The Grizzly, December 1, 2005

Memorial for Professor McLennan • Fate of The Egg • Jazz Legend Performs at Ursinus • Myrin Renovations • Murderball is Coming to Ursinus • Hot Discounts Warm up the Ski Season • Am I Pregnant? • What\u27s Hot and What\u27s Not This Gift-Giving Season • Wanted: Greek Presidents • Opinions: The Bigger Headache with PA Liquor Laws; How to Avoid Disastrous Holiday Parties; Addicted to Games, Are We? • Bears Ground Flying Dutchmen • Bears Fall Short of NCAA Titlehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1701/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, October 27, 2005

Clamer Ghosts at it Again • Henrietta: A Haunting Tale • Spirits Spook BWC and Elliott • Terror Behind the Walls • Lighter Side of Halloween • Senior Halloween Party Promises to Bring Excitement to the Weekend • Opinions: Words that Scare People • Streak Ends as Bears Douse Bullets • Bears Blank Bulletshttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1697/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, October 6, 2005

UC Tuition Series Part Two: AFAC • Thinking Man\u27s Comic Brings Biting Wit to Campus • Director of Physical Facilities Retires after 26 Years of Service • Crossing Woes • Long-term Campus Development Plans • Environmentalist Speaks on Climate Change • Program Spotlight: America Reads • Jordanian Visitor Discusses Education • New Attendance Policy • Battle of the Websites: The Facebook vs. MySpace • Let\u27s Talk About Sex • Staff Profile: Campus Safety Director Kim Taylor • Can You Climb the Wall? • Let\u27s Party: The Unspoken Rules of Ursinus Nightlife • Opinions: The Black Spotlight, Or Why White People Like Me; Stress Can Affect Your Academic Performance; Down the Path; Another Glance at UC Fringe • Bears Terrorize McDaniel in OT • Bears Make Bullets Shoot Blanks • Rally Falls Short as McDaniel Beats Ursinus • Soccer Struggles Continuehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1695/thumbnail.jp

Deweyan tools for inquiry and the epistemological context of critical pedagogy

This article develops the notion of resistance as articulated in the literature of critical pedagogy as being both culturally sponsored and cognitively manifested. To do so, the authors draw upon John Dewey\u27s conception of tools for inquiry. Dewey provides a way to conceptualize student resistance not as a form of willful disputation, but instead as a function of socialization into cultural models of thought that actively truncate inquiry. In other words, resistance can be construed as the cognitive and emotive dimensions of the ongoing failure of institutions to provide ideas that help individuals both recognize social problems and imagine possible solutions. Focusing on Dewey\u27s epistemological framework, specifically tools for inquiry, provides a way to grasp this problem. It also affords some innovative solutions; for instance, it helps conceive of possible links between the regular curriculum and the study of specific social justice issues, a relationship that is often under-examined. The aims of critical pedagogy depend upon students developing dexterity with the conceptual tools they use to make meaning of the evidence they confront; these are background skills that the regular curriculum can be made to serve even outside social justice-focused curricula. Furthermore, the article concludes that because such inquiry involves the exploration and potential revision of students\u27 world-ordering beliefs, developing flexibility in how one thinks may be better achieved within academic subjects and topics that are not so intimately connected to students\u27 current social lives, especially where students may be directly implicated

The Grizzly, September 29, 2005

Fire Safety on Campus • UC Tuition Series Part I: An Overview • Study Abroad in Madrid Returns • Campus Drive Removal • Upcoming RHA Events • Backed Up Your Computer Lately? • Club Spotlight: Le Cercle Francais • Seven Day Itch • The Drift Away Cafe • Main Street Walks for STD Awareness • Sigma Gamma Rho Walks for Sickle Cell Anemia • Update from Mexico • Heefner Organ Recital Series at Ursinus College • Readjusting: Tulane Students at Ursinus • Oktoberfest: An Ursinus Tradition • How do You Take Your Caffeine? • Opinions: Activities Fair Helps Students Get Involved; Face Off; Gangsta Mentality; This Year\u27s Fringe Festival Lived Up to its Name • Just for Kicks, Lady Bears Win Six • Bears Strand Shorewomen • Breaking the Moldhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1694/thumbnail.jp

Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude

Carrier M. Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude. Science & Education. 2013;22(10):2547-2568.My intention is to cast light on the characteristics of epistemic or fundamental research (in contrast to application-oriented research). I contrast a Baconian notion of objectivity, expressing a correspondence of the views of scientists to the facts, with a pluralist notion, involving a critical debate between conflicting approaches. These conflicts include substantive hypotheses or theories but extend to values as well. I claim that a plurality of epistemic values serves to accomplish a non-Baconian form of objectivity that is apt to preserve most of the intuitions tied to the objectivity of science. For instance, pluralism is the only way to cope with the challenge of preference bias. Furthermore, the plurality of epistemic values cannot be substantially reduced by exploring the empirical success of scientific theories distinguished in light of particular such values. However, in addition to pluralism at the level of theories and value-commitments alike, scientific research is also characterized by a joint striving for consensus which I trace back to a shared epistemic attitude. This attitude manifests itself, e.g., in the willingness of scientists to subject their claims to empirical scrutiny and to respect rational argument. This shared epistemic attitude is embodied in rules adopted by the scientific community concerning general principles of dealing with knowledge claims. My contention is that pluralism and consensus formation can be brought into harmony by placing them at different levels of consideration: at the level of scientific reasoning and at the level of social conventions regarding how to deal with claims put forward within the scientific community