Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2023.2194124
P. Ball
{"title":"Thomas Charles Buckland McLeish, 1 May 1962–27 February 2023","authors":"P. Ball","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2023.2194124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2023.2194124","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47412744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-28DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243
Maya J Goldenberg
ABSTRACT It is widely recognized that the public benefits from well-placed trust in science. While expert advice may be wrong at times, nonexperts, on balance, benefit from following scientific experts rather than ignoring them. In short, the public needs science. Numerous professional codes such as the 2017 European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, scientific reports (e.g., American Association of Arts and Science. 2014. Public Trust in Vaccines: Defining a Research Agenda. https://www.amacad.org/sites/ default/files/publication/downloads/publicTrustVaccines.pdf) and academic scholarship emphasize the importance of public trust in science and recommend a variety of ways to promote it. 1 Less attention, however, is given to the converse relation between science and the public, namely how much science needs the public. This article examines this two-way relationship by considering the role of trust in science, both within scientific communities and between science and the public, where and how public mistrust arises, and what can be done to improve public trust in science.
{"title":"Public trust in science","authors":"Maya J Goldenberg","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is widely recognized that the public benefits from well-placed trust in science. While expert advice may be wrong at times, nonexperts, on balance, benefit from following scientific experts rather than ignoring them. In short, the public needs science. Numerous professional codes such as the 2017 European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, scientific reports (e.g., American Association of Arts and Science. 2014. Public Trust in Vaccines: Defining a Research Agenda. https://www.amacad.org/sites/ default/files/publication/downloads/publicTrustVaccines.pdf) and academic scholarship emphasize the importance of public trust in science and recommend a variety of ways to promote it. 1 Less attention, however, is given to the converse relation between science and the public, namely how much science needs the public. This article examines this two-way relationship by considering the role of trust in science, both within scientific communities and between science and the public, where and how public mistrust arises, and what can be done to improve public trust in science.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44276747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-28DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2148889
K. Lieberknecht, H. Houser, Adam N. Rabinowitz, S. Pierce, Lourdes Rodríguez, Fernanda Leite, J. Lowell, Jennifer Nelson Gray
In this position paper, we use the example of The University of Texas at Austin’s Planet Texas 2050 (PT2050) to argue that the Grand Challenge (GC) framework for ambitious research initiatives must create meeting grounds for transdisciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), arts, and humanities, along with community perspectives. We trace the historical trajectory of GCs, and reframe GC initiatives within the literature of interand transdisciplinarity. We present PT2050 as a case study of the infrastructural supports and imaginative process for creating level meeting grounds for transdisciplinarity. We demonstrate the benefits of these meeting grounds through projects, products, and funding generated. We contend that engaging arts, humanities, and community in co-design from the beginning is critical because complex, urgent challenges such as the climate crisis are embedded in human societies and demand solutions based in understanding of social, cultural, and historical contexts as well as STEM applications. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 February 2022 Revised 12 November 2022 Accepted 14 November 2022
{"title":"Creating meeting grounds for transdisciplinary climate research: the role of humanities and social sciences in grand challenges","authors":"K. Lieberknecht, H. Houser, Adam N. Rabinowitz, S. Pierce, Lourdes Rodríguez, Fernanda Leite, J. Lowell, Jennifer Nelson Gray","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2148889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2148889","url":null,"abstract":"In this position paper, we use the example of The University of Texas at Austin’s Planet Texas 2050 (PT2050) to argue that the Grand Challenge (GC) framework for ambitious research initiatives must create meeting grounds for transdisciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), arts, and humanities, along with community perspectives. We trace the historical trajectory of GCs, and reframe GC initiatives within the literature of interand transdisciplinarity. We present PT2050 as a case study of the infrastructural supports and imaginative process for creating level meeting grounds for transdisciplinarity. We demonstrate the benefits of these meeting grounds through projects, products, and funding generated. We contend that engaging arts, humanities, and community in co-design from the beginning is critical because complex, urgent challenges such as the climate crisis are embedded in human societies and demand solutions based in understanding of social, cultural, and historical contexts as well as STEM applications. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 February 2022 Revised 12 November 2022 Accepted 14 November 2022","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59923904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807
Philippe Stamenkovic
ABSTRACT There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.
{"title":"Facts and objectivity in science","authors":"Philippe Stamenkovic","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are various conceptions of objectivity, a characteristic of the scientific enterprise, the most fundamental being objectivity as faithfulness to facts. A brute fact, which happens independently from us, becomes a scientific fact once we take cognisance of it through the means made available to us by science. Because of the complex, reciprocal relationship between scientific facts and scientific theory, the concept of objectivity as faithfulness to facts does not hold in the strict sense of an aperspectival faithfulness to brute facts. Nevertheless, it holds in the large sense of an underdetermined faithfulness to scientific facts, as long as we keep in mind the complexity of the notion of scientific fact (as theory-laden), and the role of non-factual elements in theory choice (as underdetermined by facts). Science remains our best way to separate our factual beliefs from our other kinds of beliefs.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47255861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2149736
D. Parker
ABSTRACT The term neuroscience originated in the early 1960s, but the questions it asks date to antiquity. The nineteenth-century reticular view of the brain as a diffuse net-like synctium was negated by the neuron doctrine, but certain aspects (e.g. glial cells) are better described as a synctium. System views of the brain were popular in the first half of the twentieth century, but a reductionist focus has since dominated with the development of experimental tools that focus on components. This article will begin by considering twentieth-century views of both philosophers and scientists that highlight the tension between integrating in a field while retaining the ability to think critically. This will be illustrated by considering two common assumptions in neuroscience: that reductionist approaches will explain the brain; and the technological metaphor that sees the brain as a computer.
{"title":"Assumptions of twentieth-century neuroscience: reductionist and computational paradigms","authors":"D. Parker","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2149736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2149736","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The term neuroscience originated in the early 1960s, but the questions it asks date to antiquity. The nineteenth-century reticular view of the brain as a diffuse net-like synctium was negated by the neuron doctrine, but certain aspects (e.g. glial cells) are better described as a synctium. System views of the brain were popular in the first half of the twentieth century, but a reductionist focus has since dominated with the development of experimental tools that focus on components. This article will begin by considering twentieth-century views of both philosophers and scientists that highlight the tension between integrating in a field while retaining the ability to think critically. This will be illustrated by considering two common assumptions in neuroscience: that reductionist approaches will explain the brain; and the technological metaphor that sees the brain as a computer.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44723476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2150414
H. Collins
ABSTRACT Science is the search for truth about the observable world. But it rests on values. The only thing that can be discovered by observation is the immediate here and now. Otherwise, knowledge about the observable world is based on hearsay, spoken or recorded, about others' observations. Apart from small and fleeting observations, science rests on trust. Our scientific lives and scientific knowledge depend on choosing who and what to trust. Since we can meet only a few scientists at best, we have to decide whether to trust science as an institution. Science is a good bet because its aim is to create truth, perhaps posthumously; truth is its end as well as its means. In today's world, science is vitally important as a check and balance on democratic power and an object lesson for decision-makers. To do good, honest, science is to support democracy in the face of populism.
{"title":"The most important thing about science is values","authors":"H. Collins","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2150414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2150414","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Science is the search for truth about the observable world. But it rests on values. The only thing that can be discovered by observation is the immediate here and now. Otherwise, knowledge about the observable world is based on hearsay, spoken or recorded, about others' observations. Apart from small and fleeting observations, science rests on trust. Our scientific lives and scientific knowledge depend on choosing who and what to trust. Since we can meet only a few scientists at best, we have to decide whether to trust science as an institution. Science is a good bet because its aim is to create truth, perhaps posthumously; truth is its end as well as its means. In today's world, science is vitally important as a check and balance on democratic power and an object lesson for decision-makers. To do good, honest, science is to support democracy in the face of populism.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44379972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246
R. Peels
ABSTRACT An increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and popular science writers claim that science is the measure of all. They assert that science can answer all questions, that there are no limits to science, or that only science provides reliable knowledge, either in a particular realm, such as morality, or about any subject matter whatsoever. This view is often referred to as ‘scientism’. But what exactly is scientism? What is to be said in favour of it and against it? This paper suggests, after a careful evaluation of the arguments for and against scientism, that a helpful way to think of scientism is as of a variety of fundamentalism. It turns out that scientism meets nearly all conditions formulated in family resemblance accounts of fundamentalism. Finally, it is suggested that science and scientists can learn much from religion when it comes to how to deal with scientific fundamentalism.
{"title":"Scientism and scientific fundamentalism: what science can learn from mainstream religion","authors":"R. Peels","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An increasing number of scientists, philosophers, and popular science writers claim that science is the measure of all. They assert that science can answer all questions, that there are no limits to science, or that only science provides reliable knowledge, either in a particular realm, such as morality, or about any subject matter whatsoever. This view is often referred to as ‘scientism’. But what exactly is scientism? What is to be said in favour of it and against it? This paper suggests, after a careful evaluation of the arguments for and against scientism, that a helpful way to think of scientism is as of a variety of fundamentalism. It turns out that scientism meets nearly all conditions formulated in family resemblance accounts of fundamentalism. Finally, it is suggested that science and scientists can learn much from religion when it comes to how to deal with scientific fundamentalism.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48336464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150
Rafael Ambríz González, L. Bortolotti
ABSTRACT In this paper, we offer a brief overview of the debate between realism and anti-realism in the philosophy of science. On the background of that debate, we consider two recently developed approaches aimed at vindicating realist intuitions while acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge. Perspectivalists explain disagreement in science without giving up the idea that currently accepted scientific theories describe reality largely accurately: they posit the existence of different perspectives within which scientific claims can be produced and tested. The integrative approach instead encourages researchers to embrace pluralism: conflicting frameworks and methodologies can be integrated when new knowledge is gained. In the natural and human sciences, researchers sometimes behave as if perspectivism is true; at other times, they hope for a reconciliation between conflicting frameworks and believe that this can be achieved by progressively filling knowledge gaps.
{"title":"Putting scientific realism into perspective","authors":"Rafael Ambríz González, L. Bortolotti","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, we offer a brief overview of the debate between realism and anti-realism in the philosophy of science. On the background of that debate, we consider two recently developed approaches aimed at vindicating realist intuitions while acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge. Perspectivalists explain disagreement in science without giving up the idea that currently accepted scientific theories describe reality largely accurately: they posit the existence of different perspectives within which scientific claims can be produced and tested. The integrative approach instead encourages researchers to embrace pluralism: conflicting frameworks and methodologies can be integrated when new knowledge is gained. In the natural and human sciences, researchers sometimes behave as if perspectivism is true; at other times, they hope for a reconciliation between conflicting frameworks and believe that this can be achieved by progressively filling knowledge gaps.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48510917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2131086
G. M. Mejía, D. Henriksen, Yumeng Xie, Alex García-Topete, R. Malina, Kendon Jung
ABSTRACT Addressing complex future challenges requires transdisciplinary practices. However, existing approaches for transdisciplinary collaboration tend to be limited to science-expert directions. Successful collaboration across disciplines and diverse contexts requires community agency, blurring disciplinary boundaries, and combining sciences and arts. We argue that traditional and emergent design practices provide a powerful mindset to support productive transdisciplinary collaborations for addressing complex societal problems such as climate change and social justice. Designers, historically, have struggled to translate the practices of arts and sciences into professional practice; and design can be understood as a third way of knowing that is unique from arts and sciences. Designers may use evidence, but they also generate proposals that are about preferred possibilities. We propose components of a design mindset (synthesis, modelling, speculation, facilitation, and implementation) for transdisciplinary teams to enhance future-oriented collaboration outcomes. These guidelines expand research-oriented approaches and can be used for co-designing futures in collaborative work.
{"title":"From researching to making futures: a design mindset for transdisciplinary collaboration","authors":"G. M. Mejía, D. Henriksen, Yumeng Xie, Alex García-Topete, R. Malina, Kendon Jung","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2131086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2131086","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Addressing complex future challenges requires transdisciplinary practices. However, existing approaches for transdisciplinary collaboration tend to be limited to science-expert directions. Successful collaboration across disciplines and diverse contexts requires community agency, blurring disciplinary boundaries, and combining sciences and arts. We argue that traditional and emergent design practices provide a powerful mindset to support productive transdisciplinary collaborations for addressing complex societal problems such as climate change and social justice. Designers, historically, have struggled to translate the practices of arts and sciences into professional practice; and design can be understood as a third way of knowing that is unique from arts and sciences. Designers may use evidence, but they also generate proposals that are about preferred possibilities. We propose components of a design mindset (synthesis, modelling, speculation, facilitation, and implementation) for transdisciplinary teams to enhance future-oriented collaboration outcomes. These guidelines expand research-oriented approaches and can be used for co-designing futures in collaborative work.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45138240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.1080/03080188.2022.2134539
Zeynep Birsel, L. Marques, E. Loots
ABSTRACT This conceptual paper focuses on understanding the interactions between art, science, and technology as forms of wide interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary collaboration. There is scarce knowledge about how the wide interdisciplinary interaction between artists, scientists, and technologists can be conceptualized through a shared framework for collaboration. The ecology of collaboration involves a complex set of social structures varying between autonomous individually organized teams and institutional programmes. By using a social ecological approach, integrating social, organizational, and cultural factors, art, science, and technology (AST) collaborations can be characterized by a sequence of antecedent, process, and outcome conditions. These elements are organized to form a conceptual framework for art-science collaborations, elaborating on AST in its relationship to knowledge, aesthetics, interdependence, and experimentalism as antecedent conditions, while outlining the process elements and possible outcomes of the collaborations. The framework can be a vehicle for evaluation and reflection for practitioners, researchers, educators, and policymakers.
{"title":"Daring to disentangle: towards a framework for art-science-technology collaborations","authors":"Zeynep Birsel, L. Marques, E. Loots","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2134539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2134539","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This conceptual paper focuses on understanding the interactions between art, science, and technology as forms of wide interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary collaboration. There is scarce knowledge about how the wide interdisciplinary interaction between artists, scientists, and technologists can be conceptualized through a shared framework for collaboration. The ecology of collaboration involves a complex set of social structures varying between autonomous individually organized teams and institutional programmes. By using a social ecological approach, integrating social, organizational, and cultural factors, art, science, and technology (AST) collaborations can be characterized by a sequence of antecedent, process, and outcome conditions. These elements are organized to form a conceptual framework for art-science collaborations, elaborating on AST in its relationship to knowledge, aesthetics, interdependence, and experimentalism as antecedent conditions, while outlining the process elements and possible outcomes of the collaborations. The framework can be a vehicle for evaluation and reflection for practitioners, researchers, educators, and policymakers.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41415331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：