钦州市海洋珍稀生物科普旅游发展研究

海洋珍稀生物研究对人类发展具有重要意义,为了让人们更加了解这些海洋珍稀生物,强化人们保护海洋的意识,开展科普旅游无疑是不错的选择。本文以广西壮族自治区钦州市海洋珍稀生物科普旅游发展为研究对象,通过查阅文献和实地调查,分析钦州市海洋珍稀生物科普旅游的现状与问题,并从政府、科普设施、科普活动、科普专门人才、科普平台五方面给出建议,希望可以为钦州市海洋珍稀生物科普旅游发展贡献力量。     

天文类博物馆在科普教育中的地位和作用

天文类博物馆在广大人民群众与天文学之间架起了一座桥梁,是开展科普教育,宣传科学精神 的重要载体和阵地,本文论述了其在天文科普教育中的重要地位和作用,并就其在新的历史时期如何更好地发 挥科普作用提出了一些想法,如送科普下乡、加强馆际联合、发展科普旅游等。     

博物馆数字化科普平台建设

建设博物馆数字化的科普平台,加强了对馆藏文物的保护能力,促进了博物馆的历史文化教育和传播功能,具有重大的现实意义和深远的历史意义。本工作将介绍其构建方法:采用全景拍摄、三维扫描等数字化信息采集技术,对博物馆建筑的内外景、重点馆藏文物进行信息采集,构建虚拟的历史遗迹遗存、网上博物馆,将实体博物馆以数字化方式完整呈现,通过互联网/移动互联网提供身临其境的虚拟参观服务;采用二维码、电子标签、混合定位等技术,为现场观众提供自助音视频文化科普导览服务;策划制作面向广大青少年的反映中国历史文化遗产的4D影视科普作品及建设面向普通观众开放的博物馆4D动感影厅工程播放系统,以此构建博物馆数字化科普平台。     

浅谈高校博物馆的科普教育的策划与展开

高校博物馆具有收藏、展示、研究、教育等基本职能。同时服务于科研与教育,与高校的学科体系相结合、培养人才,传播和普及公共知识,服务于大众。但在科普教育中仍有很多不足,即观众范围狭窄、参与性不强等,分析我国的高校博物馆科普策划的形式,借鉴国外经验,提出科普教育新形式。     

中坡森林公园开展科普研学旅行教育的实践与思考

文章从合理设置科普研学旅行教育课程、引领中、小学生参与科普研学旅行实践活动、开展知识拓展与学科整合活动、加强科普研学旅行教育导师的培训和提高科普研学旅行教育的宣传力度等方面介绍了中坡森林公园开展科普研学旅行教育的实践,并提出了相关建议措施。     

我国省区科普旅游发展潜力评价研究

科普旅游能够满足人们多样化的精神文化追求,促进科学知识和科学精神的普及传播,推动旅游业发展,实现经济效益和社会效益的提升。文章依据科普与旅游的“结合点”,选取影响科普旅游发展潜力的64个指标,构建我国省区科普旅游发展潜力评价指标体系,采用主成分分析法计算省区科普旅游发展潜力综合的得分并进行排名,建立3种科普旅游综合发展的二维分析模型,深入分析各省区科普旅游发展潜力现有的优势劣势和未来的发展方向,以期能够为相关人士提供参考。     

“双减”背景下如何发挥科普场馆的作用

“双减”政策的出台,目的是促进学生全面、多元发展,培养学生创新能力、思辨能力和高阶思维,激发学生学习兴趣,更好地开展高质量学习。科普场馆是科学普及的主要阵地,建立校内外科学教育资源有效衔接机制,丰富科普活动的表现形式,推动特色数字科技馆建设,整合吸纳优质科普资源,强化科学普及社会责任意识,持续助力“双减”有效落地,是科普场馆应承担的责任和义务。     

利用博物馆资源开展中小学科普教育活动设计探索——以中国化工博物馆科普教育活动讲述为例

博物馆是教育的特殊资源和重要阵地,被誉为社会教育的第二课堂。博物馆资源开发应用,不断拓展博物馆教育的方式途径,开展各种类型的中小学科普教育活动,更好激发青少年的好奇心,为培养一代爱科学、有梦想、有潜力、有希望的科技创新青少年群体做出贡献,是博物馆的社会教育职能的体现。中国化工博物馆积极与相关机构合作,推出各种类型的科普教育活动,让展览、活动进入中小学校园,新冠肺炎期间整合资源开展各种线上活动,对利用博物馆资源开展科普教育活动进行初步探索。     

地方志资源开发利用方法及其途径研究——以上海科普工作为参考

作为中华传统文化的重要组成部分,地方志在传承中华文化、弘扬历史传统等方面扮演着重要角色,如何提升优秀方志成果的传播广度与下沉力度成为新时代方志工作者面对的重要课题。本文通过文献查阅与实地走访等形式,调查上海科普工作的历史沿革与发展现状,分析其特色与优势,并以上海科普宣传成果为参考案例,结合现阶段上海方志宣传情况,从品牌设计、平台共建、青少年培养、社区服务、评测机制等方面提供可行建议,为推进文化自信自强,铸就社会主义文化新辉煌,实现社会主义文化新繁荣贡献方志力量。     

网络信息环境下科普档案编研工作的特点

随着科技的进步,信息化已逐步进入了档案管理领域。科普档案编研作为科普档案信息开发与利用的主要方式在网络信息环境下也受到了很大影响。本文就科普档案编研工作在网络信息环境下的特点进行了具体分析并如何有利开展档案编研进行了探讨。     

科学观的歧义与中国近代科学史学的多重意蕴

近代中国史学科学化进程中,因国人对“科学”含义理解上的不同,对史学是否属于“科学”有不同的认识;也因对“科学”含义广、狭不同的理解,形成了不同的“科学史学”观;由此造成史学“科学化”进程中观念分歧与实践路向上的差异。     

The Obvious in a Nutshell: Science,Medicine, Knowledge,and History

The scope and mission of the history of science have been constant objects of reflection and debate within the profession. Recently, Lorraine Daston has called for a shift of focus: from the history of science to the history of knowledge. Such a move is an attempt at broadening the field and ridding it of the contradictions deriving from its modernist myth of origin and principle of demarcation. Taking the move from a pluralistic concept of medicine, the present paper explores the actual and possible contributions that a history of knowledge can offer to the history of medicine in particular. As we will argue, the history of medicine has always been a history of knowledge, but for good reasons has always stuck to the concept of medicine as its object and problem throughout the ages, including the modern, scientific one. We argue that, in the history of medicine, the demarcation between scientific and non‐scientific represents an accident, but is not foundational as in the case of natural science. Furthermore, the history of medicine programmatically played a role in at least two academic domains (history proper and medical education), adjusting historical narratives of medical knowledge to its audience. Accordingly, we underscore that the history of both science and medicine, as traditionally defined, already provides room for almost the whole spectrum of approaches to history. Moreover, their different myths of origin can, and indeed must, be included in the reflexivity of the historical gaze. We argue that the position towards a history of science, medicine, or knowledge is not a question of narrative or theory, rather, it is a question of relevance and awareness of extant contexts.     

Wissens‐ und Wissenschaftstransfer – Einführende Bemerkungen

Knowledge and science transfer – introductory remarks. The article presents introductory remarks on the historical study of knowledge and science transfer. Discussion focuses initially on the reasons for speaking of knowledge transfer and not only about science transfer, and the relations of this topic to current research in general history on cultural transfer. Multiple levels of knowledge / science transfer are then discussed, specifically: (1) transfer by means of migration or other movement of people across geographic boundaries; (2) scientific changes related to the transfer of objects (such as plant specimens or instruments) across continents or disciplines; (3) knowledge or science transfer in practical contexts. Addressed throughout is the problematic character of the concept of transfer itself. The author suggests that users of this concept often presuppose a static conception of scientific and cultural contents being more or less successfully transferred; more interesting, however, are the changes in science and culture conditioned or caused by the migration of individuals as well as the transfer of culture by other means.     

HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE: SOME LESSONS FOR PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Rheinberger's brief history brings into sharp profile the importance of history of science for a philosophical understanding of historical practice. Rheinberger presents thought about the nature of science by leading scientists and their interpreters over the course of the twentieth century as emphasizing increasingly the local and developmental character of their learning practices, thus making the conception of knowledge dependent upon historical experience, “historicizing epistemology.” Linking his account of thought about science to his own work on “experimental systems,” I draw extensive parallels with other work in the local history of science (the ideas of Latour, Pickering, Rouse, and others) and consider the epistemological implications both for the relation between history and philosophy of science and between history and theory more broadly. In doing so, I suggest that the long‐standing gap between the natural sciences and history as a “human science” has been significantly bridged by the insistence upon the local, mediated, indeed “historicized epistemology” of actual science.     

Zeitschichten des Klons. Anmerkungen zu einer Begriffsgeschichte

Temporal Layers of the Clone. Remarks on a Conceptual History. This paper aims at a history of the clone concept in 20th‐century life science and culture. The first part of the paper is concerned with conceptual history approaches. Here, the idea of ‘Zeitschichten’ by Reinhart Koselleck is discussed and its implications for the history of science are explored. In the following parts of the paper, I trace the historical dynamics of the clone concept in various fields of 20th‐century life sciences. I argue that the clone concept, which originated in plant breeding around 1900, soon developed into a technical tool in a variety of research areas. With this, specific meanings became attached: the idea of standardization, genetic identity, and mass reproduction. A further connotation of the clone was the idea of stagnancy with respect to processes in time: The clone was seen as something that was exempt from evolutionary changes. In the last section of the paper, I trace the shifting meanings of the clone concept in the 1960s and 1970s, when the clone became a widespread metaphor that pointed to future biotechnologically driven possibilities to reshape the nature of human beings. In this regard, the debates of the 1970s are analyzed as a turning point: Whereas utopian and eugenic visions predominated the debates in the 1960s (when the human clone was seen as something which will occur in a distant future), the 1970s discussion focused on the advent of a biotechnological era and the human clone had became a reality.     

The History of Knowledge and the Future of Knowledge Societies

The new field of the history of knowledge is often presented as a mere expansion of the history of science. We argue that it has a greater ambition. The re‐definition of the historiographical domain of the history of knowledge urges us to ask new questions about the boundaries, hierarchies, and mutual constitution of different types of knowledge as well as the role and assessment of failure and ignorance in making knowledge. These issues have pertinence in the current climate where expertise is increasingly questioned and authority seems to lose its ground. Illustrated with examples from recent historiography of the sixteenth to twentieth centuries, we indicate some fruitful new avenues for research in the history of knowledge. Taken together, we hope that they will show that the history of knowledge could build the expertise required by the challenges of twenty‐first century knowledge societies, just like the history of science, throughout its development as a discipline in the twentieth century, responded to the demands posed by science and society.     

Über Georges Canguilhems Was heißt eine wissenschaftliche Ideologie? und über deutsch‐französische Beiträge zum Thema Wissenschaft und Ideologie aus den letzten vierzig Jahren

On Georges Canguilhem's What does a Scientific Ideology mean? and on French‐German Contributions on Science and Ideology in the Last Fourty Years. This paper is based on Canguilhem's text on the concept of scientific ideology, which he introduced in 1969. We describe Canguilhem's attempts at designing a methodological framework for the history of science including the status of kinds of knowledge related to science, like scientific ideologies preceding particular scientific domains (like ideologies about inheritance before Mendel, or Spencer's universal evolutionary laws preceding Darwin). This attempt at picturing the relationships between science and ideology is compared with Jürgen Habermas's book Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’ in 1968. The philosphical issue of human normativity provides the framework of this discussion.     

Historische Wissenschaftsforschung,heute. Überlegungen zu einer Geschichte der Wissensgesellschaft

Historical Science Studies Today. Thoughts about a History of the Knowledge Society. The article explores theoretical and historiographical approaches in the field of historical science studies, while focusing on the history of the knowledge society. It argues that a straightforward transfer of the concept of knowledge society into the past has to be pursued with care, favorably with an extraction of some analytical key concepts. This extraction is termed ‘decontextualization’ while a second approach, ‘contextualization’, is applied to the study of the knowledge society in its own time, namely the second half of the twentieth century. The latter approach needs to be combined with a history of science studies, especially a history of the concepts explaining and constituting the knowledge society itself. Furthermore, it is proposed to study the operative concepts of innovation and regulation in order to analyze the coupling processes of science, economy, technology, and government.     

Im Blickwinkel der Technik: Neue Verhältnisse von Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte

Changing Perspectives – From the Experimental to the Technological Turn in History and Philosophy of Science. In the 1960s the philosophy of science was transformed through the encounter with the history of science, resulting in a collaborative venture by the name of “History and Philosophy of Science” (HPS). Philosophy of science adopted ever more regularly the format of the case study to reconstruct certain episodes from the history of science, and historians were mostly interested in the production of scientific knowledge. The so‐called “experimental turn” of the 1980s owed to this interaction between philosophy and history. Its guiding question remained quite traditional, however, namely “How do the sciences achieve an agreement between representation and reality?” Only the answers to this question broke with tradition by focusing not on theory but on the role of instruments and experiments. – Roughly 30 years after the experimental turn, another transformative encounter appears to be taking place. HPS is being transformed in the encounter with philosophy of technology. From the point of view of philosophy of technology, the question does not arise whether and how the agreement of mind and world, representation and reality can be achieved. When things are constructed, built or made, human thinking and physical materiality are inseparably intertwined. Instead of seeking to describe a mind‐independent reality, technoscientific researchers are working to acquire and demonstrate capabilities of experimental or predictive control. When science is regarded as a kind of technology, a program of study opens up for epistemology and so do avenues for the historiography of science. History of science might now show how the problems and procedures of the sciences arise from and impinge back upon a world that is itself a product of science and technology. It thereby abandons its traditional HPS niche existence and joins forces with environmental history, history of technology, social, labor, and consumer history.