Tanska

Guidelines for abstract proposal for presentation at the symposium

Philosophy with Children
– How and Why?

at the 40th NERA conference in Copenhagen, 8-10th of March 2012

Abstract
• A maximum of 350 words
• It is beneficial if the proposal indicates the following:
1. Title of paper
2. Author(s) of proposal
3. Research topic/aim
4. Theoretical and methodological framework (if applicable)
5. (Expected) conclusions/findings
6. Relevance to Nordic educational research
7. Attachment to NERA-network (i.e., Network 16: Nordic Society for Philosophy of
Education)
8. Attachment to NERA-symposium (i.e., the symposium entitled ”Philosophy with
Children – How and Why?”)
• Deadline for submission: 8th of November 2011
• Each presenter must submit the abstract separately (as a ”symposium presentation”)
• The abstract, paper and presentation must be in English.
• Submit your abstract through using the following Internet address:
http://nera2012.au.dk/callforpresentations/

Information about the symposium
The symposium regards philosophy with children (or even wider: philosophy in education), with focus on different perspectives on the performing of it and why it should be performed. The scope is broad, and theoretical as well as practical contributions are welcome. There will be a discussant at the symposium who have read the conference papers in advance and who will provide response. This requires that each presenter sends his or her conference paper to the discussant within appropriate time limits. More information about this will be sent to you further on.
Information about the specific date and time will be found in the general programme for the NERA conference presentations when this is set.

For other questions regarding the symposium: Please contact Ylva Backman, organiser of the symposium, at: ylva.backman(at)ltu.se

Further requirements
• All presenters are expected to bring copies of their papers (10-15 will be sufficient)
• Each participant must register to the general NERA conference to be able to participate in the symposium. Information about registration is to be found at:
http://nera2012.au.dk/registrationaccommodation/

For more (general) information about the 40th NERA conference,
please visit: http://nera2012.au.dk/
 

Nordic Network for German Idealism (NNGI)
Sixth international conference
German Idealism Today

October 31 — November 2 2011
Aarhus University, Denmark
Lakeside Lecture Theatre
(Sø-auditoriet)

The conference is sponsored by Nordforsk and The Department of Philosophy and History of Ideas, Aarhus University

Attendance is free but prior registration is required at:
www.webshop.dpu.dk/german_idealism_today_2011
Please visit nngi.org for further information

Speakers:
Markus Gabriel
Universität Bonn
Sebastian Gardner
University College London
Arne Grøn
University of Copenhagen
Rolf-Peter Horstmann
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Stephen Houlgate
University of Warwick
Axel Hutter
Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München
Robert Pippin
University of Chicago
Sebastian Rödl
Universität Basel
Camilla Serck-Hanssen
University of Oslo
Günter Zöller
Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München
 
The program can be found here:
http://www.idealismekredsen.dk/blog/wp-content/Endeligt-program-uden-PhD...
 

Invitation to the 1st Nordic Philosophers' Networking Day

Dear colleagues and stakeholders and whoever else is just curious for any reason at all,

Please join us for the 1st Nordic Philosophers' Networking Day on Saturday, 30 April 2011.

Purpose:
To meet and connect
To exchange country news and inspire each other by way of short presentations on topics relevant to philosophical practice
To develop ideas on how to create and further develop and enhance a flourishing Nordic philosophical practitioners community: What events should we arrange in future, and in what other ways can we be useful to each other between events?
To exchange and develop ideas on how to raise awareness of the existence and usefulness of philosophical practice in the broader society
To give others a chance to see and hear what we are on about and get to know us (so please feel free to forward this invitation to whomever you think might be interested!)

Schedule (in rough outlines):
09.00-09.30 Welcome and intro
09.30-10.30 Input 1
10.30-11.00 Coffee break
11.00-12.00 Input 2
12.00-13.00 Input 3
13.00-14.00 Lunch
14.00-18.00 Nordic philosophers' program:
                  - Country news & greetings
                  - Educational news
                  - Discussing about the Nordic co-operation
                    * how to co-ordinate?
                    * web-pages?
                    * possible future co-operation: forms, forums, contents?
                  - Interest group meetings with Open Space Technology (those who want to introduce a topic and create discussion or an interest group around it, are able to do so, and others can join the group they want - or form their own!)
18.00-??.?? Dinner, Copenhagen by night

Background:
At the 10th International Conference on Philosophical Practice in Leusden, the Netherlands, August 2010, it became clear that there was a wish to have more common activities and nurture closer bonds between PP's in the Nordic countries. There were also hopes that together we would be able to promote more effectively a general awareness in society of the existence and benefits of philosophical practice and the availability of a growing number of highly qualified "local" philosophical practitioners right here in the Nordic countries. As a consequence, a five person coordination group was formed to foster ideas and take action. The 1st Nordic Philosophers' Networking Day is our first venture.

Practicalities:

    * The event will take place on Saturday, 30 April in Copenhagen, Denmark. Address details to follow.
    * In consideration of our colleagues from Finland and Iceland, the official language will be English.
    * Please send a short e-mail to Marie Lund at <marie (at) samtalefilosoffen.dk> as soon as possible if you think you will probably attend. Your feedback is non-binding. It is only to help us estimate the total number of participants so that we may look for suitable facilities.

The costs will be kept as low as possible to cover rental of facilities, lunch, tee and coffee and perhaps some fruit and biscuits. Dinner will have to be paid for seperately - it will not be included in the participation fee. As soon as we have the details in place, we will inform all those who have reported their interest, and set a deadline for final registration.

If you are interested in doing one of the three short presentations, please get back to any one of us as soon as possible. We will then choose among the suggested topics and let you know as soon as possible who has been selected.

"If you are interested in doing one of the three short presentations, please get back to any one of us as soon as possible. We will then choose among the suggested topics and let you know as soon as possible who has been selected."


Looking forward to seeing you!

Best regards,

Henning Herrestad, Norway
Tulsa Jansson, Sweden
Perttu Salovaara, Finland
Pia Hverven Axell, Norway on behalf of Frida, Iceland
Marie Lund, Denmark
 

Conference Announcement and 2nd Call for Papers:

2ND COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE IN EPISTEMOLOGY:
THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
AUGUST 19-20, 2010

We tend to think of liberal democracy as providing the most ethically defensible way to set up a modern society. A separate yet highly relevant issue is whether liberal democracies also are preferable from an epistemological perspective, i.e., from the point of view of promoting true over false belief, knowledge over ignorance, and so on.
The purpose of this conference -- and of the research project that it is part of -- is to investigate the norms, practices, and institutions that determine how belief and knowledge is acquired and transmitted in liberal democracies. Questions to be addressed include but are not limited to the following:

- Under what conditions is free speech a truth-conducive social arrangement?
- When can we trust each others' testimony?
- What is the proper response to disagreement, including disagreements among experts?
- What is the proper role of scientific expertise in democratic decision making?
- How is the need for expertise to be balanced against the desire for adequate representation?
- What are the epistemological properties of social deliberation?

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Speakers include David Estlund (Brown), David Christensen (Brown), Jerry Gaus (Arizona), Stephan Hartmann (Tilburg), Rainer Hegselmann (Bayreuth), Vincent Hendricks (Copenhagen), Michael Lynch (UConn), and Erik J. Olsson (Lund).

CALL FOR PAPERS
We cordially invite you to submit a 500 word abstract on any topic relevant to the conference theme. Please prepare your abstract for anonymous review. Abstracts should be submitted (as a plain text, MS Word, or PDF file) to cph.epistemology(at)gmail.com no later than April 1, 2010. Decisions regarding acceptance will be made within two weeks.

REGISTRATION
To register, please e-mail kappel(at)hum.ku.dk with your name and affiliation. There will be a registration fee of 200 DKK ($40, or €25) for faculty, and 100 DKK ($20, or €12) for students. There will also be an option to attend the conference dinner on the evening of August 19 at a cost of 400 DKK ($80, or €50). Please indicate in your registration if you wish to attend. All fees are due in full on the first day of the
conference.

ORGANIZERS
The conference is organized by the Social Epistemology Research Group (SERG) at the University of Copenhagen as part of the research project, the Epistemology of Liberal Democracy: Truth, Free Speech and Disagreement, conducted with generous support from the Velux Foundation.

WEB PAGE
http://epistemology.ku.dk/
 

Faculty of Theology
University of Copenhagen

NOTICE
1 Post-doc scholarship open at the Centre for Naturalism & Christian Semantics (CNCS).

Subject to the necessary grant, the Centre for Naturalism & Christian Semantics at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Copenhagen gives notice of a Post-doc scholarship.

The scholarship is for two years and is planned to start on 1^st February, 2010. Applications are invited for research on naturalistic challenges to central Christian ideas of God and human nature. Preference will be given to research proposals that evidence a philosophical capacity to investigate scientific and theological explanations of the evolution of human cognition, including ideas of divinity.

Appointment as a post.doc researcher requires academic qualifications at PhD level. Applications must include documentation on the applicant’s education, employment, research contribution, and teaching experience. A complete, numbered list of publications must be included. Up to five publications that the application particularly relies upon should be stated. The applicant cannot require the panel of evaluators to ignore the applicant’s other publications.
The publications cited must be sent with the application. If the panel of evaluators finds it necessary to look at other material, the applicant will be informed and required to send what is requested. If material is enclosed that is the product of group work, the extent and character of the applicant’s share in each text must be made clear in the application.

All material must be sent in four copies.

The appointment and salary will be in accordance with the agreement on state-employed academics in force between the Ministry of Finance and the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC), and the salary will be determined by seniority plus an annual superannuable assistant professor supplement of DKK 45,793.53 (as per 1^st April 2007).

After the deadline for applications, a panel of qualified judges will be established. Applicants will be informed who is on the panel. When the panel has made its decision, every applicant will be sent that part of the evaluation that concerns him or her. Before the faculty (the Dean) can make a decision on the appointment, a meeting must be held with one (or possibly several) of the applicants that the panel has judged to be qualified. At the meeting (or meetings) the faculty will be represented by the Dean, the Chairman of the assessment panel, and the Head of the Centre.

Any questions can be addressed by telephone to Niels Christian Tolvang-Nielsen on (+45) 3532 3605 or to Prof. Niels Henrik Gregersen on (+45) 3532 3681/nhg(a)teol.ku.dk. Information about the Centre is available on www.teol.ku.dk/cncs. Further information on the place of work can be found on the Faculty’s website at http://www.teol.ku.dk/

Applications must have been received by the Faculty of Theology by 12 noon on 1^st December, 2009 marked 211-0044/09-1110.
 
 

COPENHAGEN EPISTEMOLOGY WORKSHOP
University of Copenhagen
October 29

*Schedule*:

10.00-10.30: Coffee

10.30-12.00: Adam Carter (Edinburgh/Geneva):
Knowledge, Testimony and Philosophical Expertise

12.00-13.15: Lunch

13.15-14.45 Matthew S. Liao (Oxford):
Disagreeing with Peers

14.45-15.00: Break

15.00-16.30: Peter Graham (UC Riverside):
Reliability and Entitlement

16.30-16.45: Break

16.45-18.15: Mikkel Gerken (SERG, Copenhagen):
Univocal Reasoning and Inferential Presuppositions


*Venue*: Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen (Amager), Room
14.2.50

*Registration and enquiries*: There is no registration fee. However, if you would like to attend the workshop—or have any enquiries concerning the event—please contact Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen (nikolaj(at)ucla.edu).


*Abstracts*

Speaker: Adam Carter (Edinburgh/Geneva)
Title: Knowledge, Testimony and Philosophical Expertise
Abstract: It is widely thought that one could come to gain knowledge on some scientific matter simply by consulting an expert—namely a scientist. That this is so owes at least in part to the fact that science is a subject matter that admits of expertise; not all scientific opinions are of equal worth. Presumably, (or so we’d like to think), the same holds in the area of philosophy, where likewise (we suppose) not all opinions are of equal worth. But on a given philosophical matter—say the matter of “what constitutes the good life”—can one come to gain the relevant item of knowledge simply by consulting an expert—namely (in this case) by seeking the testimony of a moral philosopher? It doesn’t seem so. At the very least, we’d be inclined to say that one’s inquiry into philosophical questions—unlike one’s inquiry into (for example) scientific questions—could not rightly be said to end at the testimony of an expert. Why exactly is this? A more general tension emerges between three intuitive, but jointly inconsistent claims:

(1) For any subject area S that admits of expertise, one can come to gain knowledge of (at least some) S-questions simply by consulting the testimony of S-experts.

(2) Philosophy is a subject area that admits of expertise.

(3) One can’t come to gain knowledge of philosophical questions simply by consulting the testimony of philosophical ‘experts.’

The aim of my paper will be to resolve this triad of inconsistent claims, and in a way that does not require a denial of philosophical expertise.

Speaker: Matthew S. Liao (Oxford)
Title: Disagreeing with Peers
Abstract: What should you do in a case of disagreement with an epistemic peer? Are you epistemically justified in sticking to your guns or does the mere fact of the peer disagreement require at least some belief revision on your part? In this paper, I argue that one should distinguish between two kinds of peer disagreements: Surface Disagreements and Reflective Disagreements. I first argue that in Surface Disagreements, belief revision is required. But the explanation I offer as to why belief revision is required is, as I shall explain, different from the explanation given in the literature. Next, I argue that in Reflective Disagreements, you can stick to your guns. I first consider and reject what I call the Downgrade View, according to which, you can stick to your guns because you can downgrade the status of your epistemic peer. I then sketch and defend what I call the Set Aside View, according to which, you can stick to your guns because you can set aside the fact that your peer disagrees with you.

Speaker: Peter Graham (University of California, Riverside)
Title: Reliability and Entitlement
Abstract: Reliability theories of epistemic entitlement face two familiar counterexamples: the brain-in-a-vat and clairvoyant powers cases. To avoid these cases, reliability theorists restrict entitlement conferring reliability to reliability in certain circumstances. The BIV’s processes are reliable in C, but clairvoyant powers are not reliable in C. The challenge is to come up with the correct C, to explain why entitlement should turn on reliability in C. By adding a few tools to the reliabilist toolbox, the challenge can be met. By adding the etiological notions of function, normal functioning and normal conditions, we can avoid the cases while explaining why reliability should turn on reliability in normal conditions.

Speaker: Mikkel Gerken (SERG, Copenhagen)
Title: Univocal Reasoning and Inferential Presuppositions
Abstract: I pursue an answer to the psychological question “what is it for S to presuppose that p?” I will not attempt a general answer. Rather, I will explore a particular kind of presuppositions that are constituted by the mental act of reasoning: Inferential presuppositions. Indeed, I will consider a specific kind of inferential presuppositions – one that is constituted by a specific reasoning competence: The univocality competence. Roughly, this is the competence that reliably governs the univocal thought-components operation as univocal in a line of reasoning. I will argue that the exercise of this reasoning competence constitutes certain inferential presuppositions. More specifically, I conceive of a conception of an inferential presupposition as a non-attitudinal but genuinely psychological and rationally committing relation that holds between a reasoner and a proposition. Thus, inferential presuppositions may be distinguished from tacit or standing attitudes of the sort that may function as
premise-beliefs in reasoning. Likewise inferential presuppositions may be distinguished distinct from other kinds of presuppositions. Finally, I note some epistemological features of inferential presuppositions that bear on the epistemology of inference.
 

Inaugural seminar of Nordic Network for German Idealism

 

University of Aarhus, Department of Philosophy

10th of March 2009

Studenternes Hus, Mødelokale 2

 

Hegel's Concept of Spirit

 

9.30 -10.00 Welcome and presentation of Nordic Network for German
Idealism (Anders Moe Rasmussen - University of Aarhus)

 

10.00-11.00 Geist und Erkennen. Anerkennung und rationale
rechtfertigung in Hegel's Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807) (Kenneth
Westphal - University of Kent)

 

11.00-11.15 Coffee Break

 

11.15-12.15 Sociality of Reason: Realism vs. Constructivism (Arto
Laitinen - University of Helsinki)

 

12.15-13.15 Lunch

 

13.15-14.15 Der Begriff der Erfahrung in Hegel's Phänomenologie des
Geistes (Dina Emundts - Humboldt Universität, Berlin)

 

14.15-15.15 Forcing Understanding; Understanding Forces - The Pre-text
of Self-Consciousness in Hegel's Phenomenology (Thomas Schwarz Wentzer
- University of Aarhus)

 

15.15-15.30 Coffee Break

 

15.30-16.30 Geometry of the Spirit (Aleš Bunta - University of
Ljubljana)

 

16.30-          Reception in 'Richard Mortensen stuen'

 

 

The conference and the reception are open for all and free of charge.