Discover the world's scientific knowledge

Levy (2011) paints a possible scenario, where Knowledge Management will – similar to the personal computer revolution – “experience a decentralizing revolution that gives more power and autonomy to individuals and self-organized groups” and stresses the “need for a personal discipline for collection, filtering and creative connection (among data, among people, and between people and data flows)”. Accordingly, he envisages the encouragement of autonomous personal knowledge management capacities in students as “one of the most important functions of teaching, from elementary school to the different levels of university”. 

By the same token, Bedford (2013) emphasizes: “Just as business, engineering and science education were key contributors to the development of advanced industrial economies in the 20th century, KM education will provide key opportunities for growing a 21st century knowledge economy.”

So, to what extent have our educational institutions taken this advice on board and what are, in your opinion, the best ways to bridge any existing gaps? 

What are the reasons for the different melting points for the prepared compounds in different ways, knowing that they are the same compounds?

It is widely accepted that sociology should form a constituent part of nursing's knowledge base. Unfortunately, the relationship of the disciplines has not been as productive in practice as it might have been.

Source: palgrave.com

For learning SPARQL it might be useful to have full control over both the query text and the data (RDF triples). While there are many public SPARQL endpoints available their data is typically read-only for obvious reasons. To actively apply SPARQL queries to ones own data, a local triple store might be useful, e.g. for reproducing the examples from https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/.

However, setting up such an infrastructure with all its dependencies might be complicated.

Question: What is the simplest¹ way to setup a local triple store with SPARQL endpoint on a usual PC?

(¹: The meaning of "simplest" depends on ones system configuration and prior knowledge, which can be reflected by different answers.)

If one has already an up-to-date Python environment, then https://github.com/vemonet/rdflib-endpoint provides a simple solution with only two commands

However, I am interested which alternative solutions there are.

Satellite, flux towers, transpiration from plants can be one of them. The comparisons and dependency of these methods will improve my knowledge.

According to the evaluations we have made among our colleagues on this subject and our own inquiries, another requirement has emerged. This means that there is a lack of standardization of the numbers used in the world's herbaria and given as the plant type codes. For example, for a plant samples of a species, collected from Turkey, stored in Geneva (G) herbarium, it has a different codes in other herbarium. For this reason, the species should be presented with the herbarium codes to be added to the country origin codes. In this way, both the origin is indicated and even the collected plants can be classified. What do you guys think about it?

"TUR-G 125" instead "G 125"

Country codes are given below:

In my recent book "Public Participation as a Tool for Integrating Local Knowledge into Spatial Planning" (available via ResearchGate) I compare between the respective capabilities of different participatory practices - top-down as well as bottom-up - to capture residents' local knowledge (e.g., needs, perceptions, perspectives, opinions) and incorporate it into planning and plans. The comparison is conducted according to dozens parameters such as 'the motivators for participatory processes', 'procedures and tools employed in the participatory processes', 'the interaction between stakeholders', 'exposure of local knowledge', 'characteristics of local knowledge exposed', etc.

The role of science in building the modern-day society is so enormous without any hitherto of doubt that the blind can feel and the deaf can see. Application of scientific knowledge is pivoted in formulating the social structures of any kind through the local and industrial production to all levels of education (Markova, 2017). The values attached to science by the society is a reflection of inevitable scientific knowledge application in satisfying the basic needs of human beings and improving quality of life and well-being. Despite the utility of science through application of its knowledge in the society the big questions remain: What constitutes scientific knowledge? What are the unique features of scientific knowledge that makes it different from other type of knowledge? In the next few paragraphs, I will attempt to address these questions.

Questions on the nature of scientific knowledge is philosophical and it is imperative to treat it as such. Therefore, the type of knowledge science is can be explained from the epistemological perspective which primarily concerns with the theory of knowledge in general. Despite the much effort that have been expended towards identification of constituents of scientific knowledge among educational philosophers there seems to be no universal agreement. However, some components such as statements, concepts, hypotheses, theories, methodology, etc., stand out in scientific practices. In an attempt to explain these components of scientific knowledge and their interrelationships, an overview of two epistemologies will be provided. These are the epistemology developed by Popper (2002) and that of Bunge (1998a, 1998b).

In the conceptualization of scientific knowledge, Popper sees statements as cardinal constituents and tools to describing concepts (basic or universal) coupled with associated relationships. In his view, a statement could be singular – describing experimental observation, or universal – all-inclusive based on experience. It is by default necessary for concepts to feature in scientific statements. Accordingly, a singular statement encompasses the description of an occurrence – real phenomenon – which in turn could form a building block for an event-similar occurrence which differ only in space or time. A special kind of statement is a hypothesis while a law is a unique type of universal statement. Another major component of scientific knowledge is a theory – a collection of scientific statements. Finally, a special kind of theory is a methodology (Hars, 2001; Popper, 2002). These components sum together constitute Popper’s epistemology of scientific knowledge.

Another perspective of the kind of knowledge science really is can be understood from Bunge’s epistemology of scientific knowledge. According to Bunge (1998a, 1998b), ideas and facts are basic building blocks of a scientific knowledge of an object. Scientific ideas can be broken into factual hypotheses or observational hypotheses. A factual hypothesis requires creativity as it is not often extracted from data. Another component of scientific knowledge as described by Bunger are problems which could be solved using formula that encompasses concepts and variables. Data generated by scientific experience (e.g., measurement, observation and experiment) could be linked to hypotheses towards forming theories. Hence, theories are collection of hypotheses which can be deeper than one and other.

From the foregoing paragraphs it is evident that a scientific knowledge could be conceived of as a systematically synthesis of ideas about an object, occurrence, phenomenon or event through hypotheses that are subjected to testing using measurement, observation, experiment and refined accordingly for a rational explanation (theory) of the phenomenon. These features-ideas, hypothesizing, experimentation, methodology, theorizing, etc., coupled with its empirical integration make scientific knowledge different from other types of knowledge.

It will be a good idea if your thoughts can be captured in the comment section. Thank you.

Bunge, M. A. (1998a). Philosophy of science, volume 1: From problem to theory. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing.

Bunge, M. A. (1998b). Philosophy of science, volume 2: From explanation to justification. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishing.

Hars, A. (2001). Designing scientific knowledge infrastructures: The contribution of epistemology. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(1), 63–73.

Markova, L. A. (2017). The Turn in Social Investigations of Scientific Knowledge. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 55(1), 26-36. doi:10.1080/10611967.2017.1296290

Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (6th ed.). London: Routledge.

I have seen around in the web different technologies focused towards beehive health. Beekeeping is a millenial activity, by saying this, beehives are located far away from where Internet connection is barely hard to get and also nearly imposible to connect into a cloud.

Any suggestion or product recommendation for collecting information with the help of 1TB SD card or connection to the internet with a cell phone SIM card?

Thanks,

GB

Is information not similar to explicit knowledge given the difference between tacit and explicit as follows:

Tacit knowledge (knowing-how): knowledge embedded in the human mind through experience and jobs. Know-how and learning embedded within the minds of people. Personal wisdom and experience, context-specific, more difficult to extract and codify. Tacit knowledge Includes insights, intuitions. Explicit knowledge (knowing-that): knowledge codified and digitized in books, documents, reports, memos, etc. Documented information that can facilitate action. Knowledge what is easily identified, articulated, shared and employed. and Information is processed data. Information has a meaning and is organized for some purpose. It could be in the shape of reports, manuals and books. So my Question is how is Explicit knowledge and Information are different.?