The idea that social\, political and ethical values do and should influence science has become a mainstream position in philosophy of science. The main points of contention in the current discussion about values in science include identifying the right values\, the right ways to manage their role in science\, the right stakeholders to participate in the conversation\, and the right methods for fostering public participation.
\nWhile this is a flourishing research programme\, it overwhelmingly takes place in North America and Western Europe. And in the vast majority of it\, the assumed societal context is an Anglophone democracy. This limits the kinds of values included in the discussion and the modes by which those values are considered. Some philosophers of science have recently started paying attention to this bias and the lacunae it creates\, discussing\, for instance\, values in science in non-democratic contexts (Pulkkinen forthcoming 2026)\, science and democracy in light of theories of democracy that are not mainstream in anglophone academia (Hilligart &\; Wilholt forthcoming 2026)\, and the lack of philosophical discussions about scientific communities in subaltern regions (Gutié\;rrez Valderrama 2025). However\, our understanding of the full consequences of this bias is currently limited.
\nThe aim of this two-day workshop is to open up the discussion about values in science to include a broader range of values and approaches to value inclusion in science\, with case studies from a wider set of geographical locations. \;
\nThis is a pre-conference workshop just before ENPOSS 2026.
ORGANIZER;CN=Inkeri Koskinen;CN=Katherine Furman: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260831T234500 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260831T234500 SUMMARY:The 1st Workshop on History and Philosophy of Science in the East UID:20260811T204225Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Asia/Hong_Kong LOCATION:HKUST\, Hong Kong\, Hong Kong DESCRIPTION:History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) has been a vibrant movement in the philosophy of science since 1960s. It profoundly influenced the development of 20th century philosophy of science. HPS departments and postgraduate programmes have been established worldwide\, while various HPS conferences have been running regularly. However\, HPS in the East is still underdeveloped. To be fair\, philosophy of science in East Asia is not as well developed as it might seem. For example\, in China\, philosophy of science is even sometimes conflated with analytic philosophy. This workshop series aims to advance and promote the research of HPS in the East. It will bring together philosophers of science and historians of science in the East to promote the dialogue across the boundaries with an aim to reflect on the nature\, methodology\, and development of HPS and explore new HPS approaches.
\nVenue
\nDates
\nOrganising Committee
\nKeynote Speakers
\nSubmission Guidelines
\nContact
\nThe SOCRATES group &ndash\; Social Credibility and Trustworthiness of Expert Knowledge and Science-Based Information &ndash\; invites applications for its Summer School 2026:
\nBridging the Gap: Science\, Trust\, and the Climate Crisis
\n1 September 2026 13:00 CEST &ndash\; 4 September 2026 13:00 CEST\, \;Leibniz University Hannover\, Germany
\nwith our great speakers \;Dr. Viktoria Cologna (Eawag Switzerland)\, Prof. Dr. Vincent Lam (University of Bern)\, Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol)\, Prof. David Stainforth (London School of Economics)\, and Prof. Dr. Mathias Frisch (Leibniz University Hannover).
\nA growing body of evidence suggests that many climate change impacts might be more severe or occur sooner than older climate models had projected. And yet\, at the same time\, the sense of urgency regarding the climate crisis in the public and political sphere seems to be declining. This &rsquo\;perception gap&lsquo\; or disconnect is not due to a lack of scientific evidence but seems to be at least partly fuelled by a crisis in communication\, credibility\, and trust. \;
\nOur three-day summer school has the aim of examining challenges posed by this disconnect from different disciplinary perspectives. Our aim is to explore why arguably compelling scientific evidence often fails to translate into societal action. \;The event will bring together PhD candidates from several disciplines for interactive sessions\, talks by senior scholars\, and opportunities to present and discuss their work in a supportive and engaging environment. \;
\nWe invite applications from researchers with the following profile:
\nTravel and accommodation costs as well as the Summer School dinner are at the participant&rsquo\;s expense.
\nDeadline for applications: 13 February 2026 (23:59 CEST). \;Please find more information and the application form on the event webpage.
\nSOCRATES is a Centre for Advanced Studies funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and is based at the Institute for Philosophy at Leibniz University Hannover. It is headed by Prof. Dr. Mathias Frisch (as speaker) and Prof. Dr. Torsten Wilholt.
\nMore information about SOCRATES can be found at https://www.socrates.uni-hannover.de/en/
ORGANIZER;CN=Mathias Frisch;CN=Torsten Wilholt: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260914T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260915T170000 SUMMARY:New Directions in Law-Based Explanations in the Sciences UID:20260811T204227Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Lakatos Building\, London\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:When we look at current research across the natural and social sciences dealing with explanations of phenomena in their respective fields\, the word &lsquo\;explanation&rsquo\; is often modified with an adjective: causal\, non-causal\, mechanistic\, nomological/law-based\, topological\, mathematical\, and narrative are some of the non-mutually-exclusive modifiers that one may encounter. It is generally accepted that fields such as physics rely more on laws for their explanatory practices than disciplines such as cell biology\, which are\, for the most part\, concerned with mechanistic explanations\, for example. In the philosophy of science\, particularly since the advent of the New Mechanism literature in the 1990s\, barring some exceptions\, there has been relatively little sustained work on the pragmatic side of law-based explanations as opposed to other explanatory modalities\, and the interest that law-based explanations have garnered has mostly focused on the metaphysics of laws. This workshop aims to bring the philosophy of law-based explanations\, with particular attention to their pragmatic dimensions\, back into focus. Moreover\, while being historically informed\, the hope is to discuss new directions within this strand of the philosophy of explanation. Some questions for consideration could include (in no particular order):
\nConfirmed Speakers:
\nCall for Abstracts
\n13th International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable Conference
\nSeptember 14-18\, 2026
\nVirtual
\nHosted by the University of Pittsburgh \;
\nConference Dates
\nSeptember 14: Pre-conference workshop on the philosophy of diagnosis
\nSeptember 14: Keynote talks \;
\nSeptember 15-18: Selected Talks
\nVenue
\nThe 13th International Philosophy of Medicine Roundtable will be held online\, hosted by the University of Pittsburgh Department of History and Philosophy of Science.
\nKeynote speakers
\nLisa Sanders (Yale School of Medicine)
\nGurpreet Dhaliwal (University of California\, San Francisco School of Medicine) \;
\nCall for Abstracts: Main Conference Program
\nWe welcome philosophical talks on all aspects of health and medicine\, broadly construed. \;
\nPlease submit a 500-word abstract tohttps://forms.gle/fenNHJ982oNzKW42Aby March 15\, 2026. Abstracts will undergo blinded review by the scientific committee. Accepted papers will be allocated a 30 min speaking slot (including Q&\;A). \;
\nAn individual may be listed as an author on more than one abstract. However\, they may only submit one abstract on which they are listed as a presenter (and may only present once in the main program).
\nSpecial issue
\nPresenters at the Roundtable will be invited to submit a paper version of their talk to a special section of the journal Philosophy of Medicine (https://philmed.pitt.edu). Details will be provided to presenters.
\nImportant dates
\nSubmission deadline: March 15\, 2026
\nNotification of acceptance: by the end of April 2026
\nConference dates: September 14-18\, 2026
\nContacts
\nQuestions regarding submissions or the Roundtable conference generally should be directed to pmr2026@pitt.edu.
\nLocal Organizers
\nJonathan Fuller\, Raphael Scholl\, Laura Matthews\, Sloane Wesloh\, Rose Gatfield-Jeffries (University of Pittsburgh\, Department of History and Philosophy of Science) \;
\nScientific Committee
\nAtocha Aliseda\, Rachel Ankeny\, Robyn Bluhm\, Giovanni Boniolo\, Kirstin Borgerson (Chair)\, Raffalla Campaner\, Jonathan Fuller\, Elselijn Kingma\, Maë\;l Lemoine\, Benjamin Smart (Secretary)
ORGANIZER;CN=Sloane Wesloh;CN=Rose Gatfield-Jeffries;CN=Laura Matthews;CN=Raphael Scholl;CN=Jonathan Fuller: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20260915T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20260917T170000 SUMMARY:Critical Political Epistemology UID:20260811T204229Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Freiburg\, Germany\, 79098 DESCRIPTION:International conference organized by \;the Professorship for Epistemology &\; Theory of Science (University College Freiburg)\, in collaboration with the Critical Political Epistemology Network (CPEN).
\nProgramme
\n15 September 2026
\n9:00&ndash\;9:30 Registration and Welcome
\n9:30&ndash\;11:00 Keynote 1 - \;Deborah Mü\;hlebach (Institut fü\;r Philosophie\, Freie Universitä\;t Berlin): \;The Epistemic Life of Critique
\n11:30&ndash\;13:00 Session 1
\n14:30&ndash\;16:00 Session 2
\n16:30&ndash\;18:00 Session 3
\n16 September 2026
\n9:30&ndash\;11:00 Keynote 2 - \;Just Serrano-Zamora (Faculty of Philosophy\, Universitat de Barcelona): \;Disembodied Embodiment: Expression and Knowledge in Far-Right Extremism
\n11:30&ndash\;13:00 Session 4
\n14:30&ndash\;16:00 Session 5
\n16:30&ndash\;18:00 CPEN Meeting
\n17 September 2026
\n9:30&ndash\;11:00 Keynote 3 - \;Nadja El Kassar (Philosophisches Seminar\, Universitä\;t Luzern): \;Rethinking Ignorance in Critical Political Epistemology
\n11:30&ndash\;13:00 Session 6
\n14:30&ndash\;16:00 Session 7
\n16:30&ndash\;18:00 Keynote 4 - \;Amandine Catala (Philosophy Department\, UQAM &ndash\; Université\; du Qué\;bec à\; Montré\;al): \;A Systematic Account of Epistemic Repair
ORGANIZER;CN=Melanie Altanian;CN=Frieder Vogelmann;CN=Sonja Riegler;CN=Anna Klieber;CN=Resa-Philip Lunau: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20260915T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20260915T163000 SUMMARY:A Puzzle Concerning Reason and the Emotions UID:20260811T204230Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Lillehammer\, Norway DESCRIPTION:More details TBA \;
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260915T234500 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20260915T234500 SUMMARY:Philosophies Meet Animals UID:20260811T204231Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Asia/Hong_Kong LOCATION:HKUST\, Hong Kong\, Hong Kong DESCRIPTION:Recent decades have witnessed advances in biology\, cognitive science\, and neuroscience which inspired and promoted philosophical discussions on animal cognition\, animal behaviour\, animal minds\, and animal welfare. Empirical studies show extraordinary findings: rats and bats willingly aid kin\; cetaceans communicate over vast distances with cultural traits\; chimpanzee societies exhibit alliances and intrigues\; elephants display grief and rage\; crows craft tools and demonstrate causal reasoning and future planning. All these lead to interesting\, important philosophical questions. How should we interpret these findings? What philosophical assumptions underlie them? What implications can we make for traditional philosophical issues? This workshop aims to explore new philosophical insights informed or inspired by empirical studies on animal cognition\, animal behaviour\, and etc. It is devoted to offer a platform for dialogues between philosophers and scientists to cross boundaries. We welcome submissions from both philosophers and scientists. Submissions from early career scholars and postgraduate students are particularly welcome. This workshop is supported by the Jiangsu-Hong Kong-Macao University Alliance. Selected contributed speakers from universities in Jiangsu are eligible to apply for free accommodation. \;
\nPlease submit a 500-word abstract for blind review via Oxford Abstracts (https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/83328/submitter) by 15 September 2026. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by 30 September 2026. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Yafeng Shan;CN=Xiaotao Liu: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z 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:20260811T204232Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 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:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20260924T093000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20260925T170000 SUMMARY:Contemporary Philosophy meets Philosophy of Science: Trends and Perspectives: IV UID:20260811T204233Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:48 Akadimias Street\, Athens\, Greece\, 105 62 DESCRIPTION:The \;MA Program in Contemporary Philosophy/Philosophy of Science \;of the \;Department of History and Philosophy of Science \;is pleased to announce its 4th Annual Conference on 24th and 25th September 2026 at the \;National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
\n"Contemporary Philosophy meets Philosophy of Science: Trends and Perspectives: IV"
\nConference Venue: \;Kostis Palamas building
\n(Attendance is free but places are limited and registration is required)
\nSpeakers:
\nMonika Betzler \;(University of Munich)
Anjan Chakravartty \;(University of Miami)
\nGerhard \;Heinzmann \;(Université\; de Lorraine\, Nancy)
\nDoukas Kapantais \;(Academy of Athens\, Research Centre for Greek Philosophy)
Chrysostomos Mantzavinos \;(University of Athens)
\nEvgenia Mylonaki \;(University of Athens)
\nYannis Stephanou \;(University of Athens)
Stelios Virvidakis \;(University of Athens)
\n---
\nProgramme \;
\nThursday 24th September
\n10.00&ndash\;11.00 \; \;Gerhard Heinzmann \;&mdash\; \;A Dialogical Account of Epistemic Intuition
\n\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Coffee break until 11.30
\n11.30&ndash\;12.30 \; \;Yannis Stephanou \;&mdash\; \;Against Classical Logic
\n\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Lunch Break until 14.30
\n14.30&ndash\;15.30 \; \;Doukas Kapantais \;&mdash\; \;The Ontological Basis of the Algorithmic Operations in the \;Prior Analytics
\n\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Coffee break until 16.00
\n16.00-17.00 \; \;Anjan Chakravartty \;&mdash\; \;Universalism and Multiculturalism in Science Education\, Revisited
\nFriday 25th September
\n10.00&ndash\;11.00 \; \;Monika Betzler \;&mdash\; \;Identity-Shaping as a Relational Wrong
\n\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Coffee break until 11.30
\n11.30&ndash\;12.30 \; \;Stelios Virvidakis &mdash\; \;On the Relation between Epistemic and Moral Virtues: The Aristotelian Legacy and Contemporary Virtue Epistemology
\n\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Lunch Break until 14.30
\n14.30&ndash\;15.30 \; \;Evgenia Mylonaki \;&mdash\; \;Moral Growth
\n\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Coffee break until 16.00
\n16.00-17.00 \; \;Roundtable Discussion: Monika Betzler\, Gerhard Heinzmann\, Chrysostomos Mantzavinos \;&mdash\; \;Dialogue as a Philosophical Genre
\n----
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261005T113000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261130T170000 SUMMARY:Computational Social Philosophy of AI Seminars (CSPAIS 2026) UID:20260811T204234Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Computational methods and simulations have become a fruitful methodology for philosophers\, particularly for understanding how social relations\, norms\, and communicative structures could and should shape inquiry. Work in computational social philosophy has illuminated phenomena ranging from the epistemic value of diversity and the dynamics of epistemic belonging to the emergence and erosion of norms and processes of polarization.
\nGenerative and agentic AI tools stand to profoundly reshape computational social philosophy in at least two ways:
\nAs objects of study for computational social philosophy. Generative and agentic AI are increasingly embedded in epistemic life: as sources of information\, interlocutors\, surrogates for social participants\, gatekeepers within epistemic communities\, and even partially autonomous epistemic actors. This should motivate a broadening of purview in social epistemology\, which has tended to focus primarily on personal\, interpersonal\, and institutional factors that impact inquiry\, but comparatively less on technological factors. \;
\nAs tools of study for computational social philosophy. These systems can lower the technical barriers to computational work. More interestingly\, they may expand the range of social phenomena philosophers can model\, including richer representations of agents&rsquo\; beliefs and behavior\, more complex interactions and environments\, and even digital-twin-style models of particular communities or institutions.
\nThis cluster brings together philosophers working in\, or seriously engaging with\, computational social philosophy. We are eager to gather a cohort who can bring rigor\, clarity\, and intellectual generosity to advancing understanding in relation to the above themes.
\nWe&rsquo\;re particularly interested in philosophical contributions that engage one or more of the following cross-cutting threads:
\nModeling of AI systems as socio-epistemic phenomena: How might explicitly modeling the effects of AI systems within social epistemic processes challenge\, deepen\, or expand existing understanding in social epistemology and philosophy of science?
\nModeling of socio-epistemic phenomena with AI-based tools: What new forms of social epistemological phenomena can AI-based tools help us represent and investigate beyond traditional methods\, such as typical agent-based models?
\nUnderstanding aims and tradeoffs: How should we think about the tradeoffs between promises of AI-based tools (e.g.\, flexibility\, expressive power\, scale) and other desiderata (e.g.\, robustness\, justification\, tractability\, understanding) that have long been central to computational social philosophy? What can we learn about these issues from the use of AI-based tools in other disciplines such as computational social science?
\nMethodological standards: What standards should guide reliable\, reproducible\, and more generally epistemically and ethically responsible philosophical inquiry using AI-based methods in computational social philosophy?
\nPlease note that\, while we welcome expressions of interest from all disciplines\, this is not a general workshop about AI or AI-based simulations. It is a workshop about how deeper engagement with AI systems as objects of modeling studies and as a modeling tool can ultimately enrich and expand philosophical inquiry.
\nFormat
\nThe series will consist of bi-weekly virtual meetings\, in the style of CSPS\, starting in October 2026.The meetings are on Mondays at 11:30am ET.
\nApplications
\nYou can submit your application to join the seminars by using this application form: https://forms.gle/SC2iqbZUBU6iB52v6 \;
\nThe application form includes:
\nBasic details: Your name\, email address\, affiliation\, career stage
\nExtended abstracts of up to 750 words and prepared for anonymous review (no identifying information in the abstract itself).
\nThe submission deadline for applications is July 27th\, 2026.
\nOrganizers
\nSina Fazelpour (Northeastern)
\nLuca Garzino Demo (UPenn) \;
\nPlease direct inquiries to lgarzino@sas.upenn.edu
ORGANIZER;CN=Sina Fazelpour;CN=Luca Garzino Demo: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20261007T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20261009T170000 SUMMARY:Causality and Causal Inference in Medicine UID:20260811T204235Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/Madrid LOCATION:Facultad de Filosofia\, C/Camilo José Cela S/N\, Sevilla\, Spain\, 41018 DESCRIPTION:Interactions between the philosophy of causality and investigations of inferential practices in the sciences\, particularly medicine\, have yielded key developments across disciplines. One such example is evidential pluralism\, arguing for broadening the evidence range beyond difference-making to overcome the rigidity of evidence-based medicine. Further interdisciplinary engagements can assess the adequacy of different philosophical analyses of causation and corresponding causal concepts with respect to particular scientific problems or areas or draw on practices from the sciences to adjust the philosophical toolkit. At the same time\, there are also challenges to address\, such as working across areas with different\, sometimes conflicting\, methods and approaches. This conference aims to bring together current research dealing with causality and inferential practices in the health sciences\, broadly construed\, welcoming philosophical\, methodological\, and scientific contributions\, among others.
\nKeynote speakers:
\nJonathan Fuller (University of Pittsburgh)
\nNaja Hulvej Rod (University of Copenhagen)
\nSaana Jukola (University of Twente)
\nLocal organizing team: Cristina Baré\;s Gó\;mez\, Matthieu Fontaine\, Elena Popa\, Quentin Ruyant.
This conference is the 16th in the series of Causality in the Sciences conferences. Steering committee: Phyllis Illari\, Science &\; Technology Studies\, UCL\; Samantha Kleinberg\, Computer Science\, Stevens\; Bert Leuridan\, Philosophy\, Antwerp\; Julian Reiss: Philosophy\, Linz\; Federica Russo: History and Philosophy of Science\, Utrecht\; Erik Weber: Philosophy\, Ghent\; Jon Williamson: Philosophy\, Manchester. \; \;
Funding and organization
History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) has been a vibrant movement in the philosophy of science since 1960s. It profoundly influenced the development of 20th century philosophy of science. HPS departments and postgraduate programmes have been established worldwide\, while various HPS conferences have been running regularly. However\, HPS in the East is still underdeveloped. To be fair\, philosophy of science in East Asia is not as well developed as it might seem. For example\, in China\, philosophy of science is even sometimes conflated with analytic philosophy. This workshop series aims to advance and promote the research of HPS in the East. It will bring together philosophers of science and historians of science in the East to promote the dialogue across the boundaries with an aim to reflect on the nature\, methodology\, and development of HPS and explore new HPS approaches.
\nVenue
\nDates
\nOrganising Committee
\nKeynote Speakers
\nContact
\nRADIATION: Connection Across Distance
\nA Cross-disciplinary Conference
\nArnolfini\, Bristol\, UK 12 &ndash\; 14 Nov 2026
\nWe commonly understand radiation as the circulation of energy in the form of light\, heat\, and radio waves\, illumination and glow\, or the emission of particles from radioactive substances. This includes ultraviolet radiation\, X and gamma rays and radioactive materials. The early 20th century medical use of X-rays was exquisitely captured by Duchamp in his 1910 painting Portrait of Dr. Dumochel. In this work\, the French physician is shown with a red aura &ndash\; presumably depicting the erythema of radiation &ndash\; while parts of his body are missing to connote the mysterious ability of X rays to invisibilise flesh while making bones and internal organs visible. A little over a century later\, diagnostic mammograms\, full-body airport security scans\, even personal radiation-emitting devices (mobile phones) are the norm. Ionising radiation is used in Heritage Studies to identify underdrawings while gamma radiation eliminates bacteria that threaten to damage cultural objects\, books and statues.
\n\; \; \; \;However\, this source-process-effect frame\, prevalent in many\, if not most disciplines\, is not the only way to think radiation. Several years ago\, researchers from the University of Regensburg\, Germany\, discovered a phenomenon akin to negative radiation. When an electron moves through a material it often collides with other electrons. This causes de-acceleration. Although an electron with negative mass loses energy in the same way that an electron with positive mass does\, the effect of that loss is\, counterintuitively: acceleration. In other words\, if a ball with negative mass falls into water\, it is not slowed down by friction but instead sped up. Using a new type of semiconductor and irradiating it with a red laser\, the Regensburg team found that\, surprisingly\, the electrons emitted a blue glimmer. This signalled a conversion of low-energy red light into the high-energy blue light arising from electrons with negative mass (Lin et al 2021). Experiments such as these beg the question of the scope of &lsquo\;negative&rsquo\; radiation\, caused by phenomena like negative force.
\n\; \; \; \;In the cultural and socio-political realms\, the invisible working of radiation is captured by two past-laden concepts: aura and hauntology. As a &lsquo\;strange tissue of space-time\,&rsquo\; and a &lsquo\;unique apparition of distance in proximity&rsquo\; (Benjamin 1979)\, aura amplifies energies accruing in everyday practices as affective presence. It turns sedimentations of mnemonic processes into &lsquo\;weakly radioactive materials&rsquo\; (Sloterdijk 2016)\, as can be seen from the so-called &lsquo\;merged objects&rsquo\; &ndash\; such as the Salish blankets\, made of mountain goat\, dog hair\, and vegetation\, that are part animal\, part hunter\, part weaver\, and part wearer (Tepper 2017). Their purpose is to gather cross-species and cross-temporal relations into a single\, culturally energised object. Similarly\, accrued medial aura is the topic of much contemporary art\, such as Kubisch and Norment&rsquo\;s sonic installations\, which rely on the medial memory of transmitters. The crackling of an old record\, inscribed through cycles of use\, and remediated in a sound installation\, creates fulcrums of energy similar to that of &lsquo\;merged objects.&rsquo\;
\n\; \; \; \;Hauntology\, along with spectrality\, was initially a rumination on ontology. It suggested that being is displaced by the shadow of the spectre of being (Derrida 1993)\, and that past-orientated resurgences undermine the solid foundations of the present (Jameson 1999). This can be felt in the residual working of obsolete hegemonies that continue to exert influence on the material and psychic spaces of social life. Unlike trauma\, which is marked by a rupture\, hauntological radiation is a form of low-frequency persistence that lingers in habits and inherited assignments of energy\, imperceptibly turning the past into the behavioural and cognitive architecture of the present. Carrying the frequencies of absent systems\, and of that which &lsquo\;has not yet happened but is already effective in the virtual &ndash\; as an attractor shaping current behaviour&rsquo\; (Fisher 2012: 19)\, hauntings co-constitute energy fields. But this is not to say that all hauntings are immaterial\, as is often thought. In Barad&rsquo\;s reading\, they are an &lsquo\;ineliminable feature of existing material conditions&rsquo\; (Barad 2017: 107)\, as\, from the perspective of quantum physics\, haunting is not about human experience\, but rather about &lsquo\;indeterminacies of time-being\, materially constitutive of matter itself&rsquo\; (113).
\nSimilarly\, in this conference\, we are interested in the less visible actual and potential radial arrangements &ndash\; as forms of agencement of actual or virtual objects and un-objects\, spaces and negative spaces\, organisms\, pre- and post-organic matter\; proto-techniques and technologies that can be assimilated into what is often called &lsquo\;third nature.&rsquo\;
\nWe invite contributions from Media Studies\, Art and Art-Science\, Philosophy (including Philosophy of Science)\, Cultural and Heritage Studies\, Materials Science and Environmental Studies in the form of individual panel presentations (theoretical or practice-based) or curated panels that address but are not limited to the following topics:
\n&bull\;Contemporary alchemy (the notion that every being and/or thing can potentially produce or store energy)
\n&bull\;Art-science experiments with cross-medial radiation (e.g. sonic lasers)
\n&bull\;Projective radiations of new materials or new uses of existing materials\, plants and environments (e.g. graphene and hyperaccumulators)
\n&bull\;Biological and geometrical radial arrangements (e.g. radical versus networked spread)
\n&bull\;Explorations and genealogies of radio-enabled technologies and engineering practices (e.g. GPS\, Galileo\, Wi-Fi and RFID)
\n&bull\;Propelling or accelerating processes arising from a re-configuration or re-alignment of forces and technologies
\n&bull\;Counterintuitive readings of radiation (e.g. the use of radioactive waste as a source of energy despite obvious dangers)
\n&bull\;Political and ideological radiation (soft power\, influence) \;
\n&bull\;Infrastructural radiation (capital\, energy networks) \;
\n&bull\;Computational and algorithmic radiation (data\, AI\, virality)
\n&bull\;The post-industrial sublime (e.g. hydrogen colliders and sites of industrial devastation)
\n&bull\;Radiation as action-at-a-distance (conceptual History of Physics) \;
\n&bull\;Novel readings of the work of Henri Becquerel\, Marie Curie\, J.M. Maxwell\, Richard Feynman and Rudolf Peierls beyond the &lsquo\;environmental damage of positivistic science&rsquo\; approach
\nPlease send 250 w proposals for individual papers or artistic interventions of 15 min in length\, accompanied by a 100 w bio and a concise list of AV requirements to ENERGYPhilosophyofPractice@dundee.ac.uk by 23:59 GMT on 20 July 2026. Proposals for panels of no more than 1500 w in length (including abstracts and bios) should be sent by 23:59 GMT on 12 July 2026. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by 30 July 2026. \;
\nThis conference\, supported by Arnolfini and UWE Bristol\, is part of the 2023 &ndash\; 2027 AHRC-funded research project ENERGY: A Philosophy of Practice (AH/X009114/1).
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20261117T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20261117T170000 SUMMARY:Observation\, Theory\, and Progress in Seismology UID:20260811T204238Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:America/Los_Angeles LOCATION:1200 E CALIFORNIA BLVD.\, Pasadena\, United States\, 91125 DESCRIPTION:Detailed description:
The workshop &ldquo\;Observation\, Theory\, and Progress in Seismology&rdquo\; will bring together researchers from seismology and from history and philosophy of science to address the relation between theory\, observation/instrumentation and progress in seismology. \; \; Many accounts of progress in science tell a story that focuses largely on theoretical breakthroughs&mdash\;just think of how the theoretical achievements of Newton\, Einstein\, or Darwin are thought to mark the progress of modern science. Yet our capacity to &ldquo\;observe&rdquo\; (broadly understood) nature has progressed in no less impressive ways\, across the natural sciences\, from early telescopes to the massive interferometers of the LIGO project\, from magnifying glasses to electron microscopes\, and from intensity scales to broadband seismometry and global seismic networks. How have improvements in observational capabilities led to progress in the physical sciences? In what ways are the development of instrumentation and theory interdependent? Seismology is a science that we might see as having largely been driven by the development of instrumentation\, but developments in seismological theory have also been crucial for progress. The study of seismology from a historical and philosophical perspective is likely to uncover new insights into how science in general and seismology in particular makes progress. \; \;
Sttructure:
There will be 4 talks and a panel discussion.
The talks will be given by Hiroo Kanamori (Caltech)\, Susan Hough (USGS)\, Teru Mirake (NTU Singapore)\, and Alisa Bokulich (Boston University).
The panel discusion will be led by Miguel Ohnesorge (University of Boston)\, Jamee Elder (Tufts)\, Lucy Jones (Caltech)\, and Thomas Heaton (Caltech).
\nAnyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to attend. \;
\n
RSVP here:
https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=2elb_XJ7-U2DDrH5zFtEvQ8hmfRMv91Hjr2YcxI3VD5UNUFNQjdWQkVBS1lESUI5S1NEQURVWUJMTy4u&\;route=shorturl
Call for Papers:
\nLearning from History: The Philosophies of Historiography and the Historical Sciences
\nThe University of Ostrava\, Czech Republic\, 27-29 November 2026
\nConfirmed keynote speakers (alphabetically):
\nCarol Cleland
\nAdrian Currie
\nMichal Hubá\;lek
\nJouni-Matti Kuukkanen
\nJames McAllister
\nGregory Radick
\nAdam Timmins
\nAviezer Tucker
\nDerek Turner
\nThe philosophy of history\, the ontology of the past\, and the philosophy of historiography\, the epistemology of knowledge of history\, are rapidly expanding philosophical fields. \; This expansion is partly driven by the progress of the historical sciences in broadening the scope of our knowledge of history by discovering new evidence and new information theories that allow decoding it and inferring knowledge of the past. \; These developments call for new philosophies of the historical sciences and historiography that encompass the new ontologies and epistemologies of all the historical sciences that can make warranted inferences about history.
\nThe philosophy of the historical sciences is distinct of other sub-fields of epistemology and the philosophy of science in studying the generation of knowledge of the past\, of history\, which depends on signals that cross the entropic barrier of time. \; This conference will consider the philosophical\, ontological and epistemic implications of the new historical sciences and historiography that form the foundation for learning from the past. This conference will attempt to found a new sub-field of the philosophy of science\, devoted to the philosophy of the historical sciences. \;
\nThe conference will take place at the Foundation for the Philosophy of Historical Sciences and Historiography at the University of Ostrava in the Czech Republic\, with support from the Visegrad Fund and the University of Ostrava\, and in cooperation with the University of Silesia in Katowice in Poland\, and the Catholic University in Ružomberok in Slovakia. \;
\nWe call for abstracts of 250-500 words in the philosophy of historiography and the historical sciences to be submitted by the 31st of August 2026. \; There will not be a conference fee\, but registration is required. \; Please send abstracts\, queries\, and correspondence to:
\nAviezer Tucker at avitucker@yahoo.com and David Černí\;n at david.cernin@osu.cz
\nThe Foundation for the Philosophy of Historical Sciences and Historiography is comprised of five researchers and has existed for three years with generous support from the European Union\, the Czech Grant Agency\, and the Visegrad Fund. It holds regular in person and remote seminars. \; Next year\, in August 2027\, it will co-convene a summer school in the philosophy of historiography and the historical sciences with emphasis on the philosophical foundations of applied history at the Catholic University of Ružomberok in Slovakia.
\nOstrava\, in the North-East corner of the Czech Republic\, is the second largest urban conglomeration in the country after Prague. It has an airport with regular flights from Warsaw\, Malaga\, and London-Stansted. \; It can also be reached by bus from the airports of Katowice and Krakow in Poland\, and by train from Vienna and Prague. By train\, Ostrava is about 2.5 hours from Krakow\, 3 hours from Vienna\, and 3.5 hours from Prague.
\nThe conference is part of the project &ldquo\;What Can be Learned from History: Philosophical Reflections from Central Europe&rdquo\; co-financed by the governments of Czechia\, Hungary\, Poland and Slovakia through Visegrad Grants from \;the International Visegrad Fund. The mission of the fund is to advance ideas for sustainable regional cooperation in Central Europe.
ORGANIZER;CN=Georg Gangl;CN="David Černín";CN=Aviezer Tucker: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20261128T090000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Hong_Kong:20261128T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophies Meet Animals UID:20260811T204240Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Asia/Hong_Kong LOCATION:HKUST\, Hong Kong\, Hong Kong DESCRIPTION:Recent decades have witnessed advances in biology\, cognitive science\, and neuroscience which inspired and promoted philosophical discussions on animal cognition\, animal behaviour\, animal minds\, and animal welfare. Empirical studies show extraordinary findings: rats and bats willingly aid kin\; cetaceans communicate over vast distances with cultural traits\; chimpanzee societies exhibit alliances and intrigues\; elephants display grief and rage\; crows craft tools and demonstrate causal reasoning and future planning. All these lead to interesting\, important philosophical questions. How should we interpret these findings? What philosophical assumptions underlie them? What implications can we make for traditional philosophical issues? This workshop aims to explore new philosophical insights informed or inspired by empirical studies on animal cognition\, animal behaviour\, and etc. It is devoted to offer a platform for dialogues between philosophers and scientists to cross boundaries. We welcome submissions from both philosophers and scientists. Submissions from early career scholars and postgraduate students are particularly welcome. This workshop is supported by the Jiangsu-Hong Kong-Macao University Alliance. Selected contributed speakers from universities in Jiangsu are eligible to apply for free accommodation. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Yafeng Shan;CN=Xiaotao Liu: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261130T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261201T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophy of Science and Ethics of Science in the Context of A. Schopenhauer UID:20260811T204241Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Schlossplatz 2\, Münster\, Germany DESCRIPTION:In recent years\, Schopenhauer has increasingly been recognized as a significant point of reference for work in both philosophy of science and ethics of science. In addition to foundational studies of his theory of science\, there is growing interest in his influence on particular disciplines\, including biology\, physics\, mathematics\, and cognitive science. The conference aims to bring these lines of research into conversation and to explore their broader systematic relevance.
ORGANIZER;CN=Jens Lemanski: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261130T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261130T234500 SUMMARY:Philosophia Reformata special issue on the legacy of MD Stafleu UID:20260811T204242Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers: \;The legacy of M. D. Stafleu
\nJournal: \;Philosophia Reformata \;(www.brill.com/phir)
\nGuest editors: Richard Gunton (Queen Mary University of London) and Gerrit Glas (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)
\nDeadline: Papers (5\,000&ndash\;9\,000 words) may be submitted through the journal&rsquo\;s website.
\nMarinus Dirk (Dick) Stafleu (1937&ndash\;2024) wrote extensively on philosophy of physics\, and encyclopedically on the sciences at large. \;Drawing on and critiquing the work of Herman Dooyeweerd\, he made important contributions to a Reformational philosophy of science reaching from mathematics to social and political sciences. \;However\, since his passing in November 2024\, Stafleu's legacy appears largely limited to his 24 papers in Philosophia Reformata\, 5 papers in other peer-reviewed journals\, and some 15 books in English and Dutch\, mostly self-published on his own website (although 5 were published in print by various minor publishing houses).
\nWe invite scholars who have drawn on any of Stafleu's work to contribute to a special issue that will clarify and situate his contributions in the philosophical foundations of physics and of the sciences more broadly. \;Topics might include\, for example:
\nFor more information\, please contact the editorial assistant\, Mathanja Berger: \;mathanja@bergeracademicediting.nl.
\n\nInstructions to Authors: \; https://brill.com/fileasset/downloads_products/Author_Instructions/PHIR.pdf
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261215T230000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261215T230000 SUMMARY:Synthese Topical Collection: Severity and Learning from Error UID:20260811T204243Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Synthese Topical Collection: Severity and Learning from Error
\nCall for Papers
\nThis Topical Collection examines how inquiry learns from error by focusing on a basic principle of evidence in science\, statistics\, medicine\, law\, epistemology\, and day-to-day learning: a claim is not well-tested\, known or epistemically warranted\, if it is based on a method that makes it easy to accept\, conclude or infer the claim\, even if it is false. Such a claim may accord well with the data\, but it has not passed a stringent or severe test. While this overarching intuition is widely shared\, the problem of how to understand or satisfy it remains unsolved. C. S. Peirce emphasizes randomization and (what is now called) pre-designation to achieve self-correcting methods. Popper viewed severity in terms of satisfying novel predictive success and surviving stringent attempts at falsification. Deborah Mayo (1996\, 2018) combines elements from Popper and Peirce with the use of error probabilities from statistical methods: proposed solutions to problems earn warrant by surviving probes that were capable of showing them wrong or inadequate. This Topical Collection takes &ldquo\;severity&rdquo\; to be a broad meta-level concept according to which a claim &ndash\; whether a report of a perception\, a prediction\, a hypothesis\, or part of a model &ndash\; is assessed according to whether\, and how readily\, its errors and inadequacies would have been found\, if present.
\nSeveral questions arise: What errors matter for a given aim? What would it take for a method to be capable of detecting them? How in actual practice can inquirers show they have engaged in responsible error probing when there are no formal probability models? Addressing questions like these is of urgent importance today as we face high-powered methods that make it easy to find impressive looking eUects that are spurious and non-replicating\, or to arrive at well-fitting models that do not predict well\, do not replicate\, or do not provide substantive scientific understanding. These questions arise in debates about methodological shifts in AI/ML\, randomized clinical trials\, legal evidence\, climate modeling\, statistical inference\, and error-prone inference in general. We seek to bring these metascience debates into direct contact and to ask what is often left hidden: What errors are now being controlled\, and which have quietly dropped out of view? By bringing together philosophers\, statisticians\, and scientists\, we aim to develop a shared set of problems and tools with a forward-looking goal: to shape emerging practices\, rather than merely react to them with retrospective commentary.
\nWe welcome submissions on any topic that broadly relates to severity or learning from error. We invite contributions that develop\, apply or challenge severity-based reasoning\, or that develop alternative approaches\, Bayesian\, frequentist\, machine-learning and other\, which engage the same underlying concern: how inquiry learns from error\, and how claims earn warrant by surviving probes that were capable of showing them wrong or inadequate. We encourage contributions that explore connections between concepts of severity in diUerent fields. Notably\, the concepts of sensitivity and safety in contemporary epistemology can be understood through the lens of severity\, and both are redolent of stability in AI. We also welcome discussions of how contemporary manifestations of severity interrelate with the traditional notions of severity from Popper and Peirce\, and how concepts of severity may help in tackling fundamental problems of induction\, falsification\, underdetermination\, and realism in philosophy of science.
\nThe collection is partly motivated by the thirtieth anniversary of Deborah Mayo&rsquo\;s (1996\, Chicago) Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge (Lakatos Prize 1998) and the development of its account of severe testing.
\nAppropriate Topics for Submission include\, among others:
\nSeverity and philosophy of statistics
\n&bull\;Do recent controversies about the uses of error probabilities in statistics (and metastatistics) present a challenge to severity-based reasoning?
\n&bull\;Do the new fields of post-selection inference (in AI and other disciplines) allow for error control despite data-driven constructions? Or do they shift attention to diUerent errors?
\n&bull\;How does severity link to such notions as calibration\, security\, and stability\, and statistical techniques that promote such notions as robustness analyses\, and multiverse analyses?
\nSeverity and philosophy of science
\n&bull\;What does it mean for a method\, or for science itself\, to be self-correcting or error-correcting? Does it fit best with a pragmatist philosophy?
\n&bull\;How does severe probing take place in the historical sciences\, e.g.\, climate science\, geology? Can claims be well probed without being replicable?
\n&bull\;Rather than probing for falsity\, how can we severely probe if a model is adequate for a purpose or problem of interest?
\nSeverity and contemporary epistemology
\n&bull\;Can a useful cross-cutting epistemology that links science\, statistics\, and applied epistemology be built around the concept of severity?
\n&bull\;Do features of severity (e.g.\, auditing of assumptions) point to ways to avoid problems of sensitivity and safety in epistemology?
\n&bull\;Does requiring severity explain why legal epistemology resists mere base-rates and &ldquo\;naked statistics&rdquo\;? Does it solve proof paradoxes in legal epistemology?
\nTracking shifts in error control
\n&bull\;How does AI/ML shift from modeling data-generating mechanisms in statistics to optimizing predictive performance in machine learning.
\n&bull\;How do changing guidelines for RCTs shift trials from probing biological mechanisms to predicting average treatment eUects over a population?
\n&bull\;What are the social\, epistemic\, ethical\, and political consequences of shifting regimens of error control?
\nThe value of probing error
\n&bull\;How can adversarial collaborations and stress-testing advance science?
\n&bull\;How can error repertoires be built and eUectively employed to facilitate severity in measurement and experiment?
\n&bull\;How does learning from error enter outside science (e.g.\, in art\, architecture and life drawing)?
\nSubmissions via: https://www.editorialmanager.com/synt/default.aspx
Under the drop-down menu\, select Severity and Learning from Error.
\;
Submitted papers will undergo the usual Synthese review process.
\;
For further information\, please contact the guest editors: Deborah Mayo (mayod@vt.edu)\, Wendy Parker (wendyparker@vt.edu)\, Danië\;l Lakens (D.Lakens@tue.nl)\, Kent Staley (kent.staley@slu.edu).
\;
The deadline for submissions is the 15th of December\, 2026
Objectivity is an important topic in the philosophy of science with implications for many debates\, including scientific confirmation\, scientific realism\, measurement\, values in science\, and theory choice. However\, defining scientific objectivity is not easy. Its meaning varies radically from different contexts. Objectivity can be a property of a product of science (e.g. scientific claims)\, or of a process of science (e.g. scientific methods). It can also be a virtue or ideal of scientific practice. This conference aims to examine the notion of objectivity across the natural and social sciences. In particular\, it will scrutinise the nature\, role\, and significance of objectivity in scientific practice.
\nQuestions to be addressed include but are not limited to:
\nSelected papers will be included in an edited volume to be published by Springer (part of the Asian Studies in the Philosophy of Science).
\nSubmission Guidelines
\nPlease submit a 500-word abstract for blind review via Oxford Abstracts (https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/83122/submitter) by 31 December 2026.
\nContact
\nIf you have any questions\, please contact Qiyue Zhang (qiyue.zhang@connect.ust.hk).
ORGANIZER;CN=Yafeng Shan;CN=Qinyi Wang;CN=Qiyue Zhang: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20270115T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20270115T090000 SUMMARY:Synthese Topical Collection: Against the Grain: Developing the Prospects of Non-Naturalistic Metaphysics of Science UID:20260811T204245Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers
\nSynthese \;Topical Collection: Against the Grain: Developing the Prospects of Non-Naturalistic Metaphysics of Science
\nGuest Editors:
Raoni Arroyo (Federal University of Santa Catarina / CNPq\, Brazil)
Bruno Borge (University of Buenos Aires / CONICET\, Argentina)\,
Cristiá\;n Soto (University of Chile\, Chile).
Topical Collection website: \;https://link.springer.com/collections/dgjhfehdbd
\nA key feature of recent developments in the metaphysics of science is that it has mostly\, if not exclusively\, been developed within a naturalistic framework. For our purposes\, naturalism can broadly be conceived in any of the following ways: it can be understood as continuous with\, constrained by\, derived from\, or useful to science.
\nWhat all these have in common is a deferential attitude towards science\, which may roughly be spelled out as follows: when it comes to ontology\, methodology\, or epistemology\, metaphysicians of science should best defer such issues to science (particularly physics). Most\, if not all\, more or less recent developments that &ldquo\;take science seriously&rdquo\; fall under the naturalistic umbrella. One possible consequence of this default naturalistic orientation is that it may unduly restrict the scope of legitimate metaphysical inquiry.
\nWe understand non-naturalistic metaphysics of science as a style of metaphysical practice whose problems need not exclusively arise within or emanate from the sciences. More specifically\, it is a kind of metaphysics that remains oriented toward science without treating science as the sole source of its problems\, methods\, or epistemic credentials. In this context\, by &ldquo\;non-naturalistic&rdquo\; we do not mean metaphysics that ignores\, or floats free from\, science\, but rather metaphysical inquiry that engages with science without being fully grounded in\, derived from\, or subordinated to it.
\nThe aim of the Topical Collection is not merely to criticize naturalism\, but to articulate positive alternatives: ways of doing metaphysics of science that engage with scientific practices\, examine the metaphysical assumptions and frontiers of science\, and remain epistemically relevant to our overall scientific outlook without adopting a deferential stance toward science.
\nBy contrast\, naturalistic metaphysics of science has science as the proper ontological\, epistemic\, and methodological ground of metaphysical inquiry. Non-naturalistic metaphysics of science asks and addresses metaphysical issues properly\, which can rightfully be considered as yielding genuine epistemic contributions to our knowledge or understanding of how the world is or could be.
\nAppropriate Topics for Submission include\, among others:
\n\nThis list is not meant to be exhaustive.
\nFor further information\, please contact the guest editors:
\nRaoni Arroyo: \;raoniarroyo@gmail.com
Bruno Borge: \;brunojborge@gmail.com
Cristiá\;n Soto: \;cssotto@uchile.cl
The deadline for submissions is \;January 15\, 2027.
\nSubmissions via: \;https://www.editorialmanager.com/synt/default.aspx
\nPlease select &ldquo\;Submit New Manuscript&rdquo\; and choose the Topical Collection &ldquo\;Against the Grain: Developing the Prospects of Non-Naturalistic Metaphysics of Science&rdquo\; from the drop-down menu.
\nRaoni Arroyo
Federal University of Santa Catarina / CNPq
Email: \;raoniarroyo@gmail.com
Bruno Borge
University of Buenos Aires / CONICET
Email: \;brunojborge@gmail.com
Cristiá\;n Soto
University of Chile
Email: \;cssotto@uchile.cl
Objectivity is an important topic in the philosophy of science with implications for many debates\, including scientific confirmation\, scientific realism\, measurement\, values in science\, and theory choice. However\, defining scientific objectivity is not easy. Its meaning varies radically from different contexts. Objectivity can be a property of a product of science (e.g. scientific claims)\, or of a process of science (e.g. scientific methods). It can also be a virtue or ideal of scientific practice. This conference aims to examine the notion of objectivity across the natural and social sciences. In particular\, it will scrutinise the nature\, role\, and significance of objectivity in scientific practice.
\nQuestions to be addressed include but are not limited to:
\nSelected papers will be included in an edited volume to be published by Springer (part of the Asian Studies in the Philosophy of Science).
\nIf you have any questions\, please contact Qiyue Zhang (qiyue.zhang@connect.ust.hk).
ORGANIZER;CN=Yafeng Shan;CN=Qinyi Wang;CN=Qiyue Zhang: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260811T203557Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:29990101T033000 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:29990201T120000 SUMMARY:POSTPONED - Creativity and Improvisation in Thought\, Practice\, and Mind: An Interdisciplinary Conference UID:20260811T204247Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:1c50:cdff:fedd:b74b%3 TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:6001 Dodge Street\, Omaha\, United States\, 68182 DESCRIPTION:*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