Philosophical Counselor (Filozofski savjetnik) invites submissions for an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to philosophical practice\, psychotherapy\, and philosophy of health. The journal fosters interdisciplinary dialogue between humanities and biomedical sciences\, focusing on philosophical counseling\, phenomenology of psychopathology\, philosophy of psychotherapy\, and biomedical humanities. We welcome contributions in philosophy of mind\, bioethics\, neuroethics\, philosophy of medicine\, existential psychology\, and related fields. Platinum Open Access\, no author fees. Submission deadline: April 13\, 2026.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260517T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260517T090000 SUMMARY:Towards a Philosophy of Legal Concepts. Hermeneutic Itineraries in Legal Theory UID:20260507T112155Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Abstracts
\nTowards a Philosophy of Legal Concepts. Hermeneutic Itineraries in Legal Theory
15 October 2026
Department of Law\, Economics and Sociology
University Magna Græ\;cia of Catanzaro \;(Italy)
Hybrid format (on site and online)
Overview and Aims
\nThe Conference aims to explore the philosophical meaning of legal institutions and concepts\, starting from the idea that the task of the philosophy of law is to investigate the essence of legal phenomena in order to clarify the object of theoretical legal science.
\nThe event proposes a study day devoted to examining the possibility of explaining and justifying\, from a philosophical perspective\, the existence and functioning of legal concepts. Contributors are invited to apply the hermeneutic method&mdash\;understood as a general interpretative criterion rather than a specific philosophical stance&mdash\;and to conduct an inquiry internal to legal practice\, highlighting the nature of legal concepts as &ldquo\;places of meaning&rdquo\; capable of revealing the substance of legal experience.
\nThe Conference seeks to foster an open\, critical\, and interdisciplinary dialogue among different theoretical approaches to the interpretation of legal phenomena\, encouraging a shared reflection on the role of hermeneutics in understanding law and its institutions.
\nSuggested Topics
\nAbstracts may address\, from a theoretical and philosophical perspective\, themes including (but not limited to):
\nthe concept of the cause of contract and its interpretative approaches\;
\ntheories of legal appearance and the relationship between fact and representation\;
\nthe role of general clauses and the transformation of the idea of the legal &ldquo\;system&rdquo\;\;
\nthe philosophical meaning of civil liability and risk allocation in different social models\;
\nbioethical legal issues (surrogacy\, cloning\, abortion\, end-of-life decisions)\;
\nthe philosophical foundations of the concept of citizenship\;
\ntheoretical configurations of sovereignty in light of changing power relations\;
\nthe concept of public interest as a hermeneutic category\;
\nthe legitimation of power and the symbolic function of the Constitution\;
\nthe state of exception as a philosophical-legal category\;
\nthe relationship between norm and value\;
\nlegal language as symbolic mediation\;
\nthe concept of legal personhood\;
\nthe function of judgment and interpretation in legal practice.
\nContributions are particularly welcome from scholars working in philosophy of law and the social sciences\, including epistemological\, ontological\, sociological\, and political-philosophical perspectives\, as well as approaches related to Critical Legal Studies\, Law and Humanities\, Economic Analysis of Law\, and philosophy of economics.
\nTarget Participants
\nThe Conference is addressed to:
\nPhD candidates and PhD holders\;
\npostdoctoral fellows and early-career researchers\;
\nscholars in law\, philosophy\, history\, economics\, business and management studies\, political science\, and social sciences.
\nParticipation Guidelines
\nDate: \;15 October 2026
\nVenue: \;Department of Law\, Economics and Sociology\, University Magna Græ\;cia of Catanzaro (Italy)
\nFormat: \;Hybrid (on site and online)
\nFee: \;Free of charge (no travel or accommodation reimbursement)
\nCertificate of attendance: \;Available upon request
\nSubmission requirements:
\nAbstract (maximum 400 words)
\nShort biographical note (maximum 100 words)
\nFormat: .doc/.docx or .pdf
\nDeadline: \;17 May 2026
\nSubmission via email to:
\nlinda.brancaleone@studenti.unicz.it
\ngiacomo.cipriani@unicatt.it
\nSelection process:
\nNotification of acceptance by \;5 July 2026
\nSelected authors will present a 15-minute paper
\nConfirmation of participation (indicating on-site or online attendance) required by \;19 July 2026
\nPublication Opportunity
\nConference proceedings will be published in a scientific edited volume. Contributions will be selected by the Scientific Committee following a peer-review process.
\nConference Language
\nPapers may be presented in \;Italian or English.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260531T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260531T170000 SUMMARY:Synthese: Philosophy of Science in Public Policy UID:20260507T112156Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers: \;Philosophy of Science in Public Policy
\nGuest Editor(s): \;Sabina Leonelli\, \;Technical University of Munich\; Richard Williams\, \;Technical University of Munich
\nLink: https://link.springer.com/collections/hghbhiahhc
\nTopical Collection Description: \;
\nThis collection examines how expertise in the philosophy of science can and should help public policy. Recent research shows that controversies over best research practices and the ways different publics use science have significant policy implications. The context-specific nature of scientific processes and blurred demarcations between science and other forms of knowledge demonstrate that research results are fragile\, shaping what evidence and expertise are considered reliable. Mistrust in science and disinformation campaigns indicate that policymakers need robust ways to engage with scientific practice and evidence. This collection brings together scholars engaged in policy-relevant research to: 1) discuss the roles philosophers can play in this process\; 2) explore which outputs and relationships philosophers can prioritise to inform policy more effectively\; and 3) systematically show how our field can help policymakers resist naive presumptions about science and work with scientific experts more efficiently.
\nThe philosophy of science in practice has made significant contributions to how evidence is\, and should (or should not) be\, used in public policy. The promise of this research is to help policymakers think more rigorously about the validity and limits of scientific evidence for their specific purposes\, ultimately enabling the creation of more effective and less risky public policy. However\, this promise will remain largely unrealised unless philosophers improve their capacity to share research outputs with policymakers\, and in turn absorb policy debates and feedback into their scholarship. Moreover\, it will be enhanced if philosophers can build judicious connections with policymakers to more easily co-produce philosophically informed policy and policy-relevant research. This collection raises the question about how philosophical research practices can and should evolve to fill this gap.
\nEvidence-based policy aims to avoid naive approaches and produce effective public policy. Similarly\, the philosophy of science seeks to avoid naive misuses of evidence\, which can promote the responsible use of evidence in policymaking. For instance\, philosophy of science in practice highlights that scientific communities frequently conduct research under less-than-ideal circumstances\, with limited resources\, and in specific institutional settings. There is a growing philosophical consensus that scientific evidence is often uncertain\, value-laden\, and fragile. How should the context-specific conditions affecting scientific knowledge creation inform how policymakers use resulting evidence? How may philosophy help policymakers make better use of evidence in public policy? How can philosophy-policy engagement promote the relationships and research policymakers need to fully exploit philosophical expertise when planning interventions in complex social systems? \;
\nPhilosophers can also benefit from policymakers&rsquo\; expertise. In a fractured social landscape\, policymakers must often make time-sensitive decisions with incomplete and conflicting evidence from traditional sources\, increasingly competing with powerful misinformation and disinformation campaigns\, resulting in growing public distrust of science and science-based policy. Should practical challenges faced by policy institutions shape philosophical research\, and how?
\nWe welcome contributions to a broad discussion of these questions\, preferably rooted in concrete engagement and/or examples to illustrate and ground philosophical analysis. \;
\nAppropriate Topics for Submission include\, among others: \;
\nFor further information\, please contact the guest editor(s): richard.williams@tum.de
\nThe deadline for submissions was April 10\, 2026. The deadline is updated to May 31\, 2026. You are welcome to send informal inquiries beforehand to the guest editors of the topical collection\, by writing to richard.williams@tum.de . \;
\nSubmissions via: https://www.editorialmanager.com/synt/default.aspx \;- please pick the option of &ldquo\;submission to topical collections&rdquo\; and choose &ldquo\;Philosophy of Science in Public Policy&rdquo\; from the drop down menu. \;
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260608T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260612T170000 SUMMARY:ISTP 2026 Conference: Theorizing in Dark Times – Art\, Narrative\, Politics UID:20260507T112157Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:200 Willoughby Ave \, New York\, United States\, 11205 DESCRIPTION:STP 2026 Conference &ndash\; &ldquo\;Theorizing in Dark Times &ndash\; Art\, Narrative\, Politics&rdquo\;
\nJune 8 &ndash\; June 12\, 2026
\nPratt Institute\, Brooklyn\, NY\, USA
\nwww.pratt.edu/ISTP-2026
\nCALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
\nThe International Society for Theoretical Psychology (ISTP\, www.istpsychology.org) will host its 2026 conference at Pratt Institute&rsquo\;s Brooklyn\, New York Campus\, which is located on Lenapehoking\, the traditional and unceded homeland of the Lenape people\, past\, present\, and future.
\nThe conference theme &ldquo\;Theorizing in Dark Times &ndash\; Art\, Narrative\, Politics&rdquo\; invites scholars\, artists\, and practitioners to critically reflect on the ways in which theory operates not only as an intellectual tool but as a form of political engagement.
\nAt the heart of the conference lies the question: What is the role of theory in dark times? Theoretical psychology has long sought to understand the human condition\, yet in moments of global crisis\, theory itself becomes a site of political resistance. The conference will examine how theory functions as a political force\, shaping narratives of power\, ideology\, and agency. It will address the political implications of psychological theory\, asking how psychological concepts\, often regarded as neutral or apolitical\, become entangled with broader social and political dynamics.
\nThe conference will also provide the room to explore how the arts\, through their ability to create alternative narratives and question existing power structures\, play a pivotal role in advancing theoretical inquiry in times of crisis. Art\, in this context\, is not merely reflective\; it is transformative\, offering new ways to theorize human experience and political realities.
\nWe warmly invite scholars from theoretical psychology and neighboring disciplines&mdash\;philosophy\, sociology\, anthropology\, literature\, the arts\, and beyond&mdash\;to submit their contributions and join us at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn\, New York\, from June 8 to June 12\, 2026. Whether through theoretical reflection\, conceptual analyses\, or creative interventions\, we seek diverse perspectives that critically engage with the conference theme. Contributions beyond the conference theme are also welcome. Submit here: www.pratt.edu/ISTP-2026. The deadline is December 10\, 2025.
\n&mdash\;&mdash\;&mdash\;&mdash\;&mdash\;&mdash\;
\nThe Conference Registration Opens September 2025
\nRegistration Fees: Regular $630/ISTP Member $570/Reduced $310
\nPratt Institute provides affordable accommodations: Single: $135 first night\, $65 each additional night/Full conference stay $510/ Double accommodation: $125 first night\, $55 each additional night/Full conference stay $400 per person.
\nWebsite: www.pratt.edu/ISTP-2026
\nContact: istp-2026@pratt.edu
ORGANIZER;CN=Martin Dege: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20260615T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20260616T170000 SUMMARY:Ethnographilosophy UID:20260507T112158Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Berlin\, Germany DESCRIPTION:
ETHNOGRAPHILOSOPHY \; June 15-16\, 2026\, Freie Universitä\;t\, Berlin\, Germany. Organizers: Deborah Mü\;hlebach (FU Berlin)\, Quill Kukla (Georgetown University/Leibniz Universitä\;t Hannover)\, and Antoine Louette (FU Berlin) \; How can or should philosophers incorporate their own or others' ethnographic work into their philosophical research? Does socially engaged philosophy need ethnography? What ethnographic methods can philosophers use? What creative syntheses of philosophy and ethnography are already happening? What are the distinctive ethical and epistemological issues raised by ethnographic research? Should or could there be different uses of ethnography in different subfields of philosophy\, e.g. political theory vs. epistemology? This workshop will explore the meeting points between philosophy and ethnography. All topics that bring together these two disciplines are welcome. \; Invited speakers include Shelbi Meissner (University of Maryland)\, Lisa Guenther (Queen&rsquo\;s University)\, and Bernardo Zacka (MIT) \; This workshop is supported by a DFG Emmy Noether grant on "Critical Agency&rdquo\; (www.criticalagency.de). \;
Workshop &ldquo\;Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics&rdquo\;\, 22nd-23rd \;of September 2026
\n\nInstitute of Philosophy\, Jagiellonian University\, \;
\nGrodzka 52\, Krakó\;w\, Poland
\n\nThe workshop &ldquo\;Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics&rdquo\; aims to provide a forum for exchanging ideas on the replicability of randomized experiments\, such as randomized field experiments in economics\, randomized controlled trials and preclinical studies in medicine\, and psychological experiments. \;
\n\nThe workshop promotes philosophical and methodological discussions of conceptual and methodological issues in statistical analysis\, econometric modeling\, and the methodology of experimentation.
\n\n\nKeynote Speakers:
\nBarbara Osimani \;
\nSamuel Fletcher
\n\n\nExperimental results are considered reliable because\, under comparable conditions\, they are expected to yield similar outcomes. However\, this assumption has recently been challenged by numerous replication efforts that report results differing from those of the original studies in psychology\, medicine\, biology\, the social sciences\, and economics. A surprisingly large fraction of published findings have been found to be non-replicable. Replicability rates range from 11% for in vitro and in vivo preclinical research to 60-90% for clinical trials. Experimental economists fall within this range and\, like psychological experimenters\, achieve around 60% replicability.
\n\nThe replication crisis has called into question the credibility of published findings and undermined trust in science. However\, \;the replication crisis\, with few exceptions\, has received only limited attention from philosophy of science. Despite the efforts of several pioneers\, the philosophical and conceptual problems in randomized controlled trials\, randomized field experiments\, laboratory experiments\, econometric modeling\, and the statistical analysis of experimental data remain largely uncharted territory in the philosophy of science. The workshop aims to establish a forum for exchanging ideas among philosophers of medicine and economics\, philosophers of statistics\, and methodologically inclined researchers interested in the conceptual problems of the replication crisis. \;
\n\nThe Workshop &ldquo\;Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics&rdquo\; invites contributions that focus on experimentation and statistical analysis in economics and medicine\, as well as problems that trouble statistical inference from experiments\, broadly construed. \;
\n\nSome exemplary topics of talks:
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;The design of randomized experiments in medicine and economics.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Statistical hypothesis testing.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Non-frequentist approaches to comparing treatment and control group outcomes.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Comparisons of design-based and model-based inference.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Estimating statistical models.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Measuring replication success and replicability rates.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Assessing the quality of empirical evidence.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Making inferences from the literature review with conflicting results.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Other problems in philosophy of statistics related to the replication crisis.
\n\nAbstracts no longer than 500 words (including references) should be submitted in an attachment\, \;not \;including author details\, by email with the subject &lsquo\;replication workshop&rsquo\; sent to: \;mariusz.maziarz@uj.edu.pl. \;
\n\nDeadline for submission: June 1st\, 2026
\nDecisions will be announced by June 15th\, 2026.
\n\n\nThis activity was supported by a grant funded by the Strategic Program Excellence Initiative at the Jagiellonian University
\n\n\n\n ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20260618T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20260619T170000 SUMMARY:Public Opinion and Democratic Civic Engagement: Expanding Reflection in Public Agendas. A tribute to Maxwell McCombs and Esteban López-Escobar UID:20260507T112200Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Madrid LOCATION:Universidad de Navarra C/ Universidad s/n\, Pamplona\, Spain\, 31009 DESCRIPTION:This workshop aims to foster an interdisciplinary collective discussion about the evolution of public opinion studies in arena shaped by social media\, emotional engagement\, and polarization. In addition to reflecting on the extent to which media and new communication platforms contribute to the creation&mdash\;and perpetuation&mdash\;of a polarized society\, we would like to promote dialogue on how we\, as scholars\, can redefine the role of communication in this context. Our goal is to explore together how we could rebuild this fragmented landscape\, addressing issues in public opinion research and exploring new ways of enhancing civic engagement. This reflection seems timely in the current context of international conflicts and crises that threaten democracy and often appear to undermine rational dialogue.
The starting point of this workshop is to return to the fundamentals of public opinion dynamics. Understanding how opinions are formed\, expressed\, and transformed requires revisiting the basic mechanisms that shape collective judgment in contemporary societies. For this purpose\, it is essential to challenge some of the entrenched cliché\;s that too often underlie general explanations of current phenomena. Are we\, as researchers\, engaging with social issues in a sufficiently critical and nuanced manner? Can we expand the scope of our enquiry and seek the causes of this lack of engagement?
Moreover\, we must ask whether the drive toward simplification&mdash\;amplified by digital communication&mdash\;has become one of the main obstacles to meaningful public discourse. \;
This raises several key questions: Is public opinion today more simplistic than ever? Does the public arena still serve as a genuine space for democratic debate\, or has it come to be dominated by emotional narratives and polarization? And if so\, how can we regenerate the public sphere so that meaningful dialogue is possible?
The distinction between what is considered true and what is dismissed as fake news comes to the forefront. Public opinion can increasingly be understood as a social construction that no longer necessarily refers to reality itself. Instead\, it is shaped by mediated representations\, emotions\, and collective perceptions that circulate within the public sphere. As a result\, the boundaries among information\, perception\, and belief become progressively blurred. How\, then\, can public opinion remain genuinely informed in an environment shaped by echo chambers and algorithmic reinforcement? What is the role of traditional media in this context? How is Artificial Intelligence shaping debates and content?
In sum\, in a context where freedom of expression is often curtailed\, and public participation is facing growing disruptions\, this workshop seeks to discuss the conditions for a rational and open public sphere. \;
This workshop honors the work of Maxwell McCombs and Esteban Ló\;pez-Escobar\, whose lifelong commitment to the study of agenda-setting and media effects has left an enduring legacy in the field of communication research and its links to democracy. They reminded us that communication carries a social responsibility: to strengthen democratic life and\, ultimately\, to help create the conditions for better and more just societies. Now\, by revisiting the legacy of McCombs and Ló\;pez-Escobar\, our workshop seeks to inspire new directions in the study of public opinion\, while reaffirming the political mission that supports all meaningful communication research.
\n TOPICS FOR PROPOSAL
Possible topics for proposals include\, but are not limited to: &bull\; Media\, old and new\, effects on public opinion. &bull\; Public attitudes. Role of Emotions in Public Opinion. &bull\; Polarization\, extremism\, and information disorders. &bull\; Public perceptions. Controversial issues and social perceptions. &bull\; New media effects. Developments of Agenda-setting in the new media context. Developments of Framing studies. &bull\; New Directions in Electoral Campaigns. &bull\; Effects of polls in democracies. &bull\; AI effects on public opinion. &bull\; Challenges to freedom of expression. &bull\; Civic engagement.
One aim of the workshop is to identify and bring together scholars in communication\, sociology\, and politics concerned about communication research and public opinion studies. \;
ORGANIZER;CN="Mónica Codina": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260624T090000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260626T170000 SUMMARY:History and Philosophy of Science: Past\, Present\, and Future UID:20260507T112201Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Asia/Hong_Kong LOCATION:HKUST\, Hong Kong\, Hong Kong DESCRIPTION:History and Philosophy of Science: Past\, Present\, and Future
\n24 - 26 June 2026
\nAcademic Building\, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
\nKeynote Speakers
\nTheodore Arabatzis (University of Athens\, Greece)
\nUljana Feest (University of Hannover\, Germany)
\nDon Howard (University of British Columbia\, Canada)
\nGreg Radick (University of Leeds\, UK)
Organising Committee
Keith Chan
\nFons Dewulf
\nYafeng Shan (chair)
\nQinyi Wang
\nQiyue Zhang
Funders
Centre for Philosophy of Science\, HKUST
The Asian Philosophy of Science Association
Conference Description
History and Philosophy of Science (aka HPS) emerged in the 1950s and greatly promoted the historical approach to the philosophy of science. Despite its rapid institutionalisation in the 1960s\, HPS did not become a full-fledged academic discipline eventually. There have been axiological\, institutional\, methodological\, and practical challenges. That said\, some historically minded philosophers of science and philosophically minded historians of science never stop making efforts to promote the dialogue across the boundaries and develop HPS approaches (e.g. integrated HPS\, HOPOS\, and PHS). This conference aims to reflect on the nature\, methodology\, development\, and prospect of HPS.
Selected papers will be included in an edited volume to be published by Springer (part of the Asian Studies in the Philosophy of Science).
\nFor more information\, please visit the webpage: \;https://www.shanyafeng.com/hps26
\nRegistration (Deadline: 24 May 2026)
\nhttps://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/1979375495390
\n
Contact
If you have any questions\, please contact Qiyue Zhang (qiyue.zhang@connect.ust.hk).
The Prognostic Possibilities of a Philosophical Approach to History: Currents of the Contemporary World
\nInternational School of Philosophy Felix Romuliana\, Zaječar\, RS
\nFaculty of Philosophy - University of Belgrade\, RS
\nZaječar (RS) &ndash\; 4-6 September 2026
\nThe contemporary world appears more complex than ever. The paths of understanding\, and especially of explaining how history itself can be defined\, seem almost inaccessible. If we understand history\, at its core\, as a sequence of events in which human beings either act or participate\, we may ask whether reflecting on these processes is at the same time a way of giving meaning to the human world. If\, however\, we assume that thinking about history cannot be equated with any form of meaning\, an additional philosophical question arises concerning the very meaning of thinking history as such.
\nIf we are\, therefore\, unable to influence in any way the events we call history\, this is connected to an even deeper question concerning the meaning of human existence in general. On the other hand\, what philosophy can do is to attempt to grasp the currents of these events and\, on the basis of certain insights\, possibly anticipate their outcomes. In this sense\, we propose to reconsider classical philosophical and historical insights and to connect them with contemporary developments. Is the progressive endangerment of environment linked to progressive interpretations of the course of history\, interpretations marked by the idea of human domination over nature? Does this also imply the erosion of human self-understanding as a natural being\, given that many positions claim that the human being is\, within this historical process\, self-produced?
\nAt the same time\, we may ask whether there are reasons to interpret these processes as possessing a certain cyclicality\, according to which the very human being who produces everything\, including itself\, brings these processes to extreme points that mark\, through forms of self-destruction\, the possibility of a new beginning.
\nFrom a cultural and political perspective\, thinkers who point to contemporary global developments are also highly relevant\, especially those who analyze the rivalry between powerful Eastern states and the well-known Atlantic powers of the West. Do these processes indicate a historical pattern familiar from earlier periods\, most famously articulated in Oswald Spengler&rsquo\;s The Decline of the West? In other words\, are the diagnoses formulated at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century once again becoming visible\, diagnoses according to which there are regularities known since antiquity\, such as the idea of akme\, the attainment of a peak or culmination in the growth of civilizations\, after which an inevitable decline follows\, potentially leading to disappearance. Accordingly\, the highly actual question arises whether the Euro Atlantic sphere\, commonly referred to as Western civilization\, is undergoing an internal process of self-destruction\, and what this would mean for the trajectories of the contemporary world.
\nWill the economic competitiveness of Far Eastern countries be sufficient to compensate for the political level of articulation of human society? China\, nominally a communist state and the most influential country of the East\, officially presents itself as a supporter of the preservation of the global liberal system. From this tension emerge contemporary formulations concerning competition between an old globalism led by the United States and a new globalism led by China. This challenges theoretical conceptions of historical processes commonly referred to as the Westernization of the world. In other words\, are historical dynamics shifting sufficiently to take forms different from those previously anticipated?
\nOne of the well-known prognostic dilemmas concerning historical developments\, and thus the contemporary paths of the world\, concerns the initially emphasized connection between the meaning of human existence\, human life\, and the context of historical events. These questions are also addressed within the field commonly defined as futurism\, in which predictive possibilities are linked to serious analyses of trends and dominant factors shaping processes. Philosophically\, the most interesting aspect of this dilemma revolves around whether such predictions can be considered relevant not only for the moment in which they are made\, but also for what is known as the formation of a worldview. Do our projections take the form of what can be called a utopia\, or rather its opposite\, a dystopia?
\nUtopian reflections on contemporary global developments are often connected with a standard trust in progress and with expectations of historical outcomes leading toward fully ordered societies. Yet this immediately raises the question of whether such total order corresponds to the interests of human beings or whether it becomes an end in itself. Furthermore\, does such a utopian conception of society lead to ever new forms of totalitarian arrangements\, such as digital totalitarianism or even more direct forms of governance mediated by artificial intelligence?
\nAlternatively\, there are scenarios that predict the collapse of social orders and their transformation into arbitrary relations of power based on fractured relations between technology\, democracy\, and power. Such societies\, or remnants of societies\, are described in predominantly dark tones\, dominated by immediate survival interests\, without any perspective that could confer meaning on human existence or life as such. These visions of the world are therefore termed dystopian.
\nAs has already become clear\, interpretations of historical developments are always matters of both meaning making and prediction. A particular challenge\, however\, is posed by those forms of thinking about history that misuse these initial needs to reflect on history. In such cases\, the need for prediction is subordinated to specific doctrinal projects\, according to which supposedly predicted processes are then expected to unfold. This does not constitute a philosophical mode of reflecting either on the future or on the essence of the analyzed processes\, but rather an activation of both the processes themselves and the forms in which they are allegedly predicted.
\nThis is characteristic of contemporary forms of ideological thinking which\, unlike classical ideologies\, are far more concealed in nature and attempt to present themselves as parts of inevitable processes. Well known theoretical theses concerning hybrid or hybridized ideologies combine elements of classical ideological forms. Within the framework of our theme\, we point to the possibility of examining new forms of hybridization through which old goals are achieved or are meant to be achieved. Within broader conceptions of the outcomes of historical processes and the transformation of human societies\, increasing attention is devoted to posthumanist ideas that in themselves imply the necessity of a radically different understanding of the human world.
\nClassical ideologies advocated the thesis of the inevitable creation of a new human being\, while posthumanist ideas speak of the obsolescence of the human being in structuring the world. These two theses can be reconciled in various ways through the idea of so called transhumanism\, which supports the meaning of the dominance of artificial intelligence and technological governance of human life by envisaging a being reminiscent of the idea of a new human\, yet stripped of the weaknesses of the human as a natural being. Within this conception\, one can identify elements associated with classical ideological doctrines: liberalism\, which emphasizes the enhancement of all forms of organized life in society\; communism\, understood as the establishment of entirely new social relations mediated by digital equality and egalitarianism\; and Nazism\, through the establishment of a form\, however artificial\, of a superior being that overcomes human weaknesses\, a superiority that would enable a form of justice based on the distribution of power from the perfect\, transhumanised being to posthuman beings understood merely as elements of a perfect system.
\nThus\, the theme &ldquo\;The Prognostic Possibilities of a Philosophical Approach to History: Currents of the Contemporary World&rdquo\; enables the articulation of both philosophical and interdisciplinary contributions to understanding the possibilities for human orientation in contemporary global events. At the same time\, it leaves open space for all interested participants to contribute from many other perspectives not explicitly mentioned here\, thereby enriching the discussion of this important topic.
\nOrganiser: Prof. Milenko Bodin (University of Belgrade)
\nSubmissions of a long abstract (of no more than 1000 words) and a CV are due by 30 June 2026.
\nAll applicants must indicate the following details: Name\, presentation title\, institutional affiliation\, and contact information.
\nPlease\, send your abstract and CV to filcentar@gmail.com
\nApplicants will be notified by 15 July 2026.
ORGANIZER;CN=Milenko Prof. Bodin (Felix Romuliana School Director): METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Copenhagen:20260707T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Copenhagen:20260709T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophy of Explainable AI: New Directions UID:20260507T112203Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Copenhagen LOCATION:Aarhus\, Denmark DESCRIPTION:We invite abstracts for our forthcoming workshop\, Philosophy of Explainable AI: New Directions\, to be held at Aarhus University on \;July 7 - 9\, 2026. The workshop aims to bring together scholars working on the philosophical dimensions of explainability/interpretability/transparency in machine learning\, to share recent work and discuss future directions for the field. We have invited a number of keynotes to be announced in due course.
\nThe conference is part of the TREAT project (https://projects.au.dk/treat). Towards Responsible Explainable AI Technologies (TREAT) examines the benefits and risks of so-called &ldquo\;Explainable AI&rdquo\; technologies for creating and using AI in an ethically responsible manner. One of the main ethical concerns regarding complex AI systems is that they risk becoming unintelligible black boxes. In response\, a subfield within AI research\, known as explainable AI (XAI)\, seeks to develop tools for generating explanations of AI systems. Such explanations are important in order to enable people to understand and think critically about AI systems. However\, explanations are not just an ethical good: they also risk creating a false sense of understanding\, which can be exploited to mislead or even manipulate. To resolve this dilemma\, TREAT seeks to philosophically grounded theories of representational adequacy\, explanatory honesty\, and legitimacy for XAI technologies.
\nWe welcome abstracts addressing any philosophically salient issue relating to explainability\, interpretability or transparency in machine learning. This includes (but is not limited to) papers drawing on ethics\, epistemology\, philosophy of science or political philosophy. We hope to have a diverse programme\, representing a broad range of exciting new philosophical work engaging with XAI technologies\, broadly construed.
\nWe especially encourage applications from junior scholars and those from underrepresented backgrounds. Travel and accommodation costs for successful applicants will be covered\, and there will be no registration fees for the event. To apply\, please send an abstract of 300-400 words (excluding references) to treat@au.dk no later than Wednesday 1st April.
\nIf you are have any questions\, feel free to contact us on treat@au.dk
\nWe look forward to hearing from you.
\nRune Nyrup\, Torben Agergaard\, and Molly Powell
ORGANIZER;CN=Molly Powell: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260721T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260724T170000 SUMMARY:ISOS Social Ontology 2026 UID:20260507T112204Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Warsaw LOCATION:Krupnicza 33a\, Kraków\, Poland\, 31-123 DESCRIPTION:Conference dates: \;21-24.07 (i.e. we expect people to arrive on Monday 20.07 and leave Krakow on either 25.07 or 26.07)
Venue: \;Jagiellonian University\, Law and Administration Faculty new building\, ul. Krupnicza 33a [https://share.google/Fwsi8k2kndR1F5rxK]
Host: \;Jagiellonian Center for Law\, Language\, Philosophy (https://pjf.uj.edu.pl/) is the host\, in cooperation with Faculty of Law and Administration and Institute of Philosophy
Main organizers: \;Paweł Banaś and Adam Dyrda
Important deadlines:
- call for papers available/abstract submission opens: 5th of November 2025 \;
- deadline for abstract submission: 18th January 2026 [as usual\, 300-500 words]
- notification of acceptance: 15th February 2026
- registration [early]: 15th February - 31st March 2026
- registration [late]: 1st April - 30th June 2026
- the final conference program will be published no later than 7th July 2026.
Confirmed keynote speakers:
Session Logistics
All concurrent sessions are either 1 hour for 2 talks or 1.5 hours for 3 talks. Chairs should begin each session at the scheduled time and aim to have each talk within the session begin when scheduled. To facilitate conference-goer planning\, chairs and speakers are advised to order the talks as on the schedule. \;
For the speakers - You are assigned a 30 minute slot\, and the time is yours to use in whatever way you feel will be most productive for your project. It is recommended (and descriptively expected) that the talk will be around 20 minutes\, leaving 10 minutes for q&\;a. Slides or a handout are of course permitted (and encouraged). Closer to the conference\, it will be communicated how slides will be facilitated\, if you plan to use them. We will not have the facility to print handouts\, but there are print shops around city centre if necessary. (Though\, be advised\, they may be closed on Monday for the bank holiday.)
Call for Abstracts
The call for abstracts is now open for Social Ontology 2026. The conference will be held in-person in Krakow\, Poland.
We invite submissions of abstracts of papers/talks suitable for 20 minute presentations. Abstracts must have 300-500 words and be prepared for anonymous review.
Use this submission link from Microsoft CMT service to submit your abstract:
https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/ISOS2026/ \;
The Microsoft CMT service was used for managing the peer-reviewing process for this conference. This service was provided for free by Microsoft and they bore all expenses\, including costs for Azure cloud services as well as for software development and support.
This edition aims to focus on interdisciplinary research\, including application of ideas from social ontology in solving problems of legal and political philosophy in the following areas:
We invite\, however\, submissions of abstracts covering all topics relevant for contemporary research in social ontology\, including:
Organized by NTU's Foundations of Thermodynamics Group\, and co-organized with Miguel Ohnesorge (Boston University)\, the aim of the second Foundations of Thermodynamics Workshop is to seek and provide a conceptual history of equilibrium and static reasoning. Bringing together historians and philosophers of science\, we hope to have a clearer picture of the genealogy of equilibrium and static reasoning\, and its role in scientific theorizing. By tracing the idea from Archimedean mechanics\, to Newton and the post-Newtonians\, classical thermodynamics\, quantum mechanics\, general relativity\, contemporary quantum and gravitational physics\, biology\, and economics\, we hope to provide a deeper understanding of this distinctive mode of reasoning and explanation as it changes shape and texture throughout the history of science. \;
\nThose interested are invited to register for the workshop early\, as there are limited seats and catering available. \;The workshop follows a week of events to do with philosophy of science\, notably the Asian Philosophy of Science Association's inaugural meeting. For more information on registration\, the APSA conference\, and other satellite events\, please visit: \;https://www.ntu.edu.sg/soh/news-events/conferences/apsa-2026. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Eugene Y. S. Chua;CN=Miguel Ohnesorge: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260804T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260806T170000 SUMMARY:Energy Ethics 2026: Infrastructures of Energy UID:20260507T112206Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Younger Hall\, Saint Andrews\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Confronted with the climate crisis coupled with ambitions for first-mover positions in new Net Zero markets\, many countries have embarked on energy transitions that move away from a reliance on fossil fuels towards more decarbonised energy systems. At the same time\, we are seeing policy u-turns on climate policies and targets\, societal challenges to energy transitions\, and investors&rsquo\; return to fossil fuel prospects.
\nEnergy transitions have now become intense and urgent topics for debate.
\nWhile fossil fuels and nuclear have long been associated with the deepening of structural inequalities and injustices\, there is also a growing critical engagement with renewables\, due to their continued reliance on resources\, capitalist circuits of investment\, and links to mining via the critical minerals they require. Some scholars emphasise how the language of &lsquo\;transition&rsquo\; unhelpfully communicate a fallacious idea of a break\, moving from one kind of energy source to another. Other scholars highlight how our infrastructures of energy embed choices and decisions\, value and values.
\nAt the same time\, the political positionings of anthropologists have become stronger\, perhaps related to heightening political polarisation\, the vulnerabilities laid bare by Covid-19\, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza\, the enrolment of social scientists into large energy infrastructure projects\, popularist politics\, and much more. Recognising infrastructures of energy&rsquo\;s extensive and multi-dimensional entanglements in contemporary life\, it is ever-more urgent that we reflect on our interlocutors&rsquo\; and our own ethical imaginations and politics of energy.
\nEE2026 asks: What is at stake in our infrastructures of energy? How can change come about? What visions of human and other flourishing are favoured in our infrastructures of energy?
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Brussels:20260823T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Brussels:20260828T170000 SUMMARY:From Disciples to Followers: Questioning the Digital Experience of Religions Online UID:20260507T112207Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Brussels LOCATION:Koningstraat 2\, Antwerpen\, Belgium\, 2000 DESCRIPTION:The 2026 edition of the UCSIA Summer School is titled &ldquo\;From Disciples to Followers: Questioning the Digital Experience of Religions Online&rdquo\;\, and marks the final year of UCSIA&rsquo\;s three-year cycle on &ldquo\;Religion &\; Politics: (Dis)Entanglements in Communities and Societies&rdquo\;.
\nThis summer school invites early-career scholars to critically examine how digital technologies\, online platforms\, and political economies are reshaping religious practices\, publics\, authorities\, and forms of belonging.
\nThe Faculty
\nTwo experts have already confirmed their attendance:
\nYasmin Moll (University of Michigan) is a socio-cultural anthropologist whose work explores the intersections of religion\, media\, politics\, and ethics in the Middle East and North Africa.
\nAlessandra Vitullo (Sapienza University of Rome) is a sociologist specializing in digital religion\, online mediation of belief\, and the transformation of religious authority and belonging in digital cultures.
ORGANIZER;CN=University Centre Saint-Ignatius Antwerp Ucsia: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260826T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Helsinki:20260828T170000 SUMMARY:15TH CONFERENCE OFTHE EUROPEAN NETWORKFOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES UID:20260507T112208Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Helsinki LOCATION:Helsinki\, Finland ORGANIZER;CN=Petri Ylikoski;CN=Jaakko Kuorikoski;CN=N. Emrah Aydinonat: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260902T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260904T170000 SUMMARY:MANCEPT Workshop 2026 - Just Profit UID:20260507T112209Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Manchester\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:This workshop explores the relevance of a philosophical and political theoretical debate on just profit. \;Most wealth is generated through corporate profit making. Together with inheritances the corporate machine and its financialization seem to be mainly responsible for the growing concentration of wealth. Against this backdrop\, it is somewhat surprising that philosophical and political theoretical debates have largely focused on limiting wealth in general and on inheritance taxation\, but not so much on a regulation of profits. \;
\nOne possible explanation lies in a somewhat unquestioned acceptance of the classical liberal framing of profits. According to this framing it is reasonable to regulate profits as little as possible in order to stimulate economic activity and growth\, which will ultimately benefit society as a whole. Another argument is the fear of capital flight with the potential of serious disruption of economic functionalities and great welfare losses. \;
\nAt the same time\, the historical failure of social democratic and liberal socialist transformations in the second half of the 20thcentury seems to be connected to a lack of profit regulation. An important case in point is the failing of the implementation of the Meidner plan in Sweden due to strong unregulated profit concentration and a corresponding political power structure.
\nWe aim to promote interdisciplinary dialogue across political philosophy\, political theory\, and critical social theory. \;
\nPossible themes include (but are not limited to): \;
\nSubmission Guidelines:
\nUp to 15 speakers will be selected for the workshop. Each speaker will be given approximately 30 minutes to speak\, followed by 30 minutes for Q&\;A.
\n
Bursaries are available to help cover the conference registration fee\, and participants are encouraged to apply if needed.
The workshop will take place as part of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory at the University of Manchester (September 2-4\, 2026).
\nOrganizers: \;Stefan Gosepath\, Philipp Lepenies\, Christian Neuhä\;user\, Laura Opolka\, Isabella Pfusterer \;
\nFor the panel description and details see also: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/activities/just-profit/
ORGANIZER;CN=Stefan Gosepath;CN="Christian Neuhäuser";CN=Laura Opolka: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Belgrade:20260904T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Belgrade:20260906T170000 SUMMARY:The Prognostic Possibilities of a Philosophical Approach to History: Currents of the Contemporary World UID:20260507T112210Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Belgrade LOCATION:Zaječar\, Serbia ORGANIZER;CN=Milenko Prof. Bodin (Felix Romuliana School Director): METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260922T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260923T170000 SUMMARY:Workshop “Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics” UID:20260507T112211Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/Warsaw LOCATION:Grodzka 52\, Kraków\, Poland DESCRIPTION:Workshop &ldquo\;Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics&rdquo\;\, 22nd-23rd \;of September 2026
\nInstitute of Philosophy\, Jagiellonian University\, \;
\nGrodzka 52\, Krakó\;w\, Poland
\nThe workshop &ldquo\;Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics&rdquo\; aims to provide a forum for exchanging ideas on the replicability of randomized experiments\, such as randomized field experiments in economics\, randomized controlled trials and preclinical studies in medicine\, and psychological experiments. \;
\nThe workshop promotes philosophical and methodological discussions of conceptual and methodological issues in statistical analysis\, econometric modeling\, and the methodology of experimentation.
\nKeynote Speakers:
\nBarbara Osimani \;
\nSamuel Fletcher
\n\nExperimental results are considered reliable because\, under comparable conditions\, they are expected to yield similar outcomes. However\, this assumption has recently been challenged by numerous replication efforts that report results differing from those of the original studies in psychology\, medicine\, biology\, the social sciences\, and economics. A surprisingly large fraction of published findings have been found to be non-replicable. Replicability rates range from 11% for in vitro and in vivo preclinical research to 60-90% for clinical trials. Experimental economists fall within this range and\, like psychological experimenters\, achieve around 60% replicability.
\nThe replication crisis has called into question the credibility of published findings and undermined trust in science. However\, \;the replication crisis\, with few exceptions\, has received only limited attention from philosophy of science. Despite the efforts of several pioneers\, the philosophical and conceptual problems in randomized controlled trials\, randomized field experiments\, laboratory experiments\, econometric modeling\, and the statistical analysis of experimental data remain largely uncharted territory in the philosophy of science. The workshop aims to establish a forum for exchanging ideas among philosophers of medicine and economics\, philosophers of statistics\, and methodologically inclined researchers interested in the conceptual problems of the replication crisis. \;
\nThe Workshop &ldquo\;Do experiments replicate? Philosophical Reflections on the Use and Misuse of Statistics and Econometrics&rdquo\; invites contributions that focus on experimentation and statistical analysis in economics and medicine\, as well as problems that trouble statistical inference from experiments\, broadly construed. \;
\nSome exemplary topics of talks:
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;The design of randomized experiments in medicine and economics.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Statistical hypothesis testing.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Non-frequentist approaches to comparing treatment and control group outcomes.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Comparisons of design-based and model-based inference.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Estimating statistical models.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Measuring replication success and replicability rates.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Assessing the quality of empirical evidence.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Making inferences from the literature review with conflicting results.
\n- \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;Other problems in philosophy of statistics related to the replication crisis.
\nAbstracts no longer than 500 words (including references) should be submitted in an attachment\, \;not \;including author details\, by email with the subject &lsquo\;replication workshop&rsquo\; sent to: \;mariusz.maziarz@uj.edu.pl. \;
\nDeadline for submission: June 1st\, 2026
\nDecisions will be announced by June 15th\, 2026.
\nThis activity was supported by a grant funded by the Strategic Program Excellence Initiative at the Jagiellonian University
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Vancouver:20261030T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Vancouver:20261031T170000 SUMMARY:Can social ontology change the world? UID:20260507T112212Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:America/Vancouver LOCATION:Vancouver\, Canada DESCRIPTION:The International Social Ontology Society workshop "Can Social Ontology Change the World?" will take place October 30-31\, 2026 at the Harbour Centre Campus of Simon Fraser University in downtown Vancouver\, British Columbia. \;
\nIn recent years\, the sub-discipline of social ontology has undergone a decidedly political reorientation. In non-ideal\, emancipatory\, and critical social ontology\, theorists explicitly ask whether our theorizing should have political goals or be relevant for political ends. An uptick in investigations on the metaphysics of race and gender has centered anti-racist\, feminist\, and trans struggles. These projects (e.g.\, Haslanger 2000\; Dembroff 2016\; Jenkins 2023\; Richardson 2023) explicitly theorize with a political purpose\, and so presuppose that social ontology can play a role in the struggle for social justice. But\, taking a step back\, this workshop questions the precise relationship between social ontology and politics. Are social ontologists changing the world\, or merely interpreting it? Given the former\, are there social ontological theories or methods better suited for direct political intervention\, and\, if so\, what makes them better? Given the latter\, what is the relationship\, if any\, between description and political intervention? \; \; \;
\nWe invite the submission of abstracts of 500-700 words for 20-minute presentations of papers related to the theme of the conference. Please send anonymized abstracts to \;social.ontology.and.the.world@gmail.com. The deadline for submitting is \;June 15th\, with notice of acceptance by July 15th. \; \;
\nSome \;travel grants and support for accommodations \;will be available for graduate students and faculty members who do not have access to research funds\; please indicate in your submission email if you would like to be considered for support. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Zara Anwarzai;CN=August Faller: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260502T122501Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261231T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261231T090000 SUMMARY:Rethinking the Explanatory Foundations of Sociological Theory UID:20260507T112213Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Peter Hedströ\;m and Josef Ginnerskov would like to invite submissions to a special issue in Theory and Society on:
\nRethinking the Explanatory Foundations of Sociological Theory:
Mechanisms\, Emergence\, and Model-Based Reasoning
The issue is motivated by a gap between developments in philosophy of science and their uptake in sociological theory. While philosophical work has significantly advanced our understanding of mechanisms\, emergence\, model-based reasoning\, and explanation in complex systems\, these insights have only been partially incorporated into contemporary sociological theorizing.
\nAt the same time\, much sociological theory continues to rely on general causal categories&mdash\;such as norms\, institutions\, and power&mdash\;without specifying the processes through which outcomes are generated. This raises the question of what it would mean to develop more explicit\, formally articulated\, and mechanistically grounded explanations in the social sciences.
\nWe are particularly interested in contributions that:
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; examine standards of explanation in the social sciences\,
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; analyze the role of mechanisms and emergence in social explanation\,
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; explore model-based reasoning as a tool for theory construction\,
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; or bring philosophical perspectives on explanation into dialogue with sociological theory.
\nThe issue is intentionally interdisciplinary\, and we welcome contributions from philosophy of science\, as well as from researchers in other disciplines working on the modeling and explanation of social systems.
\nKey dates:
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; Abstracts (1&ndash\;2 pages): June 1\, 2026
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \; Full papers: December 31\, 2026
\nAbstracts can be sent to:
josef.ginnerskov@liu.se
peter.hedstrom@liu.se
We would be very happy to discuss potential contributions.
\nBest regards\,
Josef Ginnerskov
Peter Hedströ\;m
*Please note that this event has officially been postponed. More information will be made available asap in the near future*
\nMany human cognitive capacities and processes may be deployed creatively\, from unique choices made for oneself up through novel cultural shifts. Similarly\, large swaths of our daily lives are taken up with performing spontaneous\, on-the-fly\, and unplanned activities that are\, in a word\, improvised. \; Charting out the nature of both creativity and improvisation\, taken individually or together\, remains an open and pressing issue. In this conference\, we will delve into various philosophical\, theoretical\, empirical\, and interdisciplinary issues that are related to creativity and improvisation. A non-exhaustive list of related questions and themes for this topic include:
\n- What is the relationship between improvisation and creativity?
\n- What is the relationship between creative activity and well-being?
\n- What is the best way to model individual and collective creativity?
\n- Is creativity in the arts the same thing as in other domains\, such as in science or business?
\n- What are the pros and cons of different scientific operationalizations of creativity and improvisation?
\n- Provide a conceptual analysis of creativity and/or improvisation.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR