如何使对过去城市适应性的研究对可持续发展科学有用?

IF 4.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Global Sustainability Pub Date : 2023-02-07 DOI:10.1017/sus.2023.2
Michael E. Smith
{"title":"如何使对过去城市适应性的研究对可持续发展科学有用?","authors":"Michael E. Smith","doi":"10.1017/sus.2023.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How can research on past urban adaptations be made useful for sustainability science?\",\"authors\":\"Michael E. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/sus.2023.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Sustainability\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

考古学家和历史学家所记载的遥远的过去的城市提供了大量的城市成功和失败的记录,然而这些信息对可持续发展科学领域几乎没有影响。我探讨了造成这种情况的两个原因。首先,这些学者经常不能科学地综合他们的数据,其次,他们没有以严格的方式将过去的知识转移到现在的研究中。我围绕过去城市现值的三个论点来组织这些问题的讨论:城市轨迹论点、样本大小论点和实验室论点。我探索了历史和考古数据可以用于城市可持续发展科学研究的不同方式,强调论证和认识论问题。我围绕三种类型的论证来组织讨论。城市轨迹论利用早期城市和城市地区的长时间序列来考察长时间尺度上的变化。样本大小的观点认为,早期城市的作用是增加已知的定居点样本,以增加对城市异同的理解。实验室论证使用过去城市的数据来明确检验从当代城市推导出的模型。每个论点都被检查了三种不同的认识论方法:启发式类比,案例研究和定量研究。这些方法形成了从较低到较高的科学严谨性和从定性到定量框架的连续统一体。许多从过去到现在的论证需要归纳逻辑,也称为类比推理。可持续发展的科学家们把这种一般形式的论证与最弱的形式——启发式类比——混淆了。我强调改进论证方法的方法,特别是通过将研究从较弱的论证推进到较强的论证。更好的论证方法可以让过去的城市成功和失败的记录为城市可持续发展科学做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How can research on past urban adaptations be made useful for sustainability science?
Non-technical summary Cities in the distant past – as documented by archaeologists and historians – provide an extensive record of urban successes and failures, yet this information has had little impact on the field of sustainability science. I explore two reasons for this situation. First, these scholars have often failed to synthesize their data scientifically, and, second, they have not approached the transfer of past knowledge to present research in a rigorous manner. I organize discussion of these issues around three arguments for the present value of past cities: the urban trajectory argument, the sample size argument, and the laboratory argument. Technical summary I explore the different ways historical and archaeological data can be deployed to contribute to research on urban sustainability science, emphasizing issues of argumentation and epistemology. I organize the discussion around three types of argument. The urban trajectory argument exploits the long time series of early cities and urban regions to examine change at a long time scale. The sample size argument views the role of early cities as adding to the known sample of settlements to increase understanding of urban similarities and differences. The laboratory argument uses data from past cities to explicitly test models derived from contemporary cities. Each argument is examined for three contrasting epistemological approaches: heuristic analogs, case studies, and quantitative studies. These approaches form a continuum leading from lesser to greater scientific rigor and from qualitative to quantitative frameworks. Much past-to-present argumentation requires inductive logic, also called reasoning by analogy. Sustainability scientists have confused this general form of argument with its weakest version, known as heuristic analogs. I stress ways to improve methods of argumentation, particularly by moving research along the continuum from weaker to stronger arguments. Social media summary Better methods of argument allow the past record of urban success and failure to contribute to urban sustainability science.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Sustainability
Global Sustainability Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Why Not in My Backyard? (W-NIMBY): The potential of design-driven environmental infrastructure to foster greater acceptance among host communities Reflections on the past and future of whole Earth system science Leveraging capacity for transformative sustainability science: a theory of change from the Future Earth Pathways Initiative Three Perspectives on Enabling Local Actions for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Twenty-five rice research priorities for sustainable rice systems by 2050
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1