university professors with a focus on research collaborations. A survey was administered and Chi-square and Spearman\u27s rho analyses conducted on 2,650 responses to identify associations between organizational and individual factors and liaisons\u27 work, perceptions of relationship-building experiences, and confidence in supporting faculty research. Following the survey, seven liaison-faculty pairs were identified and interviewed, and case study analysis utilized to explore specific liaison-faculty research collaboration relationships. The study explored factors associated with liaisons\u27 work, perceptions of faculty relationship-building, and confidence in supporting faculty research. The most salient factors were discipline focus of liaisons\u27 supported areas, percentage of liaisons\u27 position devoted to liaison responsibilities, and holding an additional post-graduate degree. Respondents who supported STEM areas expressed more negative faculty relationship-building experiences and less confidence in their ability to support faculty research. Liaisons with a smaller percentage of their position devoted to liaison work were less likely to provide research support or engage in outreach, were more likely to agree with negative relationship-building statements and more likely to disagree with positive relationship-building statements, and expressed less confidence in their ability to support faculty research activities. Finally, those who held an additional post-graduate degree more often than expected agreed with positive-relationship building statements and expressed more confidence in their ability to support faculty research. While the seven case studies detailed the diverse nature of liaison-faculty research collaboration relationships, within the cases 21 sub-themes were identified and classified into four categories: collaborator traits, collaborator descriptors, feelings/emotions, and potential barriers/facilitators. Common collaborator traits included different areas of expertise and different perspectives. Collaborators were often described as equals, partners, or friends. Emotions/feelings expressed about their relationships included fun, comfort, and trust and respect. Potential barriers to collaborative relationship development included differences in institutional status and liaisons\u27 workload, while institutional support and liaison proactivity were identified as facilitators. This study indicates that liaisons\u27 workload, institutional status, and visibility impact liaisons\u27 ability to develop collaborative research relationships with faculty. To address these areas, it is suggested that liaisons make faculty aware of their availability to collaborate, create faculty advocates to support liaison and library efforts, and be proactive and visible in their efforts to interact with faculty. Based on these findings, suggestions of areas for future research are provided