|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134675
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The centenary of the outbreak of the First World War has so far produced a great deal of attention from scholars, history buffs, and policymakers alike. Much of this attention says more about attitudes in 2014 than the actual events of 1914. This essay explores ways to use—and not use—analogies to 1914 in discussing present-day policy problems. It demolishes some traditional ways of viewing 1914 and focuses on the unusual and unexpected set of circumstances in that fateful summer. The article concludes by discussing some of the dangers inherent in simplifying history and looks closely at the ways that historians tend to use the past to develop insights for the present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
135166
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The impact of finding life beyond Earth, whether microbial, complex, or intelligent, is an important and timely problem given recent discoveries in the field of astrobiology. Analogy is one of the tools that may be used cautiously to explore potential impacts of discovering extraterrestrial life under different scenarios. After a brief examination of the problems and promise of analogy, this article suggests four analogs useful for providing guidelines in the event of such a discovery: the microbe analogy, the culture contact analogy, the transmission/translation analogy, and the worldview analogy. We offer what we term the “Goldilocks Principle of Analogy”: analogy must not be so general as to be meaningless, nor so specific as to be misleading. As in other fields, the middle “Goldilocks” ground is where analogies may serve as useful guideposts for astrobiology and its impact. And although the discovery of life beyond Earth will be a unique event, these guidelines may be useful for policy decisions both before and after the discovery of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
135165
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At the beginning of the twentieth century, geology was a terrestrial science, one that had no place making pronouncements on astronomical objects. Yet, by mid-century, this science was de rigueur in lunar studies. This article examines the heated debate, leading up to the Apollo missions, amongst geologists as to whether their discipline could tell scientists anything about the surface or composition of other celestial bodies. Precisely because the United States Geological Survey opened an Astrogeology Branch and geology education became a part of astronaut training, geologists gradually accepted the extraterrestrial application of their field and the prestige that came with it. In addition to recounting this disciplinary shift, this article considers how Earth itself became an analog for understanding the Moon. Before Neil Armstrong took his “one giant leap,” astronauts traveled with trained geologists to sites that they thought would resemble the geologic composition of the Moon. There, astronauts were trained to identify different rock types and perform “analog fieldwork” that would prepare them for the science objectives of their lunar voyage. Upon landing on the Moon, several astronauts remarked at how much the Moon looked like the American Southwest, the landscape in which they were trained. Analogy is not just a cognitive heuristics used by scientists, but it is also a technique that can be embodied and enacted, as illustrated by this case of taking geology to the Moon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
135161
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article describes the manner in which advocates of mountain climbing in the Himalayas used commercialization to expand the number of persons engaged in the activity, to cut cost, and to reduce risk. To the extent that climbing into the “death zone” of mountains, like Mount Everest, constitutes an analogy to space exploration, the article suggests that advocates of spaceflight travel may be poised at the end of an expeditionary period similar to the one that afflicted mountain climbers before they made the transition to the commercial era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
135164
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) provides a revealing analogy to American spaceflight owing to its common historical origin, similar base in Cold War national security and diplomacy, and reciprocal influence of scientific research and technology development associated with Antarctica and outer space. In addition, the USAP and America’s space program have been high-profile federal endeavors, promoted by varying constituents through unifying narratives intended to elicit “public understanding” or, more pointedly, public support for these strategic national initiatives. Beginning in the late 1950s, initial narratives similarly depicted both programs as confirmation that the United States was a benevolent world power which deployed its preeminent science and technology to positively transform distant realms and make their bounty serve humankind. As domestic priorities and international affairs dramatically shifted at the end of the 1960s, public discourse about the U.S. Antarctic and space programs changed and diverged. The USAP came to embody a national commitment to protecting the global environment while American spaceflight evinces more mixed national aspirations. A comparative account of this initial convergence and ultimate divergence exposes the cultural politics of these federal initiatives and helps reveal the process by which boosters and commentators cultivated public understanding and support for these strategic national endeavors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|