Sabine Maasen – författare

We all know what a voluntary action is - we all think we know when an action is voluntary, and when it is not. First, there has to be some wish or goal, then an action designed to fulfil that wish or attain that goal. This standard view of voluntary action is prominent in both folk psychology and the professional sphere (e.g. the juridical) and guides a great deal of psychological and philosophical reasoning. But is it that simple though? For example, research from the neurosciences has shown us that the brain activation required to perform the action can actually precede the brain activation representing our conscious desire to perform that action. Only in retrospect do we come to attribute the action we performed to some desire or wish to perform the action.This presents us with a problem - if our conscious awareness of an action follows its execution, then is it really a voluntary action?The question guiding this book: What is the explanatory role of voluntary action, and are there ways that we can reconcile our common-sense intuitions about voluntary actions with the findings from the sciences? This is a debate that crosses the boundaries of philosophy, neuroscience, psychology and social science. This book brings together some of the leading thinkers from these disciplines to consider this deep and often puzzling topic. The result is a fascinating and stimulating debate that will challenge our fundamental assumptions about our sense of free-will.

We all know what a voluntary action is - we all think we know when an action is voluntary, and when it is not. First, there has to be some wish or goal, then an action designed to fulfil that wish or attain that goal. This standard view of voluntary action is prominent in both folk psychology and the professional sphere (e.g. the juridical) and guides a great deal of psychological and philosophical reasoning. But is it that simple though? For example, research from the neurosciences has shown us that the brain activation required to perform the action can actually precede the brain activation representing our conscious desire to perform that action. Only in retrospect do we come to attribute the action we performed to some desire or wish to perform the action.This presents us with a problem - if our conscious awareness of an action follows its execution, then is it really a voluntary action?The question guiding this book is: What is the explanatory role of voluntary action, and are there ways that we can reconcile our common-sense intuitions about voluntary actions with the findings from the sciences? This is a debate that crosses the boundaries of philosophy, neuroscience, psychology and social science. This book brings together some of the leading thinkers from these disciplines to consider this deep and often puzzling topic. The result is a fascinating and stimulating debate that will challenge our fundamental assumptions about our sense of free-will.

This book opens up a new route to the study of knowledge dynamics and the sociology of knowledge. The focus is on the role of metaphors as powerful catalysts, and the book dissects their role in the construction of theories of knowledge. It is of vital interest to social and cognitive scientists alike.

This book opens up a new route to the study of knowledge dynamics and the sociology of knowledge. The focus is on the role of metaphors as powerful catalysts, and the book dissects their role in the construction of theories of knowledge. It is of vital interest to social and cognitive scientists alike.

The disciplines of biology and the social sciences share common roots in history and yet have drifted so far apart that the demarcation line between them has become a contested boundary. The boundary shift between the "natural" and the "social" is becoming permanent: moves in either direction are subject to ideological rhetoric. Yet there is continual exchange across the line: metaphors are moving freely between biology and the social sciences. As messengers of meaning they become agents of change, forever undermining any attempt at fixing similarities and differences. This work offers an insight into the function of metaphors in mediating between two disciplinary cultures which represent and mould our views about nature and society, and the boundary between them. For professionals and students of history, philosophy and sociology of science, biology, and literary science alike.

Representing a wide range of disciplines -- biology, sociology, anthropology, economics, human ethology, psychology, primatology, history, and philosophy of science -- the contributors to this book recently spent a complete academic year at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) discussing a plethora of new insights in reference to human cultural evolution. These scholars acted as a living experiment of "interdisciplinarity in vivo." The assumption of this experiment was that the scholars -- while working and residing at the ZiF -- would be united intellectually as well as socially, a connection that might eventually enhance future interdisciplinary communication even after the research group had dispersed.An important consensus emerged: The issue of human culture poses a challenge to the division of the world into the realms of the "natural" and the "cultural" and hence, to the disciplinary division of scientific labor. The appropriate place for the study of human culture, in this group's view, is located between biology and the social sciences.Explicitly avoiding biological and sociological reductionisms, the group adopted a pluralistic perspective -- "integrative pluralism" -- that took into account both today's highly specialized and effective (sub-)disciplinary research and the possibility of integrating the respective findings on a case-by-case basis. Each sub-group discovered its own way of interdisciplinary collaboration and submitted a contribution to the present volume reflecting one of several types of fruitful cooperation, such as a fully integrated chapter, a multidisciplinary overview, or a discussion between different approaches. A promising first step on the long road to an interdisciplinarily informed understanding of human culture, this book will be of interest to social scientists and biologists alike.

2017 PROSE Award Honorable MentionThe PROSE Awards draw attention to pioneering works of research and for contributions to the conception, production, and design of landmark works in their fields.Featuring peer-reviewed contributions from noted experts in their fields of research, Reproducibility: Principles, Problems, Practices, and Prospects presents state-of-the-art approaches to reproducibility, the gold standard of sound science, from multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives. Including comprehensive coverage for implementing and reflecting the norm of reproducibility in various pertinent fields of research, the book focuses on how the reproducibility of results is applied, how it may be limited, and how such limitations can be understood or even controlled in the natural sciences, computational sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and studies of science and technology.The book presents many chapters devoted to a variety of methods and techniques, as well as their epistemic and ontological underpinnings, which have been developed to safeguard reproducible research and curtail deficits and failures. The book also investigates the political, historical, and social practices that underlie reproducible research in contemporary science studies, including the difficulties of good scientific practice and the ethos of reproducibility in modern innovation societies.Reproducibility: Principles, Problems, Practices, and Prospects is a guide for researchers who are interested in the general and overarching questions behind the concept of reproducibility; for active scientists who are confronted with practical reproducibility problems in their everyday work; and for economic stakeholders and political decision makers who need to better understand the challenges of reproducibility. In addition, the book is a useful in-depth primer for undergraduate and graduate-level courses in scientific methodology and basic issues in the philosophy and sociology of science from a modern perspective.“A comprehensive, insightful treatment of the reproducibility challenges facing science today and of ways in which the scientific community can address them.” Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication, University of Pennsylvania“How can we make sure that reproducible research remains a key imperative of scientific communication under increasing commercialization, media attention, and publication pressure? This handbook offers the first interdisciplinary and fundamental treatment of this important question.”Torsten Hothorn, Professor of Biostatistics, University of ZurichHarald Atmanspacher, PhD, is Associate Fellow and staff member at Collegium Helveticum, ETH and University Zurich and is also President of the Society for Mind-Matter Research.  He has pioneered advances in complex dynamical systems research and in a number of topics concerned with the relation between the mental and physical.Sabine Maasen, PhD, is Professor for Sociology of Science and Director of the Munich Center for Technology in Society (TU Munich) and Associate Fellow at Collegium Helveticum (ETH and University Zurich).  Her research focuses on the interface of science, technology, and society, notably with respect to neuroscience and its applications.

Representing a wide range of disciplines -- biology, sociology, anthropology, economics, human ethology, psychology, primatology, history, and philosophy of science -- the contributors to this book recently spent a complete academic year at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) discussing a plethora of new insights in reference to human cultural evolution. These scholars acted as a living experiment of "interdisciplinarity in vivo." The assumption of this experiment was that the scholars -- while working and residing at the ZiF -- would be united intellectually as well as socially, a connection that might eventually enhance future interdisciplinary communication even after the research group had dispersed.An important consensus emerged: The issue of human culture poses a challenge to the division of the world into the realms of the "natural" and the "cultural" and hence, to the disciplinary division of scientific labor. The appropriate place for the study of human culture, in this group's view, is located between biology and the social sciences.Explicitly avoiding biological and sociological reductionisms, the group adopted a pluralistic perspective -- "integrative pluralism" -- that took into account both today's highly specialized and effective (sub-)disciplinary research and the possibility of integrating the respective findings on a case-by-case basis. Each sub-group discovered its own way of interdisciplinary collaboration and submitted a contribution to the present volume reflecting one of several types of fruitful cooperation, such as a fully integrated chapter, a multidisciplinary overview, or a discussion between different approaches. A promising first step on the long road to an interdisciplinarily informed understanding of human culture, this book will be of interest to social scientists and biologists alike.

not lie in the conceptual distinctions but in the perceived functions of metaphors and whether in the concrete case they are judged positive or negative. The ongoing debates reflect these concerns quite clearly~ namely that metaphors are judged on the basis of supposed dangers they pose and opportunities they offer. These are the criteria of evaluation that are obviously dependent on the context in which the transfer of meaning occurs. Our fundamental concern is indeed the transfer itself~ its prospects and its limits. Looking at possible functions of metaphors is one approach to under­ standing and elucidating sentiments about them. The papers in this volume illustrate, by quite different examples, three basic functions of metaphors: illustrative, heuristic~ and constitutive. These functions rep­ resent different degrees of transfer of meaning. Metaphors are illustrative when they are used primarily as a literary device, to increase the power of conviction of an argument, for example. Although the difference between the illustrative and the heuristic function of metaphors is not great, it does exist: metaphors are used for heuristic purposes whenever "differences" of meaning are employed to open new perspectives and to gain new insights. In the case of "constitutive" metaphors they function to actually replace previous meanings by new ones. Sabine Maasen in her paper introduces the distinction between transfer and transforma­ tion.

‘Scientific advice to politics’, the ‘nature of expertise’, and the ‘relation between experts, policy makers, and the public’ are variations of a topic that currently attracts the attention of social scientists, philosophers of science as well as practitioners in the public sphere and the media. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. The new significance of ‘participation’ and ‘accountability’ has motivated scholars to take a new look at the science – politics interface and to probe questions such as "What is new in the arrangement of scientific expertise and political decision-making?", "How can reliable knowledge be made useful for politics and society at large, and how can epistemically and ethically sound decisions be achieved without losing democratic legitimacy?", "How can the objective of democratization of expertise be achieved without compromising the quality and reliability of knowledge?" Scientific knowledge and the ‘experts’ that represent it no longer command the unquestioned authority and public trust that was once bestowed upon them, and yet, policy makers are more dependent on them than ever before. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance.

‘Scientific advice to politics’, the ‘nature of expertise’, and the ‘relation between experts, policy makers, and the public’ are variations of a topic that currently attracts the attention of social scientists, philosophers of science as well as practitioners in the public sphere and the media. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. The new significance of ‘participation’ and ‘accountability’ has motivated scholars to take a new look at the science – politics interface and to probe questions such as "What is new in the arrangement of scientific expertise and political decision-making?", "How can reliable knowledge be made useful for politics and society at large, and how can epistemically and ethically sound decisions be achieved without losing democratic legitimacy?", "How can the objective of democratization of expertise be achieved without compromising the quality and reliability of knowledge?" Scientific knowledge and the ‘experts’ that represent it no longer command the unquestioned authority and public trust that was once bestowed upon them, and yet, policy makers are more dependent on them than ever before. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance.

This book introduces the term of TechnoScienceSociety to focus on the ongoing technological reconfigurations of science and society. Instead of constructing technology as society’s “other”, the book sets out to highlight the both complex and ambivalent entanglements of technologies, sciences and socialities.

This book introduces the term of TechnoScienceSociety to focus on the ongoing technological reconfigurations of science and society. Instead of constructing technology as society’s “other”, the book sets out to highlight the both complex and ambivalent entanglements of technologies, sciences and socialities.

Kann Wissenschaft ein Gegenstand nicht nur für Erkenntniskritik und historische Analyse, sondern auch für die Soziologie sein? Lange hieß es: nein! Spätestens mit Robert K. Merton ändert sich dies: Seither beschäftigt sich eine Wissenschaftsso­ziologie mit der Frage, wie die Produktion, Verbreitung und Geltung gesicherten Wissens möglich sind.Das erhebliche Inventar an Theorien und Methoden, das zur Beantwortung die­ser Frage zur Verfügung steht, verdankt sich der Soziologie als Heimatdisziplin der Wissenschaftssoziologie – angereichert hat sie es durch ihre Eingliederung in eine interdisziplinäre Wissenschaftsforschung sowie durch Kooperationen mit Nach­bardisziplinen. Ob Diskurse oder Systeme, ob Organisationen oder Institutionen der Wissenschaft, ob Interaktionen mit Politik oder Öffentlichkeiten, ob neue Me­dien oder neue Arbeitsweisen, ob Nichtwissens- oder Technowissenschaftskultu­ren – wie die Beiträge des Handbuchs schlaglichtartig zeigen, widmet sich die heutige Wissenschaftssoziologie diesen und weiteren Themen mit hoher Auflösungskraft und Differenzierung. Die Wissen­schaftssoziologie untersucht sowohl die heterogenen Bedingungen und ambi­valenten Effekte der Produktion, Verbreitung und Geltung gesicherten Wissens als auch der zunehmenden Wissensbasierung der Gesellschaft insgesamt. Es spricht deshalb einiges dafür, dass sie heute als Bindestrichsoziologie mit gesellschaftsdia­gnostischem Potenzial betrachtet werden kann.

Nanotechnology has been the subject of extensive ‘assessment hype,’ unlike any previous field of research and development. A multiplicity of stakeholders have started to analyze the implications of nanotechnology: Technology assessment institutions around the world, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, re-insurance companies, and academics from science and technology studies and applied ethics have turned their attention to this growing field’s implications. In the course of these assessment efforts, a social phenomenon has emerged – a phenomenon the editors define as assessment regime.Despite the variety of organizations, methods, and actors involved in the evaluation and regulation of emerging nanotechnologies, the assessment activities comply with an overarching scientific and political imperative: Innovations are only welcome if they are assessed against the criteria of safety, sustainability, desirability, and acceptability. So far, such deliberations and reflections have played only a subordinate role. This book argues that with the rise of the nanotechnology assessment regime, however, things have changed dramatically: Situated at the crossroads of democratizing science and technology, good governance, and the quest for sustainable innovations, the assessment regime has become constitutive for technological development.The contributions in this book explore and critically analyse nanotechnology’s assessment regime: To what extent is it constitutive for technology in general, for nanotechnology in particular? What social conditions render the regime a phenomenon sui generis? And what are its implications for science and society?

Nanotechnology has been the subject of extensive ‘assessment hype,’ unlike any previous field of research and development. A multiplicity of stakeholders have started to analyze the implications of nanotechnology: Technology assessment institutions around the world, non-governmental organizations, think tanks, re-insurance companies, and academics from science and technology studies and applied ethics have turned their attention to this growing field’s implications. In the course of these assessment efforts, a social phenomenon has emerged – a phenomenon the editors define as assessment regime.Despite the variety of organizations, methods, and actors involved in the evaluation and regulation of emerging nanotechnologies, the assessment activities comply with an overarching scientific and political imperative: Innovations are only welcome if they are assessed against the criteria of safety, sustainability, desirability, and acceptability. So far, such deliberations and reflections have played only a subordinate role. This book argues that with the rise of the nanotechnology assessment regime, however, things have changed dramatically: Situated at the crossroads of democratizing science and technology, good governance, and the quest for sustainable innovations, the assessment regime has become constitutive for technological development.The contributions in this book explore and critically analyse nanotechnology’s assessment regime: To what extent is it constitutive for technology in general, for nanotechnology in particular? What social conditions render the regime a phenomenon sui generis? And what are its implications for science and society?