On the almost inconceivable misunderstandings concerning the subject of value‐free social science

A value judgment says what is good or bad, and value‐free social science simply means social science free of value judgments. Yet many sociologists regard value‐free social science as undesirable or impossible and readily make value judgments in the name of sociology. Often they display confusion about such matters as the meaning of value‐free social science, value judgments internal and external to social science, value judgments as a subject of social science, the relevance of objectivity for value‐free social science, and the difference between the human significance of social science and value‐free social science. But why so many sociologists are so value‐involved – and generally so unscientific – is sociologically understandable: The closest and most distant subjects attract the least scientific ideas. And during the past century sociologists have become increasingly close to their human subject. The debate about value‐free social science is also part of an epistemological counterrevolution of humanists (including many sociologists) against the more scientific social scientists who invaded and threatened to expropriate the human subject during the past century.     

Reflections on Changes in the Library and Serials Literature

Abstract

Johnson describes changes in library journal literature topics over the past one hundred years, with a focus on the period between her first Balance Point column in 2003 and this one, her last. She reminisces on her experience as a Balance Point column editor.     

Comparing Expressed and Revealed Preferences for Risk Reduction: Different Hazards and Question Frames

Studies often note the wide differences that exist in costs per death avoided across U.S. federal programs and regulatory contexts. This paper explores two new, related explanations for these differences. First, it argues that the patterns of revealed preferences (public allocations) may be related to public values, which are measured here through subjects' expressed preference responses to a contingent valuation survey regarding risk reduction. Subjects' expressed values are compared to actual (and proposed) costs of safety regulations for a similar set of hazards. We discover strong congruence in the ranking of expressed values and actual values. Second, the paper presents the results of a subsequent survey that investigates why the patterns observed in the first survey might occur. It suggests that one reason for the observed similarities between revealed and expressed preferences may be in how choices are framed. The paper hypothesizes that both subjects and decision makers may frame valuation decisions in the same way: as percentage changes from the reference point provided by the base rate of deaths for that hazard.     

20世纪尹湛纳希研究概说

简要梳理了20世纪国内外尹湛纳希研究概况,从传记研究、作品研究、社会思想研究、文艺思想研究等四个方面总结尹湛纳希研究成果,认为20世纪以来尹湛纳希研究已形成规模,呼吁建立"尹湛纳希学"。     

信息技术“生产率悖论”分析

信息与资本、土地一样,是一种重要的资源.信息技术是利用信息资源、发挥信息资源价值的技术和手段.然而,长期以来人们都为信息技术投资究竞有没有效益、效益有多大、究竞该如何测算其效益等这些问题所困惑.本文分析了信息技术"生产率悖论"产生的原因,并力图对这些问题给予解释和回答.     

基于卓越伦理的竞争优势

本文提出了“卓越伦理”和“基于卓越伦理的竞争优势”概念,概括了拥有卓越伦理的企业具有超越自身利益的使命和目的、合乎伦理地对待利益相关者、实行伦理领导等三个基本特征。从“有价值”、“稀缺性”、“难以模仿性”三个方面,论证了卓越伦理已具备成为可持续竞争优势来源的条件,从而得出了卓越伦理是可持续竞争优势一个来源的结论。     

释“意境”

今天用"意境"来谈艺衡文的也多,本文则仅仅讨论"意境"的本义.由于意境的发生、发展走过了从"形象--意象--意境"的逻辑发展历程,所以本文虽题目为"释意境",其实是要解释"形象"、"意象"和"意境"三个概念,解释这三个概念的本义以及相互间的逻辑发生变化关系.     

科技新闻的社会责任及其价值取向——兼评我国媒体对“神舟”四号的报道

20世纪后半叶以来的科技发展对科技新闻提出了一系列新的要求,适应这种要求的科技新闻应该承担更为重要的一些社会责任,实现更为重要的一些社会功能,科技新闻工作者也应有更加科学的价值取向.本文对有关这种社会责任、社会功能、价值取向的一些问题进行了初步的讨论,并对我国媒体有关"神舟"四号的一些报道进行简单的分析.     

VaR-APARCH模型与证券投资风险量化分析

基本统计分析发现,上证综合指数回报率分布存在尖峰肥尾性,不服从正态分布,并且还具有杠杆效应。本文应用APARCH模型在三种分布假设下对上证综合指数通过事后模拟和条件单步预测来计算上证综合指数的VaR风险值,然后把它与应用GARCH模型的估计结果进行比较分析。通过返回检验,我们发现,APARCH应用于VaR估计是统计有效的,并且明显优于GARHC模型。     

马克思对"人的价值"之类命题的批判

马克思认为"人的价值"之类的命题在本质上是资本主义经济的思想反映.因而,它决非是关于人的本性、尊严和幸福的永恒观念,而仅仅是资产阶级的特殊要求、愿望和幻想的反映.它同共产主义的世界观是根本对立的.在共产主义社会中,新的命题"每一个人的自由发展"将取代陈腐的命题"人的价值".