“政策制定和研究指导方法研究”概述和评价指标

在简要介绍本研究的基本思路基础上,着重阐述了所构建的“政策研究逻辑性、科学性、可操作性和合理性”评价指标体系,该指标体系包括6类逻辑性指标、2类科学性指标、4类可操作性指标和3类合理性指标,该体系被用于评价现有政策学著作的不足,也用于对政策过程理论的完善。

Underdetermination, Multiplicity, and Mathematical Logic

Whether a collection of scientific data can be explained only by a unique theory or whether such data can be equally explained by multiple theories is one of the more contested issues in the history and philosophy of science. This paper argues that the case for multiple explanations is strengthened by the widespread failure of models in mathematical logic to be unique, i.e., categorical. Science is taken to require replicable and explicit public knowledge; this necessitates an unambiguous language for its transmission. Mathematics has been chosen as the vehicle to transmit scientific knowledge, both because of its ＂unreasonable effectiveness＂ and because of its unambiguous nature, hence the vogue of axiomatic systems. But mathematical logic tells us that axiomatic systems need not refer to uniquely defined real structures. Hence what is accepted as science may be only one of several possibilities.

油气勘探类科技论文内容审读方法

论文内容审读是科技期刊编辑工作的关键环节,编辑需要掌握可操作性强的审读方法。本文以油气勘探类科技论文的审读工作为例,将论文内容的审读划分为敏感性问题判断、内容创新性判断和科学性、逻辑性判断3个步骤,并举例阐述了各步骤的要点。判断敏感性问题,编辑应高度重视论文中可能涉及的意识形态问题和学术伦理问题;判断内容创新性,编辑应将创新点细化和具象化,既要总结识别科技论文中的共性创新点,更要归纳自身学科的特色创新点;判断科学性、逻辑性,科学性的判断一般必须依靠编辑对具体相关科学知识的学习和积累才能提升,但逻辑性的判断则具有普遍规律,应分别对引言部分、正文部分的逻辑性以及各部分之间的逻辑闭合性进行分析。遵循这3个步骤及各步骤的审读要点,基本上可以较好地把握住油气勘探类科技论文的内容情况。