[PhilPhys] Spontaneous Generations Call for Papers for Volume 6: Visual Representation and Science

[HAPSAT]

 *Spontaneous Generations* is an open, online, peer-reviewed academic
journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and
Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto.

*Spontaneous Generations* publishes high quality, peer-reviewed articles on
any topic in the history and philosophy of science. For our general
peer-reviewed section, we welcome submissions of full-length research
papers on all HPS-related subjects. Scholars in all disciplines, including
but not limited to HPS, STS, History, Philosophy, Women's Studies,
Sociology, Anthropology, and Religious Studies are welcome to submit to our
sixth (2012) issue. Papers from all historical periods are welcome.

In addition to full-length peer-reviewed research papers, Spontaneous
Generations publishes opinion essays, book reviews, and a focused discussion
section consisting of short peer-reviewed and invited articles devoted to a
particular theme. This year’s focus is "Visual Representation and Science."

Submission Guidelines The journal consists of four sections:

   1. The focused discussion section, this year devoted to "Visual
   Representation and Science" (see below). (1000-3000 words recommended.)
   2. A peer-reviewed section of research papers on any topics in the
   fields of HPS and STS. (5000-8000 words recommended.)
   3. A book review section for books published in the last 5 years. (Up to
   1000 words.)
   4. An opinions section that may include a commentary on or a response to
   current concerns, trends, and issues in HPS. (Up to 500 words.)

Submissions should be sent no later than 24 February 2012 in order to be
considered for the 2012 issue. For more details, please visit the journal
homepage at http://spontaneousgenerations.library.utoronto.ca/

* Focused Discussion Topic: Visual Representation and Science*

How do scientists use visual representations? A cursory examination of
scientific practice suggests that images are used extensively; from
textbooks to lab books, from private notes to public lectures, images are
often researchers’ and educators’ favorite tool in understanding and
explaining the objects of their inquiry.

However, it is only recently, with scholars’ turn towards examining
scientific practice, that the cognitive and social implications of
scientific imagery have come under investigation. Historians, philosophers,
and sociologists of science have begun to ask how scientists use visual
techniques to assist in their reasoning, embody their theories, frame and
control debates, and convince their publics. From adaptive landscapes to
Cayley graphs, from drawings of early hominids to medical imaging, the
pictures that scientists use every day to illustrate, deduce, and
understand have come under investigation.

In this issue of Spontaneous Generations, we invite papers for a focused
discussion that will explore and give new perspectives on the relationship
between science and its visual representations, from antiquity to the
present.

Some questions that may be addressed by papers submitted for the focused
discussion section include, but are not limited to:

   - What are the role(s) of visualizations in scientific practice?
   - How should we understand the relationship between schematic images and
   the complex, natural objects they represent?
   - What validity should be ascribed to scientific mental pictures and/or
   thought experiments?
   - How do images reflect and influence scientific values? How do images
   affect the content of science?
   - How have scientific representations contributed towards particular
   conceptions of the objects and theories of science?
   - How have changing visual technologies affected scientific theory and
   practice?
   - How have certain visualizations come to signify and embody specific
   scientific entities and theories?
   - How should we understand the visual decisions taken in the design of
   scientific models, instruments and apparatus?
   - Which factors determine how scientists visualize “invisible” entities,
   such as biological processes, subatomic particles, or chemical states?
   - What is the epistemic status of visual models and simulations?

Please distribute freely. Apologies for cross-postings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listbox.elte.hu/mailman/private/philphys/attachments/20111102/9dca8806/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
PhilPhys - Philosophy of Physics Mail Group
Help & Archives: http://phil.elte.hu/PhilPhys