La Shun L. Carroll

This paper challenges the traditional dichotomy between disability and giftedness by exploring the potential for sensory loss to act as a catalyst for exceptional abilities in other domains. Drawing on the concept of crossmodal plasticity – the brain’s remarkable ability to reorganize and compensate for sensory deprivation – the paper argues that individuals who experience sensory loss, particularly at an early age, may develop heightened abilities in their remaining senses, surpassing typical levels of functioning. This argument stems from the understanding that when one sensory pathway is compromised, the brain reallocates neural resources to strengthen other sensory modalities. This compensatory mechanism, often observed in individuals with blindness or deafness, can lead to enhanced perceptual abilities in areas such as auditory processing, tactile sensitivity, or spatial navigation. The paper proposes a teleological framework for understanding giftedness in this context, suggesting that exceptional abilities arising from sensory loss serve a compensatory function, enabling individuals to navigate the world effectively despite their impairments. This perspective challenges the notion of giftedness as solely an innate trait, highlighting the significant role of environmental factors and neural adaptation in shaping human potential. By presenting evidence from existing research on crossmodal plasticity and anecdotal examples of individuals with sensory impairments who have developed extraordinary abilities, the paper encourages a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of human potential. Ultimately, the paper calls for further research to fully explore the implications of crossmodal plasticity for understanding the complex relationship between disability and giftedness, advocating for a strengths-based approach that recognizes and nurtures the unique talents of all individuals, regardless of perceived limitations.

This paper critically evaluates the classification of research-related fraudulent activities, with an emphasis on the specific misconduct falsification. The analysis begins by interrogating the assumption that all acts of fraud in research are intentional, suggesting that some instances may inadvertently arise during the course of scholarly activities. Misconducts like fabrication and falsification are categorized as fraudulent primarily due to their generation during research activities and their direct contribution to the distortion of scientific knowledge. Plagiarism, while deceptive, does not necessarily originate from the research process nor lead directly to such distortion, and therefore is not classified as de facto fraud. The paper proposes that the definition of falsification – as established by the PHS – requires refinement to prevent wrongful allegations and convictions, enhance transparency, and offer clearer guidelines. This nuanced understanding is vital for safeguarding the credibility of the research process and protecting scientists from unfounded career-damaging accusations. Ultimately, this paper advocates for a clearer definition of falsification to protect the integrity of scientific research and prevent the miscarriage of justice.

The purpose of this article is to present an evidence-supported curriculum covering the fundamentals of logic, reasoning, and argumentation skills to address the emphasized basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to be scientifically literate, which will prepare the public to understand and engage with science meaningfully. An analytic-synthetic approach toward understanding the notion of public is taken using a theoretical biomimetics framework that identifies naturally occurring objects or phenomena that descriptively captures the essence of a construct to facilitate creative problem-solving. In the present case, the problem being solved is how to reconcile what is meant by public, how it ought to be interpreted, determining the diverse levels of confidence in science that exist, and various understandings of science all with one another. The results demonstrate there is an inherent denotative-connotative inconsistency in the traditional notion of public that can be explicated through the concept of a fractal allowing for comprehension of the relationship between public confidence in, and understanding of, science.

Relying on euthanasia’s definitionally derived set of propositions to provide its purpose, claims, and benefit, we obtain the core concept. Nonetheless, given its core concept, euthanasia is demonstrated to provide no benefit to the animal to justify its use. Euthanasia 1) cannot possibly, and therefore does not, end unbearable suffering, 2) it fails to hasten death, and 3) it, therefore, provides no perceptible relief to the patient. These findings are significant because the argument’s validity does not permit euthanasia to satisfy its definitionally derived purpose, claims, or benefit on logical grounds. In other words, the argument is that as a form of legalized assisted suicide, euthanasia is wrong but not in the way principled arguments would suggest. Additionally, irrespective of euthanasia actually doing what it claims, if it is allowed to be provisioned, then euthanasia will affect vulnerable populations exactly like nonprincipled arguments claim. Therefore, despite sharing aspects with each type of argument in the extant literature, my argument against euthanasia can be categorized as neither principled nor nonprincipled, which makes it significant because it may be the first of a new category of argument against the concept and practice to enter the discourse on euthanasia. As a corollary, since we prove that unbearable suffering logically entails death, when it is authentic signifying that death is imminent, because euthanasia’s only purpose is to end unbearable suffering by inducing death, euthanasia is completely obviated.

Definitions, uses, and understanding of technology have varied tremendously since Jacob Bigelow’s Elements of Technology in 1829. In addition to providing a frame of reference for understanding technology, the purpose of this study was to define or describe it conceptually. A determination of dimensions comprising technology was made by critiquing historical and contemporary examples of definition by Bigelow and Volti. An analytic-synthetic method was employed to deconstruct both definitions spanning two centuries to derive aspects of technology. Definitions relying on an anthropocentric “how humans use technology” viewpoint failed to account for different perspectives that were found when an ethological perspective inquiring “how technology is used” served as a framework. Findings support qualification of insulin as technology according to the following comprehensive definition: something inherently intelligent enough to either function, be used to function, or be interpreted as having a function that intelligent beings—human or otherwise—can appreciate, something devised, designed, or discovered serving particular purposes from a secular standpoint without humankind creating it, or a significant beneficiary of rationally derived knowledge that is “used for” a purpose without itself necessarily being translated into something material that “does” autonomously, or dependently when used.

The article introduces the author’s concept of applying principles of biological design to drive creative problem-solving. It provides a brief background of the field of Biomimetics, which serves as a context for the reader to appreciate how it began with an established field upon which he constructed and adapted his concept to apply to human-made intangibles. A discussion of Theoretical Biomimetics specifies the differences between it and its predecessor. The final section provides the opportunity to see Theoretical Biomimetics in detail applied to education theory to address a problem related to student learning in higher education and how best to establish optimized sequences to implement evidence-based active-learning techniques to fill a void in the literature demonstrating from nature what has worked. The originality lies in the author taking a multidisciplinary approach to synergize a sequence of existing active-learning techniques and apply them to a new area in a new way.