Which Wisdom Can Change the World?

The thoughts that Michel Puech formulates on wisdom, technology and the art of living are timely at a moment when social, ecological and economic problems are pressing upon our societies and the speed of technological development seems to overwhelm our ability to integrate and adapt new technologies in our lives and societies. However, he restricts his concept of wisdom too much to a personal endeavor and overestimates the relevance of non-confrontation. I argue that his project can only be of value when it is embedded in a broader societal and political strategy for change.     

Constructivism: A ‘Next’ Area of Scientific Development?

Radical Constructivism has been defined as an‘unconventional approach to the problem ofknowledge and knowing’. Its unconventionalityis summarised by its claim that it isimpossible to attribute unique meaning toexperience – as no mind-independent yardstick canbe assumed to exist against which to identifyuniqueness, and hence to produce knowledge andknowing. In other words, it is claimed thatthere is no ‘reality’ that is knowable to allindividual knowers. This claim appearsindefensible by itself, as it does not explainwhy the successes of traditional science appearas such. However, it is defensible in thecontext of numerous failures to achieve uniqueattributions, or of the history of science.Even so, what is missing are concrete methodsand research designs. This often leaves RadicalConstructivism to be critical only, toconcentrate on justifying the impossibility ofsuccess without contributing itself.Where this is the case it reduces scientiststo individuals considered unable to communicatewith others on public (and unique)attributions-who may do so only by borrowingmethods from previous approaches. It is arguedthat a more valuable contribution is possibleif Radical Constructivism is seen as a responseto the challenge defined by frequent failuresof traditional approaches. The latter may beextended such that the extensions converge toRadical Constructivism. Such extensions arebased on reported observations, rather than onexperiences in general, and are to beattributed meanings – uniquely as well asnon-uniquely – by way of a collective. The lattershould allow its ‘actors’ to restrict whatmaintains the collective to what is observableto others, as well as use the collective torestrict their own observations. The study ofcollectives thus allows for the study ofrestrictions or values, and hence for includingsubjective or constructivist experiences beyond(reportable) observations.     

死亡?脑死亡?临床死亡?

今年２月４日，约旦国王侯赛因在美国病危回国。次日约旦政府宣布他已处于“脑死亡”（ｂｒａｉｎｄｅａｔｈ）状态，依靠医疗器械维持生命；国外有传媒称他已“临床死亡”（ｃｌｉｎｉｃａｌｄｅａｔｈ）。两天后，约旦政府正式宣布侯赛因于当天上午逝世。读了这些报道，...     

What is Sustainable Theory? A Luhmannian Perspective on the Science of Conceptual Systems

Sustainability is an important topic for understanding and developing our society (including business, government, and NGOs). For scholars who want their academic contributions to have an impact, sustainability is important for our conceptual systems (including theories, models, and policies). Because our conceptual systems share similarities with our social systems, we may investigate their characteristics to gain insight into how both may be achieved or at least understood. Theories of the humanities as well as the social/behavioral sciences are changing very rapidly. They are fragile and few seem to have any longevity. At the same time, the theoretical base does not seem to be “advancing.” They are not supporting highly effective results in the real world, so we continue to have seemingly insolvable problems such as crime, war, and poverty. This may be because academia has become inward-focused or, in Luhmann’s terminology, autonomous from the outside world. In seeking to understand how to develop more sustainable theories we found that the concept of sustainability is contested. And, in the process of comparing the sustainability of social systems to the sustainability of theories, we came to realize that neither perspective is viable. Drawing on Luhmann’s insights on the interdependence of theories and society, we came to realize that the two exist in a coevolutionary relationship. Importantly, we present an approach for measuring that evolution and suggest directions for accelerating the coevolutionary advance of society and science.     

Who is Afraid of the Political? A Response to Robert Scharff and Michel Puech

In their respective commentaries to my article “Postphenomenology and the Politics of Sustainable Technology” both Robert Scharff and Michel Puech take issue with my postphenomenological inroad into the politics of technology. In a first step I try to accommodate the suggestions and objections raised by Scharff by making my account of the political more explicit. Consequently, I argue how an antagonistic relational conceptualisation of the political allows me to address head on Puech’s plea to leave politics behind and move towards an ethically informed, post-political approach to sustainability. “But perhaps the question philosophy is confronted with—through the question of the political—might be whether not all reasoning, including a purely theoretical reasoning, can truly only be a political reasoning, resulting in an inevitable, indeed necessary circular structure” (Boehm 2002; author’s translation). In a footnote to my original article ‘Postphenomenology and the Politics of Sustainable Technology’, I wrote that “for the purpose of this paper, it suffices to say that I use the adjective ‘political’ to indicate all aspects of human and non-human agency that are related to ‘shaping the good life’ (Goeminne 2011a).” With hindsight, brought about by the commentaries of Scharff (2011) and Puech (2011), I now see that I could not have been more optimistic. Or should I say naïve? Indeed, although coming from different angles and resulting in very different suggestions, both commentaries precisely target my postphenomenological inroad into the ‘politics’ of technology. In challenging my grounding of the politics of technology in a postphenomenological perspective, Scharff in particular invites me to make my notion of the political more explicit. In what follows, I will therefore first elaborate my take on the political dimension of technology in dialogue with Scharff’s comments and suggestions. Armed with this deepened concept of the political, I will then address Puech’s plea to leave politics behind and move towards an ethically informed, post-political approach to sustainability. Evidently, within the limits of this piece, I can only indicate the broader direction my conceptualisation of the political takes. It suffices perhaps to say that, partly induced by the commentaries of Scharff and Puech, the question of the political has meanwhile taken a much more prominent place in my research as can be seen from a few recent publications [e.g. Goeminne (2012) and Goeminne (forthcoming)]. In saying this, I am also expressing my indebtedness to the commentators for nudging me in this political direction.     

Translationese：翻译体?翻译症?翻译腔?

针对译名混乱一直是学术界普遍关注和长期争论的问题，回顾了西方和国内学者对translationese的研究状况，通过概念对比的方式对translationese的三个通用汉语译名进行了综合分析，并在此基础上就规范translationese的汉语译名提出了看法。     

怎么办?

近两年来,自然辩证法理论研究和教学工作在迅速发展。我们已经制定了规划,开展了一系列学术活动,创办了刊物,扩大了队伍,编写了一部教学参考资料;但同时,我们的工作也存在不少问题,必需切实地加以解决,否则,我们的工作就不能继续前进,就不能在实现四化中起积极作用。我们工作中最主要的问题是,对实现四个现代化所起的作用不大,对科学技术工作者的吸引力不大。原因何在呢?我认为,主要原因在于,我们的工作没有切实     

读心术?

职场是人的江湖,有多少精明能干的高手没有输在刺刀见红的沙场,而是输在了暗流汹涌的内部关系上。我们每个职场人都需要了解心理学规律,掌握职场读心术,知己知彼才能百战百胜。写给所有潜伏在职场的人们为什么脾气越来越焦躁,有时候无故发火;     

Comments on a Paper on Alleged Misconceptions Regarding the History of Analysis: Who Has Misconceptions?

This comment is analysing the last section of a paper by Piotr Blaszczyk, Mikhail G. Katz, and David Sherry on alleged misconceptions committed by historians of mathematics regarding the history of analysis, published in this journal in the first issue of 2013. Since this section abounds of wrong attributions and denouncing statements regarding my research and a key publication, the comment serves to rectify them and to recall some minimal methodological requirements for historical research.     

克隆食品上餐桌 风光?风险?

<正>英国食品标准局8月3日证实,一头由美国籍克隆父母所"生"奶牛的奶制品,在没有任何标识情况下进入英国市场,不仅让很多英国人震惊、担心,也引发了全球对食品安全的关注。从"多利"开始,不断有克隆猪、牛、羊、马等动物出现,且克隆动物的肉制品和奶制品逐渐被推上人们的餐桌。对此,争议一直不断。     

What if We were Already in the In-Between? Further Ventures into the Ontologies of Science and Politics

What follows from the suggestion to pay attention to what is in-between science and politics? Karen François’s paper “In-between science and politics” follows Latour in arguing for the need for political theory to get out of the Platonic cave that it still inhabits. Political theory needs to be brought into the wild through empirical studies of how science and politics in fact intermix. And the Latourian proposition needs to be strengthened by focusing on the embodied knowledges that enable situated objectivities to emerge. Though worthwhile, these arguments are weakened by a superficial treatment of political theory and by a lack of attention to the difficulties involved in combining Latourian actor-network theory with the “strong objectivity” of standpoint theory. Most problematically the paper purports to define as an agenda (exploring the in-between of science and politics) what whole fields of inquiry have already been in full swing exploring for quite a while. The ‘turn to ontology’ in STS and social anthropology and the development of ‘empirical philosophy’ suggests what might be at stake in such explorations.     

吸毒为什么会上瘾?能不能戒除?

鸦片、海洛因等毒品有很强的成瘾性,一旦成瘾就形成生理上和心理上的依赖性。心理依赖性就是连续寻觅来满足快感的渴求与癖瘾;生理上的依赖就是一旦断了毒品,就产生身体上的一系列的反常性反应,包括全身无     

恐龙复活?

神秘动物出现在非洲沼泽地恐龙的故事一直是人们最热衷的话题。这些曾经独步地球的怪物,几乎一夜之间全部变成了冰冷的石头和亘古的神话。然而,多年以来,却总是有人在探索和寻找,他们坚信还有一些恐龙的遗种,仍残留在大地的某些角落。在非洲刚果共和国北部的热带雨林区,有一片叫“利夸拉”的沼泽地,外人鲜有进入。许多世纪以来,生活在那里的土著居民一直坚信沼泽中生活着一种怪兽。     

Why Axiomatize?

Axiomatization is uncommon outside mathematics, partly for being often viewed as embalming, partly because the best-known axiomatizations have serious shortcomings, and partly because it has had only one eminent champion, namely David Hilbert (Math Ann 78:405–415, 1918). The aims of this paper are (a) to describe what will be called dual axiomatics, for it concerns not just the formalism, but also the meaning (reference and sense) of the key concepts; and (b) to suggest that every instance of dual axiomatics presupposes some philosophical view or other. To illustrate these points, a theory of solidarity will be crafted and axiomatized, and certain controversies in both classical and quantum physics, as well as in the philosophy of mind, will be briefly discussed. The upshot of this paper is that dual axiomatics, unlike the purely formal axiomatics favored by the structuralists school, is not a luxury but a tool helping resolve some scientific controversies.     

Changing Society by Scientific Investigations? The Unexpected Shared Ground Between Early Sociology of Knowledge and the Vienna Circle

In this paper, I show that there are important but hitherto unnoticed similarities between key figures of the Vienna Circle and early defenders of sociology of knowledge. The similarities regard their stance on potential implications of the study of science for political and societal issues. I argue that notably Otto Neurath and Karl Mannheim are concerned with proposing a genuine political philosophy of science that is remarkably different from today’s emerging interest in the relation between science and society in philosophy of science.     

Address at the Opening Ceremony of the 22nd International Congress of History of Science

Honorable Council members of the DHS, Chairs of Delegations, Distinguished Guests, Lances and Gentlemen ： On behalf of the Chinese host, I sincerely and warmly welcome you to Beijing and the 22^nd International Congress of the History of Science. To my knowledge, in the 76 years of its history, this is only the second time that the Congress is being held in the Far East, and is also the second time the Congress is meeting in a developing country.