A framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research and extension organizations for sustainable agricultural development in India

The purpose of this study was to formulate a methodological framework to incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research and extension organizations for sustainable agricultural development in India. Indigenous knowledge systems (IKSs) were recorded using farmer participatory methods such as transecting, participant observations, and unstructured interactions. IKSs were classified into (a) decision making systems; (b) indigenous knowledge statements; and (c) indigenous technical practices. Followed by this, an instrument was developed to identify: (1) the extent to which selected indigenous decision-making systems are agreeable to farmers; (2) the extent to which statements regarding indigenous knowledge systems are believed to be true by farmers; and (3) the extent to which selected indigenous technical practices (ITPs) are being used by farmers. A multiple regression analysis was computed to predict which one of the ITPs is the best predictor of productivity as well as sustainability. A cluster sampling procedure was adopted in order to select the sample. Three villages--Sivaranthakam, Kizhur, and Pillayarkuppam--belonging to the Union Territory of Pondicherry were selected as cluster samples. All the farmers in these villages (clusters) were involved in the study;The major findings of this study were: (1) participant farmers moderately agreed with most of the factors influencing indigenous decision-making systems; (2) the farmers strongly believed that most of the statements pertaining to indigenous knowledge to be true; (3) the farmers strongly utilized most of the indigenous technical practices; (4) seven out of 60 ITPs were found to be positively correlated with productivity in rice; (5) the ITP, sheep panning, was the best predictor for productivity in rice; and (6) the ITPs, sheep panning, using rat traps, and using stream water for irrigation were the best predictors to explain the variabilities in the three sustainability factors--soil fertility, external input usage, and maintaining groundwater for irrigation;The findings of the study revealed that IKSs can provide a frame of reference for strengthening agricultural research and extension programs. A framework was developed for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research and extension organizations. The framework provides guidelines for developing and disseminating sustainable agricultural technological options based on indigenous knowledge systems. The framework suggests practical and cost-effective methods for linking farmers, researchers, extensionists, and representatives of non-governmental organizations during the process of technology development and dissemination

Duhemian Good Sense and Agent Reliabilism

Stump (2007) argued for a virtue epistemological reading of Duhem's good sense: according to him Duhem advanced good sense as a source of justified beliefs about theory choice and as a mark of the cognitive character of the physicist. Ivanova (2010) argues that Duhem proposed good sense as a post hoc explanation of theory choice rather than as a justification of it. I contend that Ivanova’s reading of Duhem is inaccurate and that good sense can indeed be accommodated within virtue epistemology. However Stump’s account is incomplete: I propose that within virtue epistemology, agent reliabilism best accommodates Duhemian good sense

Duhemian Good Sense and Agent Reliabilism

Stump (2007) argues for a virtue epistemological reading of Duhem's good sense: according to him Duhem advanced good sense as a source of justified beliefs about theory choice and as a mark of the cognitive character of the physicist. Ivanova (2010) argues that Duhem proposed good sense as a post hoc explanation of theory choice rather than as a justification of it. Fairweather (2011) has advanced a "hybrid position" combining Stump's and Ivanova's views. I contend that Ivanova’s reading of Duhem is inaccurate and that good sense can indeed be accommodated within virtue epistemology. However Stump’s account is incomplete: I propose that within virtue epistemology, agent reliabilism best accommodates Duhemian good sense. Moreover, no hybrid reading is required: I argue that agent reliabilism fully accommodates Duhem's position on good sense. Finally I also explore the relevance of a reliabilist reading of Duhem to the debate on how to deal with the Problem of Induction in scientific practice

Duhemian Good Sense and Agent Reliabilism

Stump (2007) argues for a virtue epistemological reading of Duhem's good sense: according to him Duhem advanced good sense as a source of justified beliefs about theory choice and as a mark of the cognitive character of the physicist. Ivanova (2010) argues that Duhem proposed good sense as a post hoc explanation of theory choice rather than as a justification of it. Fairweather (2011) has advanced a "hybrid position" combining Stump's and Ivanova's views. I contend that Ivanova’s reading of Duhem is inaccurate and that good sense can indeed be accommodated within virtue epistemology. However Stump’s account is incomplete: I propose that within virtue epistemology, agent reliabilism best accommodates Duhemian good sense. Moreover, no hybrid reading is required: I argue that agent reliabilism fully accommodates Duhem's position on good sense. Finally I also explore the relevance of a reliabilist reading of Duhem to the debate on how to deal with the Problem of Induction in scientific practice

Revisiting Stance Voluntarism: In Defense of an Active Stance Pluralism

Bas van Fraassen’s stance voluntarism has raised the question of how to justify one’s own stance choice if one is to follow the voluntarist dictum that all rational stances, i.e. all those that don’t lead to ‘self-sabotage by one’s own lights’, are equally rational. van Fraassen’s response is that one justifies their stance choice based on one’s own values, but the problem is that those values only appeal to holders of the said stance and not others. In this paper I propose a pragmatist approach to justifying stance choice. I argue that we can provide stance-transcendent justification for our choice of stance based on its stance-transcendent benefits. Consequently, multiple stances having stance-transcendent benefits should all be embraced as it is the epistemically virtuous thing to do. I advocate a move away from the standard voluntarist position of being a stance monist in practice – i.e. defending and holding only one stance – while acknowledging other rational stances only begrudgingly. I defend an active stance pluralism where we strive to actively hold different (apparently conflicting) stances depending on the context. Where that’s not possible, I propose that we should at least enthusiastically encourage multiple stances (taken by others). In Section 1 I introduce epistemic stances via a discussion of stance empiricism and stance scientific realism. In Section 2 I discuss the problem of stance justification and explore a few different existing teleological proposals for stance choice. Finally in Section 3 based on numerous examples from science and philosophy, I argue for a pragmatic, active, normative stance pluralism. I conclude with some clarifications on the rationale behind active stance pluralism

Revisiting Stance Voluntarism: In Defense of an Active Stance Pluralism

Bas van Fraassen’s stance voluntarism has raised the question of how to justify one’s own stance choice if one is to follow the voluntarist dictum that all rational stances, i.e. all those that don’t lead to ‘self-sabotage by one’s own lights’, are equally rational. van Fraassen’s response is that one justifies their stance choice based on one’s own values, but the problem is that those values only appeal to holders of the said stance and not others. In this paper I propose a pragmatist approach to justifying stance choice. I argue that we can provide stance-transcendent justification for our choice of stance based on its stance-transcendent benefits. Consequently, multiple stances having stance-transcendent benefits should all be embraced as it is the epistemically virtuous thing to do. I advocate a move away from the standard voluntarist position of being a stance monist in practice – i.e. defending and holding only one stance – while acknowledging other rational stances only begrudgingly. I defend an active stance pluralism where we strive to actively hold different (apparently conflicting) stances depending on the context. Where that’s not possible, I propose that we should at least enthusiastically encourage multiple stances (taken by others). In Section 1 I introduce epistemic stances via a discussion of stance empiricism and stance scientific realism. In Section 2 I discuss the problem of stance justification and explore a few different existing teleological proposals for stance choice. Finally in Section 3 based on numerous examples from science and philosophy, I argue for a pragmatic, active, normative stance pluralism. I conclude with some clarifications on the rationale behind active stance pluralism

Beyond potentiometry: Robust electrochemical ion sensor concepts in view of remote chemical sensing

For about 100 years, potentiometry with ion-selective electrodes has been one of the dominating electroanalytical techniques. While great advances in terms of selective chemistries and materials have been achieved in recent years, the basic manner in which ion-selective membranes are used has not fundamentally changed. The potential readings are directly co-dependent on the potential at the reference electrode, which requires maintenance and for which very few accepted alternatives have been proposed. Fouling or clogging of the exposed electrode surfaces will lead to changes in the observed potential. At the same time, the Nernst equation predicts quite small potential changes, on the order of millivolts for concentration changes on the order of a factor two, making frequent recalibration, accurate temperature control and electrode maintenance keyrequirements of routine analytical measurements. While the relatively advanced selective materials developed for ion-selective sensors would be highly attractive for low power remote sensing application, one should consider solutions beyond classical potentiometry to make this technology practically feasible. This paper evaluates some recent examples that may be attractive solutions to the stated problems that face potentiometric measurements. These include high-amplitude sensing approaches, with sensitivities that are an order of magnitude larger than predicted by the Nernst equation; backside calibration potentiometry, where knowledge of the magnitude of the potential is irrelevant and the system is evaluated from the backside of the membrane; controlled current coulometry with ion-selective membranes, an attractive technique for calibration-free reagent delivery without the need for standards or volumetry; localized electrochemical titrations at ion-selective membranes, making it possible to design sensors that directly monitor parameters such as total acidity for which volumetric techniques were traditionally used; and controlled potential coulometry, where all ions of interest are selectively transferred into the ion-selective organic phase, forming a calibration-free technique that would be exquisitely suitable for remote sensing applications