Hub Zwart – författare

This summons clearly resonates with the “archetypical image” associated with water as a basic element, discussed in Chapter 2, water as the element of freedom, of mobility, of widening one’s horizon. Although Nietzsche himself refrained from doing what he summoned others to do, scientists like Darwin and novelists like Melville actually went to sea. Darwin, although regarded by Nietzsche as an arid 6 and mediocre mind, exposed himself to the experience of a long-term trans-oceanic voyage in the course of which he did discover new worlds, new justifications, new moral watchwords even (“struggle for life”) that were to have a tremendous impact on science, philosophy and even culture at large. Other perspectives are present in Moby-Dick as well, such as the theologian’s one, depicting the whale as the biblical Leviathan and the ocean as that part of the world where the great flood never abated. Indeed, the interpretation of marine p- nomena in Biblical terms is more or less omnipresent in the novel and also resounds in the views and language of the philosophical sailor and story-teller Ishmael. But what about the novelist’s whale? Actually, there is not one novelist’s whale. Ishmael-the-narrator unmistakably sides with the whaler’s point of view, but Melville-the-author is interested in, and tries to do justice to, a plurality of voices.

This summons clearly resonates with the “archetypical image” associated with water as a basic element, discussed in Chapter 2, water as the element of freedom, of mobility, of widening one’s horizon. Although Nietzsche himself refrained from doing what he summoned others to do, scientists like Darwin and novelists like Melville actually went to sea. Darwin, although regarded by Nietzsche as an arid 6 and mediocre mind, exposed himself to the experience of a long-term trans-oceanic voyage in the course of which he did discover new worlds, new justifications, new moral watchwords even (“struggle for life”) that were to have a tremendous impact on science, philosophy and even culture at large. Other perspectives are present in Moby-Dick as well, such as the theologian’s one, depicting the whale as the biblical Leviathan and the ocean as that part of the world where the great flood never abated. Indeed, the interpretation of marine p- nomena in Biblical terms is more or less omnipresent in the novel and also resounds in the views and language of the philosophical sailor and story-teller Ishmael. But what about the novelist’s whale? Actually, there is not one novelist’s whale. Ishmael-the-narrator unmistakably sides with the whaler’s point of view, but Melville-the-author is interested in, and tries to do justice to, a plurality of voices.

This book uniquely presents continental perspectives that tend to be underrepresented in mainstream philosophy of science, yet entail crucial insights for coming to terms with technoscience as it is evolving on a global scale today. This is an open access book.

This book uniquely presents continental perspectives that tend to be underrepresented in mainstream philosophy of science, yet entail crucial insights for coming to terms with technoscience as it is evolving on a global scale today. This is an open access book.

This open access book proposes that Europe has something to offer in the current landscape, namely decades of experience when it comes to addressing societal, ethical, and regulatory challenges of technoscientific change. Science is experiencing unprecedented turbulence as US government officials and Big Tech CEOs actively undermine its authority, particularly when scientific findings conflict with economic interests and power dynamics in polarized policy debates. At this time when Europe is closely monitoring what is happening "across the Pond" and struggles to position itself between giant technoscientific superpowers, researchers from three European projects joined forces to examine Science and Society's role and their interrelationship in addressing global challenges. In this Springer Brief, the authors ask core questions about Trust in Science: Are we indeed facing a trust crisis, as some sources suggest? Should science be trusted, or rather: should trust in science be promoted, and if so on what grounds? If fostering trust in science is a worthwhile and valid objective, how can it be achieved?The authors contend that through participatory research methodologies, "European sciences" have the opportunity to strengthen their responsiveness to societal values, priorities, and concerns."Hub Zwart (1960) studied philosophy and psychology at Radboud University Nijmegen (The Netherlands) and defended his thesis in 1993. In 2000, he became full professor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Science RU Nijmegen. In 2018, he was appointed as the dean of Erasmus School of Philosophy (Erasmus University Rotterdam). He is an editor-in-chief of the Library for Ethics and Applied Philosophy (Springer). His research develops a philosophical (dialectical) perspective on contemporary technoscience. Special attention is devoted to the dialectical relationship between science and genres of the imagination (drama, poetry, cinema, novels, music). In 2017, he published Tales of Research Misconduct (Springer Nature, open access) and in 2022 Continental Philosophy of Technoscience (Springer Nature, open access).

This monograph contributes to the scientific misconduct debate from an oblique perspective, by analysing seven  novels devoted to this issue, namely: Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925), The affair by C.P. Snow (1960), Cantor’s Dilemma by Carl Djerassi (1989), Perlmann’s Silence by Pascal Mercier (1995), Intuition by Allegra Goodman (2006),  Solar by Ian McEwan (2010) and Derailment by Diederik Stapel (2012). Scientific misconduct, i.e. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, but also other questionable research practices, have become a  focus of concern for academic communities worldwide, but also for managers, funders and publishers of research. The aforementioned novels offer intriguing windows into integrity challenges emerging in contemporary research practices. They are analysed from a continental philosophical perspective,  providing a stage where various voices, positions and modes of discourse are mutually exposed to one another, so that they critically address and question one another. They force us to start from the admission that we do not really know what misconduct is. Subsequently, by providing case histories of misconduct, they address integrity challenges not only in terms of individual deviance but also in terms of systemic crisis, due to current transformations in the ways in which knowledge is produced. Rather than functioning as moral vignettes, the author argues that misconduct novels challenge us to reconsider some of the basic conceptual building blocks of integrity discourse.Except where otherwise noted, this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This monograph contributes to the scientific misconduct debate from an oblique perspective, by analysing seven  novels devoted to this issue, namely: Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis (1925), The affair by C.P. Snow (1960), Cantor’s Dilemma by Carl Djerassi (1989), Perlmann’s Silence by Pascal Mercier (1995), Intuition by Allegra Goodman (2006),  Solar by Ian McEwan (2010) and Derailment by Diederik Stapel (2012). Scientific misconduct, i.e. fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, but also other questionable research practices, have become a  focus of concern for academic communities worldwide, but also for managers, funders and publishers of research. The aforementioned novels offer intriguing windows into integrity challenges emerging in contemporary research practices. They are analysed from a continental philosophical perspective,  providing a stage where various voices, positions and modes of discourse are mutually exposed to one another, so that they critically address and question one another. They force us to start from the admission that we do not really know what misconduct is. Subsequently, by providing case histories of misconduct, they address integrity challenges not only in terms of individual deviance but also in terms of systemic crisis, due to current transformations in the ways in which knowledge is produced. Rather than functioning as moral vignettes, the author argues that misconduct novels challenge us to reconsider some of the basic conceptual building blocks of integrity discourse.Except where otherwise noted, this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.