Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Practicing and studying automated experimentation may benefit from philosophical reflection on experimental science in general. This paper reviews the relevant literature and discusses central issues in the philosophy of scientific experimentation. The first two sections present brief accounts of the rise of experimental science and of its philosophical study. The next sections discuss three central issues of scientific experimentation: the scientific and philosophical significance of intervention and production, the relationship between experimental science and technology, and the interactions between experimental and theoretical work. The concluding section identifies three issues for further research: the role of computing and, more specifically, automating, in experimental research, the nature of experimentation in the social and human sciences, and the significance of normative, including ethical, problems in experimental science.
Practicing and studying automated experimentation may benefit from philosophical reflection on experimental science in general. This paper reviews the relevant literature and discusses central issues in the philosophy of scientific experimentation. The first two sections present brief accounts of the rise of experimental science and of its philosophical study. The next sections discuss three central issues of scientific experimentation: the scientific and philosophical significance of intervention and production, the relationship between experimental science and technology, and the interactions between experimental and theoretical work. The concluding section identifies three issues for further research: the role of computing and, more specifically, automating, in experimental research, the nature of experimentation in the social and human sciences, and the significance of normative, including ethical, problems in experimental science.
This article outlines elements of a negative history of science. For historians wishing to get a fuller picture of scientific practice both internally and externally, there is a lot to be gained by considering the dialectical constitution of scientific knowledge. To fully comprehend this relationality, historians should, therefore, trace the negative relations science maintains. Through oppositions, such as known/unknown; success/error; consideration/ignorance; and inclusion/exclusion, scientific knowledge emerges and disappears, and the social position of scientific practice is both established and contested. To exemplify our argument, we present four areas: the unknown, errors, ignorance, and the “pseudosciences”. Taken together, this approach allows us to understand how science constitutes itself epistemically and socially across different locations and historical periods.
Uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) provide an effective method to examine geomorphic and vegetation change in restored coastal dune ecosystems. Coupling structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry with RGB orthomosaic imagery allows researchers to characterize spatial-temporal geomorphic responses associated with differences in vegetation cover. Such approaches provide quantitative data on landscape morphodynamics and sediment erosion and deposition responses that allow scientists and land managers to assess the efficacy of dynamic restoration efforts and, in turn, make informed decisions for future restoration projects. Two different restored coastal foredune sites in Humboldt County, California were monitored between 2016–20 with UAS (quadcopter and fixed-wing), kite aerial photogrammetry (KAP), and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) platforms. We compared our KAP- and UAS-SfM elevation models to concurrently collected TLS bare earth models for five of our fifteen collections. The goal of this study was to inform on the potential of a multi-platform aerial approach for calculating geomorphic differences (i.e., topographic differencing), in order to quantify sediment erosion and deposition, and vegetation change over a coastal dune ecosystem. While UAS-SfM datasets were relatively well fit to their TLS counterparts (2.1–12.2% area of difference), the KAP-SfM surfaces exhibited higher deviations (23.6–27.6%) and suffered from systematic collection inconsistencies related to methods and susceptibility to external factors (e.g., the influence of wind speed and direction on variable altitude, image overlap, and coverage extent). Finally, we provide commentary on the logistical considerations regarding KAP and UAS data collection and the construction of uncertainty budgets for geomorphic change detection (GCD), while providing suggestions for standardizing methods for uncertainty budgeting. While we propose an approach that incorporates multiple levels of collection- and processing-based uncertainty, we also recognize that uncertainty is often project-specific and outline the development of potential standards for incorporating uncertainty budgets in SfM projects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.