Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

evoText and Philosophy of Science

464 views

Published on

EvoText is a new online tool for the philosophy and history of science. EvoText contains a database of hundreds of thousands of science journal articles and allows anyone to use powerful automated analysis tools to produce quantitative information about the nature and history of science. Recent decades have witnessed increased perception that philosophy of science should be in touch with scientific practice. This has occurred alongside the proliferation of the science journal literature. With the number of articles published on a daily basis, it is now all but impossible to closely follow anything but a narrow subfield. But philosophy of science often has the goal of producing broad claims about science. This creates a challenge: How can philosophers of science have a command over a swath of the scientific literature too vast to be able to be read? We have created evoText to help address this challenge.

EvoText allows researchers to perform a wide variety of textual analyses against the journal literature, enabling what has come to be known as “distant reading” against a wide corpus of scientific journal articles. In addition to (not in place of) traditional close readings of the claims that scientists make on a daily basis, we may bolster such claims by offering statistical analyses, showing that the claims we make about science on the basis of a small number of articles may rightly be said to hold of the broader literature in general.

In this presentation, we will offer some recent results from our use of evoText. We will discuss several examples of the kind of benefits that can be drawn from use of textual analysis in the philosophy of science, drawn from our own work in the history and philosophy of biology.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

evoText and Philosophy of Science

  1. 1. Digital Humanities and the Philosophy of Science
  2. 2. What is the nature of science and how has it changed over the past two centuries? What drives scientific change, and what accounts for when and why scientists give up cherished views to adopt new ones? How does science (fairly) reliably produce truths about the world?
  3. 3. What is the nature of science and how has it changed over the past two centuries? What drives scientific change, and what accounts for when and why scientists give up cherished views to adopt new ones? How does science (fairly) reliably produce truths about the world? Traditional approaches from: Philosophy of science The social sciences History
  4. 4. Digital Humanities
  5. 5. Formal Models Digital Humanities
  6. 6. History and Philosophy of Science Formal Models Digital Humanities
  7. 7. History and Philosophy of Science Formal Models Digital Humanities
  8. 8. evoText and Philosophy of Science Charles Pence Louisiana State University www.charlespence.net Grant Ramsey KU Leuven www.theramseylab.org
  9. 9. 1.What is evoText? 2. How to use evoText 3. Preliminary results of evoText
  10. 10. 1.What is evoText?
  11. 11. e.g.: How has the frequency of a term changed over time? What data do you want to use? e.g.: Articles in Nature from the 1990s Provide a few more parameters e.g.: Look for the term “evolution” Get your results! What question do you want to answer? (wait for a while)
  12. 12. 2. How to use evoText
  13. 13. 3. Preliminary results from evoText
  14. 14. • A network of ~100 biologists • Publishing in Nature from 1869–1940 • Total of ~2,000 articles (or letters)
  15. 15. • Network of discourse does reflect community structure! • Paradigm “debaters” or “warriors” pull themselves out of the broader discussion • Networks of discourse give us a way to draw connections across paradigms at times of crisis
  16. 16. ThankYou

×