The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

The recent drastic development of agriculture,

together with the growing societal interest in agricultural

practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to

agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the

general methodology of agricultural research. This paper

takes some steps towards developing a systemic research

methodology that can meet this challenge — a general

self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing

holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research

and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From

a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an

interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a

social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that

science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that

influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science,

is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is

a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is

not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play,

and ought to play, an important role in science — not only in

form of constitutive values such as the norms of good

science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter

into the very process of science. This goes against the

traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive

objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good

science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive

objectivity implies that the communication of science must

include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,

intentional, and observational context.

Internet:www.springerlink.com/(ki41qf55sf3ene3ldnx4vy55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,15,80;linkingpublicationresults,1:102841,1 (with adaptations).

Até algumas décadas atrás, emoções eram um

assunto inacessível para a ciência. Como medir e reproduzir,

em condições de laboratório, estados de raiva, alegria,

depressão? Até mesmo os tratados de psicologia

confessavam sua dificuldade ao lidar com o tema. Mas a

neurociência começou a mudar esse quadro a partir dos anos

80, e suas descobertas sobre o lado físico das emoções estão

enriquecendo nossa compreensão sobre conceitos como a

memória, a realidade e a capacidade que temos de beneficiar

ou prejudicar nossa saúde.

A chave das investigações científicas na área são

moléculas de proteínas — de um lado, os neuropeptídios, e

de outro, os receptores. Os primeiros, elaborados e liberados

por células do cérebro e de outras partes do corpo, levam

mensagens e unem-se aos segundos, distribuídos pelo

organismo.

As pesquisas ainda não chegaram a determinar com

exatidão quais neuropeptídios respondem pela felicidade,

pela tristeza ou por outros estados do gênero. Mas os

cientistas sabem que eles existem por diversas evidências

colhidas nas últimas décadas.

Eduardo Araia. Planeta, nov./2005, p. 52-3 (com adaptações)