Academic literature on the topic 'Karel Popper'

The book under review is a special one in regard to both content and form. The rich content of Against essentialism (AE) includes philosophical, linguistic, and social claims as well as the interrelationships between them. The form of AE is a continuation of a respectable tradition of dialogical and argumentative writing from Plato to Feyerabend. However, the focus of Janicki's investigations is not Feyerabend and his iconoclastic principles – for example, “Anything goes,” or the critique of the scientific method that is, Feyerabend's contribution to postmodern thought – but rather Popper's (1945) rejection of Aristotelian essentialism (cf. Janicki 1990). The main goals of AE are clear: first, to show the errors and harmfulness of essentialist thinking, the unjustified belief in the importance and power of definitions (or defining concepts and terms in sciences), and the claim that words and their definitions adequately reflect physical, mental or social reality; and second, to propose language awareness as a remedy that can alleviate the problems produced by the uncritical acceptance of essentialist ideology and philosophy. The main object of Janicki's critique is the social-scientific insistence on providing definitions of all concepts, including those that in reality cannot be defined. The eight dialogues in AE deal with crucial aspects of language use and its consequences for human (mis)communication, interpersonal relations, and various other social phenomena.

Lisa-Karen Mannefeld, Verfassungsrechtliche Vorgaben für die europäische Integration. Rechtsprechung des deutschen und italienischen Verfassungsgerichts, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2017, 355 Seiten, 79,00 €. ISBN 978-3-16-155176-5. (Robert Chr. van Ooyen, Berlin / Lübeck / Dresden) Robert Chr. van Ooyen/Martin H. W. Möllers (Hg.), Karl Popper und das Staatsverständnis des Kritischen Rationalismus. Staatsverständnisse, Band 123, hrsg. von Rüdiger Voigt, Baden-Baden, Nomos 2019, 187 Seiten, 34,00 €. ISBN: 978-3-8487-5084-9. (Manfred H. Wiegandt, Wareham, Massachusetts, USA)

Abstract The Society gratefully acknowledges the time and effort of the following individuals who served as reviewers of abstracts for this meeting: ASH ABSTRACTS COORDINATING REVIEWERS Blanche P. Alter Stephen M. Ansell Ralph B. Arlinghaus Scott Armstrong Asad Bashey Philip Bierman Neil Blumberg Chiara Bonini Dominique Bonnet Jacqueline Boultwood Rena Buckstein John C. Byrd Marc Carrier Lucio H. Castilla Selina Chen-Kiang Nicholas Chiorazzi Jorge Cortes-Franco Claire E. Dearden Mary C. Dinauer Harry Paul Erba Carolyn A. Felix Pierre Fenaux Debra L. Friedman Irene M. Ghobrial Jason R. Gotlib Brandon Hayes-Lattin Cheryl A. Hillery Achille Iolascon Jean-Pierre J. Issa Sundar Jagannath Diane F. Jelinek H. Phillip Koeffler John Koreth Robert J. Kreitman Robert B. Levy David Lillicrap Richard Lottenberg John D. McMannis Mark D. Minden Charles G. Mullighan Arnon Nagler Peter J. Newman Robert Z. Orlowski Antonio Palumbo Julie A. Panepinto Warren S. Pear Sibrand Poppema Barbara Pro Ching-Hon Pui A. Koneti Rao Aaron P. Rapoport Pieter H. Reitsma Douglas D. Ross J. Eric Russell Barbara Savoldo Kirk R. Schultz Radek C. Skoda Marilyn L. Slovak Susan Smyth Hugo ten Cate Herve Tilly John M. Timmerman Ivo Touw Amy J. Wagers Russell E. Ware Catherine J. Wu Virginia M. Zaleskas ASH ABSTRACTS REVIEWERS Camille Abboud Omar Abdel-Wahab Jeremy Abramson Suneet Agarwal Sikander Ailawadhi Onder Alpdogan Andrew Aprikyan Mary Armanios Aneel Ashrani Norio Asou Aglaia Athanassiadou Eyal Attar Mohammad Azam Maria Baer Jorg Baesecke Sarah Ball Karen Ballen Frederic Baron Shannon Bates Minoo Battiwalla Marie Bene Charles Bennett James Berenson Steven Bernstein Francesco Bertoni Monica Bessler Wolfgang Bethge Kapil Bhalla Deepa Bhojwani James Bieker Bruce R. Blazar Annemarie Block David Bodine Catherine Bollard Antonio Bonati Eric Bouhassira Benjamin Braun Christopher Bredeson Patrick Brown Ross Brown Jan Burger Dario Campana Jose Cancelas Paul Carpenter Andrew Carroll James Casella Rebecca Chan Roy Chemaly Benny Chen Jerry Cheng Linzhao Cheng Bruce Cheson Mark Chiang Athar Chishti Hearn Cho Magdalena Chrzanowska-Wodnicka Richard E. Clark Joseph Connors Kenneth Cooke Miguel Cruz Adam Cuker Sandeep Dave Janice Davis Sproul Lucia De Franceschi Philip De Groot Rodney DeKoter Richard Delarue Stephen Devereux Steven Devine Paola Jorge Di Don Diamond Meletios Dimopoulos John DiPersio Angela Dispenzieri Benjamin Djulbegovic Jing-fei Dong James Downing William Drobyski Rafael Duarte Charles Dumontet Kieron Dunleavy Brian Durie Dimitar Efremov Elizabeth Eklund Jonas Emsley Patricia Ernst Andrew Evens Chris Fegan Andrew Feldman Giuliana Ferrari Willem Fibbe Adele Fielding Thoas Fioretos Robert Flaumenhaft Rafael Fonseca James Foran Joseph Frank Janet Franklin Paul Frenette Alan Friedman Terry Fry Saghi Gaffari Naomi Galili Patrick Gallagher Anne Galy David Garcia Randy Gascoyne Cristina Gasparetto Norbert Gattermann Tobias Gedde-Dahl Alan Gewirtz Francis Giles Robert Godal Lucy Godley Ivana Gojo Norbert Gorin Andre Goy Eric Grabowski Steven Grant Timothy Graubert Elizabeth Griffiths H. Leighton Grimes Claudia Haferlach Corinne Haioun Parameswaran Hari Christine Harrison Robert Hasserjian Nyla Heerema Shelly Heimfeld Roland Herzog Elizabeth Hexner Teru Hideshima William H. Hildebrand Gerhard Hildebrandt Devendra Hiwase Karin Hoffmeister Donna Hogge Scott Howard Brian Huntly Hiroto Inaba Baba Inusa Shai Izraeli Suresh Jhanwar Amy Johnson Craig Jordan Joseph Jurcic Nina Kadan-Lottick Lawrence Kaplan Jonathan Kaufman Neil Kay Michelle Kelliher Craig Kessler H. Jean Khoury Allison King Joseph Kiss Issay Kitabayashi Robert Klaassen Christoph Klein Yoshihisa Kodera Alexander Kohlmann Barbara Konkle Michael Kovacs Robert Kralovics Amrita Krishnan Nicolaus Kroger Ashish Kumar Ralf Küppers Jeffery Kutok Ann LaCasce Raymond Lai David Lane Peter Lane Richard Larson Michelle Le Beau Gregoire Le Gal Ollivier Legrand Suzanne Lentzsch John Leonard John Levine Ross Levine Linheng Li Renhao Li Zhenyu Li Wendy Lim Charles Linker Jeffrey Lipton Per Ljungman John Lollar Philip Low David Lucas Selina Luger Leo Luznik Gary Lyman Jaroslaw Maciejewski Elizabeth MacIntyre Nigel Mackman Luca Malcovati Guido Marcucci Tomer Mark Susan Maroney Giovanni Martinelli Peter Maslak Alan Mast Grant McArthur Philip McCarthy Michael McDevitt Peter McLaughlin Bruno Medeiros Jules P.P. Meijerink Junia Melo Thomas Mercher Bradley Messmer Marco Mielcarek Ken Mills Shin Mineishi Arturo Molina Silvia Montoto Marie Joelle Mozziconacci Auayporn Nademanee Vesna Najfeld Eneida Nemecek Ellis Neufeld Peter Newburger Heyu Ni Charlotte Marie Niemeyer Yago Nieto Anne Novak Paul O\'Donnell Vivian Oehler Fritz Offner Johannes Oldenburg Rebecca Olin Richard J. O'Reilly Thomas Ortel Keiya Ozawa Rose Ann Padua Sung-Yun Pai James Palis Derwood Pamphilon Animesh Pardanani Farzana Pashankar Andrea Pellagatti Catherine Pellat-Deceunynck Louis Pelus Chris Pepper Melanie Percy Andrew Perkins Luke Peterson Andrew Pettitt Javier Pinilla-Ibarz Kimmo Porkka David Porter Amy Powers Claude Preudhomme Frederick Racke Margaret Ragni Thomas Raife Alessandro Rambaldi Mariusz Ratajczak Pavan Reddy Mary Relling Tannishtha Reya Lisa Rimsza Stefano Rivella Isabelle Riviere Pamela Robey Gail Roboz Aldo Roccaro Maria Alma Rodriguez Frank Rosenbauer Laura Rosinol Alan Rosmarin Giuseppe Saglio Jonathan Said Valeria Santini Ravindra Sarode Yogenthiran Saunthararajah Bipin Savani Alan Schechter Charles Schiffer Robert Schlossman Laurie Sehn Rita Selby Orhan Sezer Sadhna Shankar John Shaughnessy Jordan Shavit Kevin Sheehan Shalini Shenoy Colin Sieff Paul Simmons Seema Singhal Sonali Smith Gerard Socie Pieter Sonneveld Simona Soverini David Spaner Steven Spitalnik Kostas Stamatopoulos David Steensma Richard Stone Toshio Suda Perumal Thiagarajan Courtney Thornburg Rodger Tiedemann David Traver Guido Tricot Darrell Triulzi Suzanne Trudel Christel Van Geet Karin Vanderkerken David Varon Amit Verma Srdan Verstovsek Ravi Vij Dan Vogl Loren Walensky Edmund Waller George Weiner Daniel Weisdorf Karl Welte Peter Westervelt Adrian Wiestner P.W. Wijermans John Wingard Anne Woolfrey Mingjiang Xu Qing Yi Anas Younes Ryan Zarychanski Arthur Zelent Clive Zent Dong-Er Zhang Xianzheng Zhou James Zimring

Image 1: Hasbro/Tiger Electronics 1998 Furby. (Photo credit: Author) Introduction Since the mid-1990s robotic and digital creatures designed to offer social interaction and companionship have been developed for commercial and research interests. Integral to encouraging positive experiences with these creatures has been the use of cute aesthetics that aim to endear companions to their human users. During this time there has also been a growth in online communities that engage in cultural production through fan fiction responses to existing cultural artefacts, including the widely recognised electronic companion, Hasbro’s Furby (image 1). These user stories and Furby’s online representation in general, demonstrate that contrary to the intentions of their designers and marketers, Furbys are not necessarily received as cute, or the embodiment of the helpless and harmless demeanour that goes along with it. Furbys’ large, lash-framed eyes, small, or non-existent limbs, and baby voice are typical markers of cuteness but can also evoke another side of cuteness—monstrosity, especially when the creature appears physically capable instead of helpless (Brzozowska-Brywczynska 217). Furbys are a particularly interesting manifestation of the cute aesthetic because it is used as tool for encouraging attachment to a socially interactive electronic object, and therefore intersects with existing ideas about technology and nonhuman companions, both of which often embody a sense of otherness. This paper will explore how cuteness intersects withand transitions into monstrosity through online representations of Furbys, troubling their existing design and marketing narrative by connecting and likening them to other creatures, myths, and anecdotes. Analysis of narrative in particular highlights the instability of cuteness, and cultural understandings of existing cute characters, such as the gremlins from the film Gremlins (Dante) reinforce the idea that cuteness should be treated with suspicion as it potentially masks a troubling undertone. Ultimately, this paper aims to interrogate the cultural complexities of designing electronic creatures through the stories that people tell about them online. Fan Production Authors of fan fiction are known to creatively express their responses to a variety of media by appropriating the characters, settings, and themes of an original work and sharing their cultural activity with others (Jenkins 88). On a personal level, Jenkins (103) argues that “[i]n embracing popular texts, the fans claim those works as their own, remaking them in their own image, forcing them to respond to their needs and to gratify their desires.” Fan fiction authors are motivated to write not for financial or professional gains but for personal enjoyment and fan recognition, however, their production does not necessarily come from favourable opinions of an existing text. The antifan is an individual who actively hates a text or cultural artefact and is mobilised in their dislike to contribute to a community of others who share their views (Gray 841). Gray suggests that both fan and antifan activity contribute to our understanding of the kinds of stories audiences want: Although fans may wish to bring a text into everyday life due to what they believe it represents, antifans fear or do not want what they believe it represents and so, as with fans, antifan practice is as important an indicator of interactions between the textual and public spheres. (855) Gray reminds that fans, nonfans, and antifans employ different interpretive strategies when interacting with a text. In particular, while fans intimate knowledge of a text reflects their overall appreciation, antifans more often focus on the “dimensions of the moral, the rational-realistic, [or] the aesthetic” (856) that they find most disagreeable. Additionally, antifans may not experience a text directly, but dislike what knowledge they do have of it from afar. As later examples will show, the treatment of Furbys in fan fiction arguably reflects an antifan perspective through a sense of distrust and aversion, and analysing it can provide insight into why interactions with, or indirect knowledge of, Furbys might inspire these reactions. Derecho argues that in part because of the potential copyright violation that is faced by most fandoms, “even the most socially conventional fan fiction is an act of defiance of corporate control…” (72). Additionally, because of the creative freedom it affords, “fan fiction and archontic literature open up possibilities – not just for opposition to institutions and social systems, but also for a different perspective on the institutional and the social” (76). Because of this criticality, and its subversive nature, fan fiction provides an interesting consumer perspective on objects that are designed and marketed to be received in particular ways. Further, because much of fan fiction draws on fictional content, stories about objects like Furby are not necessarily bound to reality and incorporate fantastical, speculative, and folkloric readings, providing diverse viewpoints of the object. Finally, if, as robotics commentators (cf. Levy; Breazeal) suggest, companionable robots and technologies are going to become increasingly present in everyday life, it is crucial to understand not only how they are received, but also where they fit within a wider cultural sphere. Furbys can be seen as a widespread, if technologically simple, example of these technologies and are often treated as a sign of things to come (Wilks 12). The Design of Electronic Companions To compete with the burgeoning market of digital and electronic pets, in 1998 Tiger Electronics released the Furby, a fur-covered, robotic creature that required the user to carry out certain nurturance duties. Furbys expected feeding and entertaining and could become sick and scared if neglected. Through a program that advanced slowly over time regardless of external stimulus, Furbys appeared to evolve from speaking entirely Furbish, their mother tongue, to speaking English. To the user, it appeared as though their interactions with the object were directly affecting its progress and maturation because their care duties of feeding and entertaining were happening parallel to the Furbish to English transition (Turkle, Breazeal, Daste, & Scassellati 314). The design of electronic companions like Furby is carefully considered to encourage positive emotional responses. For example, Breazeal (2002 230) argues that a robot will be treated like a baby, and nurtured, if it has a large head, big eyes, and pursed lips. Kinsella’s (1995) also emphasises cute things need for care as they are “soft, infantile, mammalian, round, without bodily appendages (e.g. arms), without bodily orifices (e.g. mouths), non-sexual, mute, insecure, helpless or bewildered” (226). From this perspective, Furbys’ physical design plays a role in encouraging nurturance. Such design decisions are reinforced by marketing strategies that encourage Furbys to be viewed in a particular way. As a marketing tool, Harris (1992) argues that: cuteness has become essential in the marketplace in that advertisers have learned that consumers will “adopt” products that create, often in their packaging alone, an aura of motherlessness, ostracism, and melancholy, the silent desperation of the lost puppy dog clamoring to be befriended - namely, to be bought. (179) Positioning Furbys as friendly was also important to encouraging a positive bond with a caregiver. The history, or back story, that Furbys were given in the instruction manual was designed to convey their kind, non-threatening nature. Although alive and unpredictable, it was crucial that Furbys were not frightening. As imaginary living creatures, the origin of Furbys required explaining: “some had suggested positioning Furby as an alien, but that seemed too foreign and frightening for little girls. By May, the thinking was that Furbies live in the clouds – more angelic, less threatening” (Kirsner). In creating this story, Furby’s producers both endeared the object to consumers by making it seem friendly and inquisitive, and avoided associations to its mass-produced, factory origins. Monstrous and Cute Furbys Across fan fiction, academic texts, and media coverage there is a tendency to describe what Furbys look like by stringing together several animals and objects. Furbys have been referred to as a “mechanized ball of synthetic hair that is part penguin, part owl and part kitten” (Steinberg), a “cross between a hamster and a bird…” (Lawson & Chesney 34), and “ “owl-like in appearance, with large bat-like ears and two large white eyes with small, reddish-pink pupils” (ChaosInsanity), to highlight only a few. The ambiguous appearance of electronic companions is often a strategic decision made by the designer to avoid biases towards specific animals or forms, making the companion easier to accept as “real” or “alive” (Shibata 1753). Furbys are arguably evidence of this strategy and appear to be deliberately unfamiliar. However, the assemblage, and exaggeration, of parts that describes Furbys also conjures much older associations: the world of monsters in gothic literature. Notice the similarities between the above attempts to describe what Furbys looks like, and a historical description of monsters: early monsters are frequently constructed out of ill-assorted parts, like the griffin, with the head and wings of an eagle combined with the body and paws of a lion. Alternatively, they are incomplete, lacking essential parts, or, like the mythological hydra with its many heads, grotesquely excessive. (Punter & Byron 263) Cohen (6) argues that, metaphorically, because of their strange visual assembly, monsters are displaced beings “whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration. And so the monster is dangerous, a form suspended between forms that threatens to smash distinctions.” Therefore, to call something a monster is also to call it confusing and unfamiliar. Notice in the following fan fiction example how comparing Furby to an owl makes it strange, and there seems to be uncertainty around what Furbys are, and where they fit in the natural order: The first thing Heero noticed was that a 'Furby' appeared to be a childes toy, shaped to resemble a mutated owl. With fur instead of feathers, no wings, two large ears and comical cat paws set at the bottom of its pudding like form. Its face was devoid of fuzz with a yellow plastic beak and too large eyes that gave it the appearance of it being addicted to speed [sic]. (Kontradiction) Here is a character unfamiliar with Furbys, describing its appearance by relating it to animal parts. Whether Furbys are cute or monstrous is contentious, particularly in fan fictions where they have been given additional capabilities like working limbs and extra appendages that make them less helpless. Furbys’ lack, or diminution of parts, and exaggeration of others, fits the description of cuteness, as well as their sole reliance on caregivers to be fed, entertained, and transported. If viewed as animals, Furbys appear physically limited. Kinsella (1995) finds that a sense of disability is important to the cute aesthetic: stubby arms, no fingers, no mouths, huge heads, massive eyes – which can hide no private thoughts from the viewer – nothing between their legs, pot bellies, swollen legs or pigeon feet – if they have feet at all. Cute things can’t walk, can’t talk, can’t in fact do anything at all for themselves because they are physically handicapped. (236) Exploring the line between cute and monstrous, Brzozowska-Brywczynska argues that it is this sense of physical disability that distinguishes the two similar aesthetics. “It is the disempowering feeling of pity and sympathy […] that deprives a monster of his monstrosity” (218). The descriptions of Furbys in fan fiction suggest that they transition between the two, contingent on how they are received by certain characters, and the abilities they are given by the author. In some cases it is the overwhelming threat the Furby poses that extinguishes feelings of care. In the following two excerpts that the revealing of threatening behaviour shifts the perception of Furby from cute to monstrous in ‘When Furbies Attack’ (Kellyofthemidnightdawn): “These guys are so cute,” she moved the Furby so that it was within inches of Elliot's face and positioned it so that what were apparently the Furby's lips came into contact with his cheek “See,” she smiled widely “He likes you.” […] Olivia's breath caught in her throat as she found herself backing up towards the door. She kept her eyes on the little yellow monster in front of her as her hand slowly reached for the door knob. This was just too freaky, she wanted away from this thing. The Furby that was originally called cute becomes a monster when it violently threatens the protagonist, Olivia. The shifting of Furbys between cute and monstrous is a topic of argument in ‘InuYasha vs the Demon Furbie’ (Lioness of Dreams). The character Kagome attempts to explain a Furby to Inuyasha, who views the object as a demon: That is a toy called a Furbie. It's a thing we humans call “CUTE”. See, it talks and says cute things and we give it hugs! (Lioness of Dreams) A recurrent theme in the Inuyasha (Takahashi) anime is the generational divide between Kagome and Inuyasha. Set in feudal-era Japan, Kagome is transported there from modern-day Tokyo after falling into a well. The above line of dialogue reinforces the relative newness, and cultural specificity, of cute aesthetics, which according to Kinsella (1995 220) became increasingly popular throughout the 1980s and 90s. In Inuyasha’s world, where demons and monsters are a fixture of everyday life, the Furby appearance shifts from cute to monstrous. Furbys as GremlinsDuring the height of the original 1998 Furby’s public exposure and popularity, several news articles referred to Furby as “the five-inch gremlin” (Steinberg) and “a furry, gremlin-looking creature” (Del Vecchio 88). More recently, in a review of the 2012 Furby release, one commenter exclaimed: “These things actually look scary! Like blue gremlins!” (KillaRizzay). Following the release of the original Furbys, Hasbro collaborated with the film’s merchandising team to release Interactive ‘Gizmo’ Furbys (image 2). Image 2: Hasbro 1999 Interactive Gizmo (photo credit: Author) Furbys’ likeness to gremlins offers another perspective on the tension between cute and monstrous aesthetics that is contingent on the creature’s behaviour. The connection between Furbys and gremlins embodies a sense of mistrust, because the film Gremlins focuses on the monsters that dwell within the seemingly harmless and endearing mogwai/gremlin creatures. Catastrophic events unfold after they are cared for improperly. Gremlins, and by association Furbys, may appear cute or harmless, but this story tells that there is something darker beneath the surface. The creatures in Gremlins are introduced as mogwai, and in Chinese folklore the mogwai or mogui is a demon (Zhang, 1999). The pop culture gremlin embodied in the film, then, is cute and demonic, depending on how it is treated. Like a gremlin, a Furby’s personality is supposed to be a reflection of the care it receives. Transformation is a common theme of Gremlins and also Furby, where it is central to the sense of “aliveness” the product works to create. Furbys become “wiser” as time goes on, transitioning through “life stages” as they “learn” about their surroundings. As we learn from their origin story, Furbys jumped from their home in the clouds in order to see and explore the world firsthand (Tiger Electronics 2). Because Furbys are susceptible to their environment, they come with rules on how they must be cared for, and the consequences if this is ignored. Without attention and “food”, a Furby will become unresponsive and even ill: “If you allow me to get sick, soon I will not want to play and will not respond to anything but feeding” (Tiger Electronics 6). In Gremlins, improper care manifests in an abrupt transition from cute to monstrous: Gizmo’s strokeable fur is transformed into a wet, scaly integument, while the vacant portholes of its eyes (the most important facial feature of the cute thing, giving us free access to its soul and ensuring its total structability, its incapacity to hold back anything in reserve) become diabolical slits hiding a lurking intelligence, just as its dainty paws metamorphose into talons and its pretty puckered lips into enormous Cheshire grimaces with full sets of sharp incisors. (Harris 185–186) In the Naruto (Kishimoto) fan fiction ‘Orochimaru's World Famous New Year's Eve Party’ (dead drifter), while there is no explicit mention of Gremlins, the Furby undergoes the physical transformation that appears in the films. The Furby, named Sasuke, presumably after the Naruto antagonist Sasuke, and hinting at its untrustworthy nature, undergoes a transformation that mimics that of Gremlins: when water is poured on the Furby, boils appear and fall from its back, each growing into another Furby. Also, after feeding the Furby, it lays eggs: Apparently, it's not a good idea to feed Furbies chips. Why? Because they make weird cocoon eggs and transform into… something. (ch. 5) This sequence of events follows the Gremlins movie structure, in which cute and furry Gizmo, after being exposed to water and fed after midnight, “begins to reproduce, laying eggs that enter a larval stage in repulsive cocoons covered in viscous membranes” (Harris 185). Harris also reminds that the appearance of gremlins comes with understandings of how they should be treated: Whereas cute things have clean, sensuous surfaces that remain intact and unpenetrated […] the anti-cute Gremlins are constantly being squished and disembowelled, their entrails spilling out into the open, as they explode in microwaves and run through paper shredders and blenders. (Harris 186) The Furbys in ‘Orochimaru's World Famous New Year's Eve Party’ meet a similar end: Kuro Furby whined as his brain was smashed in. One of its eyes popped out and rolled across the floor. (dead drifter ch. 6) A horde of mischievous Furbys are violently dispatched, including the original Furby that was lovingly cared for. Conclusion This paper has explored examples from online culture in which different cultural references clash and merge to explore artefacts such as Furby, and the complexities of design, such as the use of ambiguously mammalian, and cute, aesthetics in an effort to encourage positive attachment. Fan fiction, as a subversive practice, offers valuable critiques of Furby that are imaginative and speculative, providing creative responses to experiences with Furbys, but also opening up potential for what electronic companions could become. In particular, the use of narrative demonstrates that cuteness is an unstable aesthetic that is culturally contingent and very much tied to behaviour. As above examples demonstrate, Furbys can move between cute, friendly, helpless, threatening, monstrous, and strange in one story. Cute Furbys became monstrous when they were described as an assemblage of disparate parts, made physically capable and aggressive, and affected by their environment or external stimulus. Cultural associations, such as gremlins, also influence how an electronic animal is received and treated, often troubling the visions of designers and marketers who seek to present friendly, nonthreatening, and accommodating companions. These diverse readings are valuable in understanding how companionable technologies are received, especially if they continue to be developed and made commercially available, and if cuteness is to be used as means of encouraging positive attachment. References Breazeal, Cynthia. Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. Brzozowska-Brywczynska, Maja. "Monstrous/Cute: Notes on the Ambivalent Nature of Cuteness." Monsters and the Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil. Ed. Niall Scott. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 2007. 213 - 28. ChaosInsanity. “Attack of the Killer Furby.” Fanfiction.net, 2008. 20 July 2012. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” In Monster Theory: Reading Culture, ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 1996. 3 – 25. dead drifter. “Orochimaru's World Famous New Year's Eve Party.”Fanfiction.net, 2007. 4 Mar. 2013. Del Vecchio, Gene. The Blockbuster Toy! How to Invent the Next Big Thing. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Company. 2003. Derecho, Abigail. “Archontic Literature: A Definition, a History, and Several Theories of Fan Fiction.” In Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, eds. Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2006. 6—78. Gremlins. Dir. Joe Dante. Warner Brothers & Amblin Entertainment, 1984. Gray, Jonathan. “Antifandom and the Moral Text.” American Behavioral Scientist 48.7 (2005). 24 Mar. 2014 ‹http://abs.sagepub.com/content/48/7/840.abstract›. Harris, Daniel. “Cuteness.” Salmagundi 96 (1992). 20 Feb. 2014 ‹http://www.jstor.org/stable/40548402›. Inuyasha. Created by Rumiko Takahashi. Yomiuri Telecasting Corporation (YTV) & Sunrise, 1996. Jenkins, Henry. “Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5.2 (1988). 19 Feb. 2014 ‹http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15295038809366691#.UwVmgGcdeIU›. Kellyofthemidnightdawn. “When Furbies Attack.” Fanfiction.net, 2006. 6 Oct. 2011. KillaRizzay. “Furby Gets a Reboot for 2012, We Go Hands-On (Video).” Engadget 10 July 2012. 11 Feb. 2014 ‹http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/06/furby-hands-on-video/›. Kinsella, Sharon. “Cuties in Japan.” In Women, Media and Consumption in Japan, eds. Lise Skov and Brian Moeran. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press. 1995. 220–254. Kirsner, Scott. “Moody Furballs and the Developers Who Love Them.” Wired 6.09 (1998). 20 Feb. 2014 ‹http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.09/furby_pr.html›. Kontradiction. “Ehloh the Invincible.” Fanfiction.net, 2002. 20 July 2012. Lawson, Shaun, and Thomas Chesney. “Virtual Pets and Electronic Companions – An Agenda for Inter-Disciplinary Research.” Paper presented at AISB'07: Artificial and Ambient Intelligence. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University, 2-4 Apr. 2007. ‹http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/patrick.olivier/AISB07/catz-dogz.pdf›.Levy, David. Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2007. Lioness of Dreams. “InuYasha vs the Demon Furbie.” Fanfiction.net, 2003. 19 July 2012. Naruto. Created by Masashi Kishimoto. Shueisha. 1999. Punter, David, and Glennis Byron. The Gothic. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Shibata, Takanori. “An Overview of Human Interactive Robots for Psychological Enrichment.” Proceedings of the IEEE 92.11 (2004). 4 Mar. 2011 ‹http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1347456&tag=1›. Steinberg, Jacques. “Far from the Pleading Crowd: Furby's Dad.” The New York Times: Public Lives, 10 Dec. 1998. 20 Nov. 2013 ‹http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/10/nyregion/public-lives-far-from-the-pleading-crowd-furby-s-dad.html?src=pm›. Tiger Electronics. Electronic Furby Instruction Manual. Vernon Hills, IL: Tiger Electronics, 1999. Turkle, Sherry, Cynthia Breazeal, Olivia Daste, and Brian Scassellati. “First Encounters with Kismit and Cog: Children Respond to Relational Artifacts.” In Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communication, eds. Paul Messaris and Lee Humphreys. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2006. 313–330. Wilks, Yorick. Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological and Ethical Design Issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010. Zhang, Qiong. “About God, Demons, and Miracles: The Jesuit Discourse on the Supernatural in Late Ming China.” Early Science and Medicine 4.1 (1999). 15 Dec. 2013 ‹http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157338299x00012›.

Photograph by Gonzalo Echeverria (2010)We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination … so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts … each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest (Hulme 347). Acclaimed climate scientist, the late Stephen Schneider, made this comment in 1988. Later he regretted it and said that there are ways of using metaphors that can “convey both urgency and uncertainty” (Hulme 347). What Schneider encapsulates here is the great conundrum for those attempting to communicate climate change to the everyday public. How do scientists capture the public’s imagination and convey the desperation they feel about climate change, but do it ethically? If scientific findings are presented carefully, in boring technical jargon that few can understand, then they are unlikely to attract audiences or provide an impetus for behavioural change. “What can move someone to act?” asks communication theorists Susan Moser and Lisa Dilling (37). “If a red light blinks on in a cockpit” asks Donella Meadows, “should the pilot ignore it until in speaks in an unexcited tone? … Is there any way to say [it] sweetly? Patiently? If one did, would anyone pay attention?” (Moser and Dilling 37). In 2010 Tim Flannery was appointed Panasonic Chair in Environmental Sustainability at Macquarie University. His main teaching role remains within the new science communication programme. One of the first things Flannery was emphatic about was acquainting students with Karl Popper and the origin of the scientific method. “There is no truth in science”, he proclaimed in his first lecture to students “only theories, hypotheses and falsifiabilities”. In other words, science’s epistemological limits are framed such that, as Michael Lemonick argues, “a statement that cannot be proven false is generally not considered to be scientific” (n.p., my emphasis). The impetus for the following paper emanates precisely from this issue of scientific uncertainty — more specifically from teaching a course with Tim Flannery called Communicating climate change to a highly motivated group of undergraduate science communication students. I attempt to illuminate how uncertainty is constructed differently by different groups and that the “public” does not necessarily interpret uncertainty in the same way the sciences do. This paper also analyses how doubt has been politicised and operates polemically in media coverage of climate change. As Andrew Gorman-Murray and Gordon Waitt highlight in an earlier issue of M/C Journal that focused on the climate-culture nexus, an understanding of the science alone is not adequate to deal with the cultural change necessary to address the challenges climate change brings (n.p). Far from being redundant in debates around climate change, the humanities have much to offer. Erosion of Trust in Science The objectives of Macquarie’s science communication program are far more ambitious than it can ever hope to achieve. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. The initiative is a response to declining student numbers in maths and science programmes around the country and is designed to address the perceived lack of communication skills in science graduates that the Australian Council of Deans of Science identified in their 2001 report. According to Macquarie Vice Chancellor Steven Schwartz’s blog, a broader, and much more ambitious aim of the program is to “restore public trust in science and scientists in the face of widespread cynicism” (n.p.). In recent times the erosion of public trust in science was exacerbated through the theft of e-mails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit and the so-called “climategate scandal” which ensued. With the illegal publication of the e-mails came claims against the Research Unit that climate experts had been manipulating scientific data to suit a pro-global warming agenda. Three inquiries later, all the scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing, however the damage had already been done. To the public, what this scandal revealed was a certain level of scientific hubris around the uncertainties of the science and an unwillingness to explain the nature of these uncertainties. The prevailing notion remained that the experts were keeping information from public scrutiny and not being totally honest with them, which at least in the short term, damaged the scientists’s credibility. Many argued that this signalled a shift in public opinion and media portrayal on the issue of climate change in late 2009. University of Sydney academic, Rod Tiffen, claimed in the Sydney Morning Herald that the climategate scandal was “one of the pivotal moments in changing the politics of climate change” (n.p). In Australia this had profound implications and meant that the bipartisan agreement on an emissions trading scheme (ETS) that had almost been reached, subsequently collapsed with (climate sceptic) Tony Abbott's defeat of (ETS advocate) Malcolm Turnbull to become opposition leader (Tiffen). Not long after the reputation of science received this almighty blow, albeit unfairly, the federal government released a report in February 2010, Inspiring Australia – A national strategy for engagement with the sciences as part of the country’s innovation agenda. The report outlines a commitment from the Australian government and universities around the country to address the challenges of not only communicating science to the broader community but, in the process, renewing public trust and engagement in science. The report states that: in order to achieve a scientifically engaged Australia, it will be necessary to develop a culture where the sciences are recognized as relevant to everyday life … Our science institutions will be expected to share their knowledge and to help realize full social, economic, health and environmental benefits of scientific research and in return win ongoing public support. (xiv-xv) After launching the report, Innovation Minister Kim Carr went so far as to conflate “hope” with “science” and in the process elevate a discourse of technological determinism: “it’s time for all true friends of science to step up and defend its values and achievements” adding that, "when you denigrate science, you destroy hope” (n.p.). Forever gone is our naïve post-war world when scientists were held in such high esteem that they could virtually use humans as guinea pigs to test out new wonder chemicals; such as organochlorines, of which DDT is the most widely known (Carson). Thanks to government-sponsored nuclear testing programs, if you were born in the 1950s, 1960s or early 1970s, your brain carries a permanent nuclear legacy (Flannery, Here On Earth 158). So surely, for the most part, questioning the authority and hubristic tendencies of science is a good thing. And I might add, it’s not just scientists who bear this critical burden, the same scepticism is directed towards journalists, politicians and academics alike – something that many cultural theorists have noted is characteristic of our contemporary postmodern world (Lyotard). So far from destroying hope, as the former Innovation Minister Kim Carr (now Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) suggests, surely we need to use the criticisms of science as a vehicle upon which to initiate hope and humility. Different Ways of Knowing: Bayesian Beliefs and Matters of Concern At best, [science] produces a robust consensus based on a process of inquiry that allows for continued scrutiny, re-examination, and revision. (Oreskes 370) In an attempt to capitalise on the Macquarie Science Faculty’s expertise in climate science, I convened a course in second semester 2010 called SCOM201 Science, Media, Community: Communicating Climate Change, with invaluable assistance from Penny Wilson, Elaine Kelly and Liz Morgan. Mike Hulme’s provocative text, Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity provided an invaluable framework for the course. Hulme’s book brings other types of knowledge, beyond the scientific, to bear on our attitudes towards climate change. Climate change, he claims, has moved from being just a physical, scientific, and measurable phenomenon to becoming a social and cultural phenomenon. In order to understand the contested nature of climate change we need to acknowledge the dynamic and varied meanings climate has played in different cultures throughout history as well as the role that our own subjective attitudes and judgements play. Climate change has become a battleground between different ways of knowing, alternative visions of the future, competing ideas about what’s ethical and what’s not. Hulme makes the point that one of the reasons that we disagree about climate change is because we disagree about the role of science in today’s society. He encourages readers to use climate change as a tool to rigorously question the basis of our beliefs, assumptions and prejudices. Since uncertainty was the course’s raison d’etre, I was fortunate to have an extraordinary cohort of students who readily engaged with a course that forced them to confront their own epistemological limits — both personally and in a disciplinary sense. (See their blog: https://scom201.wordpress.com/). Science is often associated with objective realities. It thus tends to distinguish itself from the post-structuralist vein of critique that dominates much of the contemporary humanities. At the core of post-structuralism is scepticism about everyday, commonly accepted “truths” or what some call “meta-narratives” as well as an acknowledgement of the role that subjectivity plays in the pursuit of knowledge (Lyotard). However if we can’t rely on objective truths or impartial facts then where does this leave us when it comes to generating policy or encouraging behavioural change around the issue of climate change? Controversial philosophy of science scholar Bruno Latour sits squarely in the post-structuralist camp. In his 2004 article, “Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern”, he laments the way the right wing has managed to gain ground in the climate change debate through arguing that uncertainty and lack of proof is reason enough to deny demands for action. Or to use his turn-of-phrase, “dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives” (Latour n.p). Through co-opting (the Left’s dearly held notion of) scepticism and even calling themselves “climate sceptics”, they exploited doubt as a rationale for why we should do nothing about climate change. Uncertainty is not only an important part of science, but also of the human condition. However, as sociologist Sheila Jasanoff explains in her Nature article, “Technologies of Humility”, uncertainty has become like a disease: Uncertainty has become a threat to collective action, the disease that knowledge must cure. It is the condition that poses cruel dilemmas for decision makers; that must be reduced at all costs; that is tamed with scenarios and assessments; and that feeds the frenzy for new knowledge, much of it scientific. (Jasanoff 33) If we move from talking about climate change as “a matter of fact” to “a matter of concern”, argues Bruno Latour, then we can start talking about useful ways to combat it, rather than talking about whether the science is “in” or not. Facts certainly matter, claims Latour, but they can’t give us the whole story, rather “they assemble with other ingredients to produce a matter of concern” (Potter and Oster 123). Emily Potter and Candice Oster suggest that climate change can’t be understood through either natural or cultural frames alone and, “unlike a matter of fact, matters of concern cannot be explained through a single point of view or discursive frame” (123). This makes a lot of what Hulme argues far more useful because it enables the debate to be taken to another level. Those of us with non-scientific expertise can centre debates around the kinds of societies we want, rather than being caught up in the scientific (un)certainties. If we translate Latour’s concept of climate change being “a matter of concern” into the discourse of environmental management then what we come up with, I think, is the “precautionary principle”. In the YouTube clip, “Stephen Schneider vs Skeptics”, Schneider argues that when in doubt about the potential environmental impacts of climate change, we should always apply the precautionary principle. This principle emerged from the UN conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and concerns the management of scientific risk. However its origins are evident much earlier in documents such as the “Use of Pesticides” from US President’s Science Advisory Committee in 1962. Unlike in criminal and other types of law where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show that the person charged is guilty of a particular offence, in environmental law the onus of proof is on the manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their product. For instance, a pesticide should be restricted or disproved for use if there is “reasonable doubt” about its safety (Oreskes 374). Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 has its foundations in the precautionary principle: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation” (n.p). According to Environmental Law Online, the Rio declaration suggests that, “The precautionary principle applies where there is a ‘lack of full scientific certainty’ – that is, when science cannot say what consequences to expect, how grave they are, or how likely they are to occur” (n.p.). In order to make predictions about the likelihood of an event occurring, scientists employ a level of subjectivity, or need to “reveal their degree of belief that a prediction will turn out to be correct … [S]omething has to substitute for this lack of certainty” otherwise “the only alternative is to admit that absolutely nothing is known” (Hulme 85). These statements of “subjective probabilities or beliefs” are called Bayesian, after eighteenth century English mathematician Sir Thomas Bayes who developed the theory of evidential probability. These “probabilities” are estimates, or in other words, subjective, informed judgements that draw upon evidence and experience about the likelihood of event occurring. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses Bayesian beliefs to determine the risk or likelihood of an event occurring. The IPCC provides the largest international scientific assessment of climate change and often adopts a consensus model where viewpoint reached by the majority of scientists is used to establish knowledge amongst an interdisciplinary community of scientists and then communicate it to the public (Hulme 88). According to the IPCC, this consensus is reached amongst more than more than 450 lead authors, more than 800 contributing authors, and 2500 scientific reviewers. While it is an advisory body and is not policy-prescriptive, the IPCC adopts particular linguistic conventions to indicate the probability of a statement being correct. Stephen Schneider convinced the IPCC to use this approach to systemise uncertainty (Lemonick). So for instance, in the IPCC reports, the term “likely” denotes a chance of 66%-90% of the statement being correct, while “very likely” denotes more than a 90% chance. Note the change from the Third Assessment Report (2001), indicating that “most of the observed warming in over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions” to the Fourth Assessment (February 2007) which more strongly states: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (Hulme 51, my italics). A fiery attack on Tim Flannery by Andrew Bolt on Steve Price’s talkback radio show in June 2010 illustrates just how misunderstood scientific uncertainty is in the broader community. When Price introduces Flannery as former Australian of the Year, Bolt intercedes, claiming Flannery is “Alarmist of the Year”, then goes on to chastise Flannery for making various forecasts which didn’t eventuate, such as that Perth and Brisbane might run out of water by 2009. “How much are you to blame for the swing in sentiment, the retreat from global warming policy and rise of scepticism?” demands Bolt. In the context of the events of late 2009 and early 2010, the fact that these events didn’t materialise made Flannery, and others, seem unreliable. And what Bolt had to say on talkback radio, I suspect, resonated with a good proportion of its audience. What Bolt was trying to do was discredit Flannery’s scientific credentials and in the process erode trust in the expert. Flannery’s response was to claim that, what he said was that these events might eventuate. In much the same way that the climate sceptics have managed to co-opt scepticism and use it as a rationale for inaction on climate change, Andrew Bolt here either misunderstands basic scientific method or quite consciously misleads and manipulates the public. As Naomi Oreskes argues, “proof does not play the role in science that most people think it does (or should), and therefore it cannot play the role in policy that skeptics demand it should” (Oreskes 370). Doubt and ‘Situated’ Hope Uncertainty and ambiguity then emerge here as resources because they force us to confront those things we really want–not safety in some distant, contested future but justice and self-understanding now. (Sheila Jasanoff, cited in Hulme, back cover) In his last published book before his death in mid-2010, Science as a contact sport, Stephen Schneider’s advice to aspiring science communicators is that they should engage with the media “not at all, or a lot”. Climate scientist Ann Henderson-Sellers adds that there are very few scientists “who have the natural ability, and learn or cultivate the talents, of effective communication with and through the media” (430). In order to attract the public’s attention, it was once commonplace for scientists to write editorials and exploit fear-provoking measures by including a “useful catastrophe or two” (Moser and Dilling 37). But are these tactics effective? Susanne Moser thinks not. She argues that “numerous studies show that … fear may change attitudes … but not necessarily increase active engagement or behaviour change” (Moser 70). Furthermore, risk psychologists argue that danger is always context specific (Hulme 196). If the risk or danger is “situated” and “tangible” (such as lead toxicity levels in children in Mt Isa from the Xstrata mine) then the public will engage with it. However if it is “un-situated” (distant, intangible and diffuse) like climate change, the audience is less likely to. In my SCOM201 class we examined the impact of two climate change-related campaigns. The first one was a short film used to promote the 2010 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit (“Scary”) and the second was the State Government of Victoria’s “You have the power: Save Energy” public awareness campaign (“You”). Using Moser’s article to guide them, students evaluated each campaign’s effectiveness. Their conclusions were that the “You have the power” campaign had far more impact because it a) had very clear objectives (to cut domestic power consumption) b) provided a very clear visualisation of carbon dioxide through the metaphor of black balloons wafting up into the atmosphere, c) gave viewers a sense of empowerment and hope through describing simple measures to cut power consumption and, d) used simple but effective metaphors to convey a world progressed beyond human control, such as household appliances robotically operating themselves in the absence of humans. Despite its high production values, in comparison, the Copenhagen Summit promotion was more than ineffective and bordered on propaganda. It actually turned viewers off with its whining, righteous appeal of, “please help the world”. Its message and objectives were ambiguous, it conveyed environmental catastrophe through hackneyed images, exploited children through a narrative based on fear and gave no real sense of hope or empowerment. In contrast the Victorian Government’s campaign focused on just one aspect of climate change that was made both tangible and situated. Doubt and uncertainty are productive tools in the pursuit of knowledge. Whether it is scientific or otherwise, uncertainty will always be the motivation that “feeds the frenzy for new knowledge” (Jasanoff 33). Articulating the importance of Hulme’s book, Sheila Jasanoff indicates we should make doubt our friend, “Without downplaying its seriousness, Hulme demotes climate change from ultimate threat to constant companion, whose murmurs unlock in us the instinct for justice and equality” (Hulme back cover). The “murmurs” that Jasanoff gestures to here, I think, can also be articulated as hope. And it is in this discussion of climate change that doubt and hope sit side-by-side as bedfellows, mutually entangled. Since the “failed” Copenhagen Summit, there has been a distinct shift in climate change discourse from “experts”. We have moved away from doom and gloom discourses and into the realm of what I shall call “situated” hope. “Situated” hope is not based on blind faith alone, but rather hope grounded in evidence, informed judgements and experience. For instance, in distinct contrast to his cautionary tale The Weather Makers: The History & Future Impact of Climate Change, Tim Flannery’s latest book, Here on Earth is a biography of our Earth; a planet that throughout its history has oscillated between Gaian and Medean impulses. However Flannery’s wonder about the natural world and our potential to mitigate the impacts of climate change is not founded on empty rhetoric but rather tempered by evidence; he presents a series of case studies where humanity has managed to come together for a global good. Whether it’s the 1987 Montreal ban on CFCs (chlorinated fluorocarbons) or the lesser-known 2001 Stockholm Convention on POP (Persistent Organic Pollutants), what Flannery envisions is an emerging global civilisation, a giant, intelligent super-organism glued together through social bonds. He says: If that is ever achieved, the greatest transformation in the history of our planet would have occurred, for Earth would then be able to act as if it were as Francis Bacon put it all those centuries ago, ‘one entire, perfect living creature’. (Here on Earth, 279) While science might give us “our most reliable understanding of the natural world” (Oreskes 370), “situated” hope is the only productive and ethical currency we have. ReferencesAustralian Council of Deans of Science. What Did You Do with Your Science Degree? A National Study of Employment Outcomes for Science Degree Holders 1990-2000. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, 2001. Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Inspiring Australia – A National Strategy for Engagement with the Sciences. Executive summary. Canberra: DIISR, 2010. 24 May 2010 ‹http://www.innovation.gov.au/SCIENCE/INSPIRINGAUSTRALIA/Documents/InspiringAustraliaSummary.pdf›. “Andrew Bolt with Tim Flannery.” Steve Price. Hosted by Steve Price. Melbourne: Melbourne Talkback Radio, 2010. 9 June 2010 ‹http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=6209›. Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. London: Penguin, 1962 (2000). Carr, Kim. “Celebrating Nobel Laureate Professor Elizabeth Blackburn.” Canberra: DIISR, 2010. 19 Feb. 2010 ‹http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Carr/Pages/CELEBRATINGNOBELLAUREATEPROFESSORELIZABETHBLACKBURN.aspx›. Environmental Law Online. “The Precautionary Principle.” N.d. 19 Jan 2011 ‹http://www.envirolaw.org.au/articles/precautionary_principle›. Flannery, Tim. The Weather Makers: The History & Future Impact of Climate Change. Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2005. ———. Here on Earth: An Argument for Hope. Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2010. Gorman-Murray, Andrew, and Gordon Waitt. “Climate and Culture.” M/C Journal 12.4 (2009). 9 Mar 2011 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/184/0›. Harrison, Karey. “How ‘Inconvenient’ Is Al Gore’s Climate Change Message?” M/C Journal 12.4 (2009). 9 Mar 2011 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/175›. Henderson-Sellers, Ann. “Climate Whispers: Media Communication about Climate Change.” Climatic Change 40 (1998): 421–456. Hulme, Mike. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding, Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A Picture of Climate Change: The Current State of Understanding. 2007. 11 Jan 2011 ‹http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/ipcc-flyer-low.pdf›. Jasanoff, Sheila. “Technologies of Humility.” Nature 450 (2007): 33. Latour, Bruno. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30.2 (2004). 19 Jan 2011 ‹http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.Latour.html›. Lemonick, Michael D. “Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.” Nature News 1 Nov. 2010. 9 Mar 2011 ‹http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html›. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984. Moser, Susanne, and Lisa Dilling. “Making Climate Hot: Communicating the Urgency and Challenge of Global Climate Change.” Environment 46.10 (2004): 32-46. Moser, Susie. “More Bad News: The Risk of Neglecting Emotional Responses to Climate Change Information.” In Susanne Moser and Lisa Dilling (eds.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 64-81. Oreskes, Naomi. “Science and Public Policy: What’s Proof Got to Do with It?” Environmental Science and Policy 7 (2004): 369-383. Potter, Emily, and Candice Oster. “Communicating Climate Change: Public Responsiveness and Matters of Concern.” Media International Australia 127 (2008): 116-126. President’s Science Advisory Committee. “Use of Pesticides”. Washington, D.C.: The White House, 1963. United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 1992. 19 Jan 2011 ‹http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163›. “Scary Global Warming Propaganda Video Shown at the Copenhagen Climate Meeting – 7 Dec. 2009.” YouTube. 21 Mar. 2011‹http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSuP_TMFtk&feature=related›. Schneider, Stephen. Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate. National Geographic Society, 2010. ———. “Stephen Schneider vs. the Sceptics”. YouTube. 21 Mar. 2011 ‹http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rj1QcdEqU0›. Schwartz, Steven. “Science in Search of a New Formula.” 2010. 20 May 2010 ‹http://www.vc.mq.edu.au/blog/2010/03/11/science-in-search-of-a-new-formula/›. Tiffen, Rodney. "You Wouldn't Read about It: Climate Scientists Right." Sydney Morning Herald 26 July 2010. 19 Jan 2011 ‹http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100727-10t5i.html›. “You Have the Power: Save Energy.” YouTube. 21 Mar. 2011 ‹http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCiS5k_uPbQ›.

Orientador: Octavio Ianni
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas
Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-20T15:15:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Paiva_LuizHenriquedaSilvade_M.pdf: 2056577 bytes, checksum: b15662d79199e801ca7163d05a351561 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1995
Resumo: Não informado
Abstract: Not informed
Mestrado
Mestre em Ciências Sociais

The objective of this dissertation involves the application of the philosophy of Karl Popper to Christian systematic theology. Its intent is three-fold: first, to give reasons for considering the possibility of such an application in the face of potential objections; second, throughout its discussion, to demonstrate the form that a theological appropriation of Popper might take; and, third, to argue that several benefits arise from such a critical grafting of Popper into dogmatics (where appropriate). The possibility of applying Popper to theology is secured by taking realism as the proper parallel between science and theology and critical rationalism as a realist model amenable to metaphysical theorisation. The actuality and benefit of such an appropriation from within theology is demonstrated by the four-fold exposition of how a Popperian critical epistemology – in particular his solution to the ‘problem of induction’, his relating of good and better theories with the concept of approximation to the truth, his critical strategies for establishing preference, and his notion of ideas as objective – can assist the Christian systematic theologian as he works to resolve the problems of theology for the benefit of the Church and to the glory of God.

La réputation de l'épistémologie classique qui a connu la science jusqu'à la révolution quantique permet à la critique poppérienne de révéler le caractère émergent et évolutionnaire de la connaissance dans le cadre d'une démarcation méthodologique de la science empirique. Celle-ci débouche sur une critique des philosophies prophétiques à l'origine des totalitarismes modernes. La discussion des conditions épistémologiques des sciences sociales à partir de l'héritage méthodologique de Menger permet à Karl Popper d'établir une conception de l'histoire qui réintroduit la liberté d'action des individus. Dès lors, la politique concrète peut se concevoir rationnellement comme une technique de prudence à la fois volontaire et réformatrice dans un cadre démocratique. En cela l'œuvre de Karl Popper permet de penser un libéralisme humaniste qui renoue avec la tradition des lumières
The refutation of classical epistomology that dominated science until the quantic revolution enables popperian criticism to reveal the emerging and evolutionary nature of knowledge as part of a methodological demarcation of empiral science. It leads to a criticism of prophetic philosophies which underlie modern totalitarian regimes. The discussion based on menger's methodological inheritence enables karl popper to develop a concept of history that reintroduces freedom of action of the individual. On this basis, concrete politics may be conceived rationally as a technique of caution which is both voluntary and reforming in a democratic content. In this way the works of Karl Popper make it possible to think a humanistic liberalism that is reconciled with the aufklarung tradition

CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓGICO
A Epistemologia Pós-Darwiniana de Sir Karl Popper é uma tentativa de esclarecer um ponto específico da obra do filósofo austríaco Karl Popper: a função da teoria evolutiva de Charles Darwin na obra epistemológica tardia. Alguns críticos encontram na epistemologia evolucionária, núcleo da obra tardia de Popper, uma virada naturalista baseada na biologia. O principal objetivo dessa dissertação é negar tais interpretações. As bases de aproximação de Popper com o darwinismo em sua epistemologias são lógicas e não naturalísticas. De acordo com Popper, a estrutura lógica do darwinismo ( seus elementos a priori ) é a mesma do processo de conjecturas e refutações do raciocínio dedutivo. Isso explica porquê o darwinismo, que não é uma teoria científica, mas um programa metafísico de pesquisa, pode ser tão frutífero e útil para a ciência. Assim, se estivermos certos, o rótulo de naturalismo aplicado à obra epistemológica tardia de Karl Popper é um simples caso de má interpretação.
The Sir Karl Popper`s PostDarwinian Epistemology intends to clarify an specific issue: the function of Evolutionary Theory by Charles Darwin in Sir Karl Popper`s late epistemological works. Some critics find a naturalistic turn based on biological grounds in the evolutionary epistemology, bulk of the late works of Popper. The main objective of this dissertation is to deny these interpretations. The basis of Popper`s approach to Darwinism in his epistemology is not naturalistic but logical. According to Popper, the logical structure (a priori elements) of Darwinism is the same of conjecture and refutation process of deductive reasoning. This explains why Darwinism, which is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program, is so fruitful and helpful to science. Hence, if we are right, the label of naturalism attributed to the late epistemological works of Karl Popper is a simple case of misunderstanding.

Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-07T18:55:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 000417830-Texto+Completo-0.pdf: 966598 bytes, checksum: 1a59cf0bda785b7836baa91d81ef7417 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009
This thesis claim to defend the following argument: the Popper’s philosophy, primarily because of his cosmological interest, can only be properly understood as a system, like this, the total explanation of reality is understood in two basic points: Metaphysics; and Theory of Knowledge. In Chapter I, we will argue that, the basis of modern science is Copernicus and Galileo. The first one doe’s not discuss concrete problems or observational data, in the language of the heliocentric Popper, like any other scientific theory, the result is a creative intuition; this intuition has generated a theory that is validity from its explanatory power, which deducts some predictions that we can test. Popper noticed that when he overthrow the Newtonian mechanics, he affirmed the ingredient of ontological realism, and the thesis of verisimilitude - though intuitive form. In Chapter II we will try to argue that the modern answers - Hume and Kant - presupposed, though for different reasons, the mechanism: Hume as ontological basis for their psychological inductive inferences, which, say, in passing, is untenable, and Kant in its synthetic judgments a priori. The answer of Logical Positivism had serious difficulties in its base: the idea that scientific discourse is itself self-sustaining, because from the inductive method transformed into scientific laws: a) From poor sense, because its inference is not logically justifiable; b) Rules for the formation of language, similar to rules of inference, which does not help because the rationale of rules of inference in the deduction is given for its ability of transmitting truth, that is, based on these rules of inference will never have true premises and false conclusions, such as induction does not allow it. c) Predictive tools, which remove the descriptive aspect of science. In Chapter III we seek to argue that the fallibility deductible, as we are interpreting, acknowledges in the statement refuting from Einstein, an independent world, and the idea of knowledge as a process governed by conjectures and refutations. Upon a finding of asymmetry between the universal hypotheses intuitively created and set out basic deductible of them, understood as distorting their potential, we have a criterion of demarcation between science and non-science perfectly framed in cosmology – this is the central concern of Popper. In Chapter IV we will examine how, from the years 50 and 60, Hanson, Toulmin, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend also criticize the philosophy of science, with was inspired on neopositivism, trying to demonstrate that a purely formal analysis, when extended to the history of science, it is insufficient. Two are the basic points of attack: the induction and the idea that science rests on an infallible empirical basis. In spite all build their theories from the history of science are, first of all, philosophers, we can say that his criticism of Popper is focused primarily on the following point: the overlap between theory-hand experiences does not allow for a rational solution the problem of empirical basis. We argue that when we propose to accept the recognition of Metaphysics realistic, this criticism can be overcome on a relatively quiet, can do this without a dive in search of legitimacy in the history of science. In Chapter V we recognize that, if we had until now argued that while metaphysical realism is a necessary assumption of the epistemology of Popper, it is acknowledged that this reality is given independent of regularities, making it necessary to reconcile 'Realism' and 'Indefinite', mediate the term 'propensity'.The Three Worlds are released from here to an evolutionary perspective, which will be a starting point the idea that all organisms are constantly immersed in the resolution of problems, problems which are not restricted just to survive. By a process of trial and error, the whole nature is homogeneous, rooted in the specific human capacity to develop a descriptive language and argumentative. The ability to produce the language establishing the M 3 and the concomitant possibility of formation of the human subject as ' I 'conscious.
Essa tese pretende defender o seguinte argumento: a filosofia de Popper, devido ao seu interesse primordialmente cosmológico, somente pode ser corretamente compreendida enquanto sistema, isto é, enquanto explicação global da realidade entendida em seus dois pontos basilares: Metafísica e Teoria do Conhecimento. No Capítulo I argumentaremos que na base da ciência moderna temos Copérnico e Galileu. O primeiro não parte de problemas concretos nem de dados observacionais, na linguagem de Popper o heliocentrismo, como qualquer outra teoria científica, é fruto de uma intuição criadora; essa intuição produziu uma teoria que tem sua validade a partir de sua capacidade explicativa, da qual deduzimos certas predições passíveis de teste. Popper percebeu que a relatividade ao derrubar a mecânica newtoniana, o faz afirmando o ingrediente ontológico do realismo, e a tese da verossimilhança – ainda que sob forma intuitiva. No Capítulo II procuraremos argumentar que as respostas modernas – Hume e Kant - pressupunham, ainda que por razões distintas, o mecanicismo: Hume enquanto fundamento ontológico para suas inferências indutivas psicológicas, o que, diga-se de passagem, é insustentável, e Kant em seus juízos sintéticos a priori.A resposta do Positivismo Lógico apresentava em sua base graves dificuldades: a idéia de que o discurso científico seja em si auto-sustentável, porque oriundo do método indutivo transformava as leis científicas em: a) enunciados carentes de sentido, pois sua inferência não é logicamente justificável; b) regras para a formação de enunciados, semelhantes a regras de inferência, o que em nada ajudaria já que a fundamentação das regras de inferência na dedução se dá por sua capacidade de transmissão de verdade, isto é, com base nessas regras de inferência nunca teremos premissas verdadeiras e conclusões falsas, como a indução não permite isso.. c) instrumentos preditivos, o que suprimiria o aspecto descritivo da ciência. No Capítulo III buscamos argumentar que o dedutivismo falibilista, tal como o estamos interpretando, reconhece na refutação einsteiniana a afirmação de um mundo independente, e a idéia do conhecimento enquanto processo governado por conjecturas e refutações. Mediante a constatação da assimetria existente entre as hipóteses universais intuitivamente criadas e os enunciados básicos delas dedutíveis, compreendidos como seus falseadores potenciais, temos um critério de demarcação entre ciência e não-ciência perfeitamente enquadrado na cosmologia – preocupação central de Popper. No Capítulo IV vamos analisar como, a partir dos anos 50 e 60, Hanson, Toulmin, Kuhn, Lakatos e Feyerabend também criticam a Filosofia da Ciência de inspiração neopositivista procurando demonstrar que uma análise meramente formal, quando estendida à história da ciência, se revela insuficiente. Dois são os seus pontos básicos de ataque: a indução e a idéia de que a ciência repousa sobre uma infalível base empírica. Em que pese todos construírem suas teses a partir da história da ciência são, antes de tudo, filósofos, o que nos permite dizer que sua crítica a Popper está centrada basicamente no seguinte ponto: a indissociável imbricação teoria-experiência não permite uma solução racional para o problema da base empírica. Procuramos argumentar que, quando admitimos como estamos propondo o reconhecimento da Metafísica Realista de base, essas críticas podem ser superadas de maneira relativamente tranqüila, sem que isso implique em um mergulho em busca de legitimação na história da ciência. No Capítulo V reconhecemos que, se até aqui nos foi dado argumentar que o realismo enquanto metafísica é um pressuposto necessário da epistemologia de Popper, cabe admitir que essa realidade independente é dotada de regularidades, tornando necessário conciliar ‘Realismo’ e ‘Indeterminismo’, meidiante a noção de ‘propensão’.Os Três Mundos aqui são introduzidos partindo de uma reformulação da perspectiva evolucionista, que terá por ponto de partida a idéia de que todos os organismos estão permanentemente imersos na resolução de problemas, problemas esses que não se restringem tão somente a sobrevivência. Por um processo de ensaio e erro, toda a natureza é homogênea, radicando a especificidade humana na capacidade de desenvolvimento de uma linguagem descritiva e argumentativa. A capacidade de produzir a linguagem cria o M 3 e concomitantemente a possibilidade da constituição do sujeito humano enquanto ‘Eu’ consciente.

Né à Vienne en 1902, Karl Popper est un philosophe qui, toute sa vie durant, a plaidé pour la démocratie, contre le totalitarisme de droite ou de gauche. A la société close et immuable fondée sur le tribalisme et la magie, Popper oppose la société ouverte contrôlée par la raison, où la volonté de l'individu peut librement s'exercer. Aux historicistes tels que Platon, Hegel, Marx, il reproche de ne reconnaître l'histoire que pour ajouter qu'elle obéit à des lois qui déterminent le cours des événements : idée qui paralyse le progrès, en le soumettant à la fatalité historique. Critiquant l'idéalisme, la philosophie du langage, le positivisme et la psychanalyse, Popper, cependant, dans le marxisme et la psychanalyse, voit de grandes entreprises de la pensée jetant un regard nouveau et parfois pénétrant sur la société, sur l'histoire, sur l'homme. Mais il sent bien aussi que le statut de ces puissantes idéologies est profondément différent de celui de la théorie de la Relativité. Le marxisme et la psychanalyse sont hors de la science précisément en ce que, et parce que, par nature, par la structure même de leurs théories, ils sont irréfutables. La théorie d'Einstein à l'inverse est réfutable, vulnérable à l'expérience ; elle n'a pas été et ne pouvait être prouvée. Le principe de falsifiabilité a été à l'origine, il est demeuré au centre de l'épistémologie de Popper. Grâce à cette épistémologie, les problèmes de l'induction et de l'interprétation des probabilités reçoivent le traitement le plus complet. De la critique de Popper émerge sa propre éthique politique, étroitement associée à son épistémologie de la conjecture, de la réfutation, de l'erreur corrigée. Pour Popper, l'homme politique, comme l'homme scientifique, peut forger son destin collectif en s'appuyant sur une sagesse fondée sur un acte de foi délibéré et lucide dans le pouvoir de la rationalité éprouvée.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:31:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2008-04-25Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:22:43Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 rufatto_ca_dr_bauru.pdf: 363707 bytes, checksum: b6fd24f55ae0b377afc00b5dec69a478 (MD5)
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
O trabalho inicia-se com a apresentação das ideias sobre a verdade nas tradições racionalista e empirista, com a posterior avaliação dessas duas tradições por Popper. Em seguida, aborda-se o problema da indução de David Hume (fundamental no debate sobre a verdade), e a solução apresentada por Popper. A concepção de ciência de Popper é explicada, com especial atenção para o caráter provisório do conhecimento científico, sua racionalidade e potencial de progresso e a importância do critério de verossimilitude. A concepção de aprendizado de Popper é apresentada a partir de suas críticas da teoria do senso comum do conhecimento, da teoria dos três mundos, da importância que ele atribuía aos problemas e de suas idéias sobre a evolução do conhecimento, tendo o evolucionismo de Darwin como modelo. É feita uma retomada dos argumentos, trabalhos e autores que pesquisaram sobre a relevância da Filosofia da Ciência para o Ensino de Ciências, procurando-se identificar pontos importantes de influência. Ao final se procura estabelecer a relevância da contribuição de Popper para o Ensino de Ciências, identificando-se os pontos fortes de sua contribuição.
This work begins with a presentation of ideas concerning truth according to rationalist and empiric traditions, with a posterior evaluation of both traditions given by Popper. Following, it dels with the problem of David Hume's induction (fundamental in the discussion concerning truth) and the solution presented by Popper. Popper's conception of science is explained, giving special attention to the temporary characteristic of scientific knowledge, its rationality and its capability of progress and the value of the criterion verisimilitude. The concept of learning conceived by Popper is presented commencing with his critical insight of the theory of commom sense of knowledge, the theory of three worlds, of the importnace he used to attribute to problems and his ideas concerning evolution of knowledge, using Darwin's evolution theory as a model. A retaken of arguments is accomplished, works and authors who conducted research about the relevance of philosophy of science for the teaching of science, attempting to identify points of influence. Finally one attempts to establish the relevance of Popper's contribution to the teaching of sciences, thus identifying the strong points of this contribution.

L'intérêt de l'humanité pour la connaissance se joue sur deux fronts : celui de la réduction de l'ignorance, et celui de l'action tant individuelle que collective. Aussi la manière dont nous acquérons le savoir est-elle essentielle, parce qu'elle préjuge aussi bien de notre perception du monde que de notre conscience de nous-mêmes et de la société. Car si, avec la raison comme alliée, l'homme se découvre des potentialités illimitées, nous aurions pourtant tort de passe outre une stricte réalité, celle de notre ignorance infinie, celle, au fond, de notre incapacité à cerner, de façon sûre et certaine, quoi que ce soit de ce monde complexe et en évolution constante qui nous accueille. C'est pourquoi, pour Karl Popper, toute rationalité véritable doit être critique, c'est-à-dire pluraliste et débattante, seule façon de considérer objectivement l'écart qui nous sépare de la vérité et, par suite, d'agir avec prudence et discernement, dans l'intérêt de la science comme dans celui de la collectivité.