On the final Friday each month, you are welcome to join us here at NMBU, in our library, for informal philosophy discussion. Bring your lunch, and we will contribute with coffee, home-baked cookies, a thought-provoking topic and a suitable guest!
Time and place: 12:15 – 14:00 in the University Library in the Tower Building, 1st floor.
November 25, 2016
Our event for November will be an open round-table discussion on the theme,
Experimentation, the prime method for testing hypotheses in scientific inquiry, is based on control over variables, careful measurements, and establishing cause-effect relationships. Different scientific disciplines use diverse approaches to experimentation: from use of models to reality measurements. Yet, are there some universal issues/difficulties of this practice that can be discussed across disciplines?
We will look for common themes across different types of experimentation: mouse modeling (Preben Boysen, mattrygghet og infeksjonsbiologi), field work in experimental economics (Stein Holden, HandelsHøyskolen), clinical trials in medicine (Elena Rocca & Samantha Copeland, the CauseHealth project).
Don´t miss this chance to meet other researchers at NMBU and hear what they are dealing with!
Pics from past Philosophy Fridays in the NMBU library!
Who are we?
The philosophy discussion will be led and introduced by a team of local philosophers (and one scientist) in addition to the invited guest.
Rani Lill Anjum is a philosopher obsessed with causes and effects. She couldn’t help but see that causation is all around: genes, free will, health, sport, pollution, law and even in quantum physics (although not many seem to agree on the latter).
Elena Rocca is a lab-rat who discovered the hard way that the outside world is different from the lab. She has now taken on the philosophical burden of finding out how to deal scientifically with real-life complexities.
Samantha Copeland, also known as ‘Serendipity Sam’, is an expert on discoveries made by accident, but which still result in great scientific progress. That’s cause for optimism for everyone producing negative results!
Fredrik Andersen is a philosopher who is more than averagely interested in time and space in physics. He is known for fearlessly questioning our most established views in science.
Hilde Kristin Langsholt is a librarian with a heart and head for philosophy. She is our practical guide to reality and makes sure that the philosophers have a public arena at NMBU.
Don’t miss out on Philosophy Friday!
Sign up for our mailing list by sending an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and you will be the first to know the topic!
You can also like our Facebook page!
Previous Philosophy Fridays:
October 28, 2016 We had our first roundtable discussion, with the topic “How risky is it, really”? The concept of risk affects our behaviours and choices as individuals and as society. How do we calculate it, perceive it, communicate it? Is there such a thing as “real risk” at all, or is it created by human culture and perception? The discussion was facilitated by the CauseHealth crowd as well as by NMBU researchers who tackle the issue of “risk” from different angles: Yevgeniya Tomkiv (CERAD), Andrei Florin Marin (NORAGRIC), John McNeish (NORAGRIC), Federico Cammelli (HH), and Espen Haug (HH).
May 27, 2016 Our guest for May was a researcher in ethics at NTNU in Gjøvik and at the University of Oslo Institute for Health and Society, Bjørn Hofmann. He generated a discussion with us about scientific dishonesty. A recent survey analysed by our guest has shown that many PhD students think that it’s acceptable, for example, to publish results from research they haven’t yet conducted. We read about researchers who fabricate results or exaggerate their conclusions in the newspapers. What do you think? What happens to our society if we can no longer trust our scientists? Why do new researchers cheat or lie about their experimental results, and should our institutions try harder to prevent this from happening? Dr. Hofmann presented us with examples and reflections from his own research, and the group as a whole engaged the problem of scientific dishonesty and discussed what we, as researchers, think we ought to do about it.
April 29, 2016: We looked at the relevance of scientific research for our everyday lives. How direct is the connection from science to society? What does it mean when the government claims to base new policy on scientific evidence? Starting from the specific case of cancer research, we discussd the influence of new evidence on concepts of illness and “medicalisation”. Moreover, we talked about social and global justice around cancer research and care. For instance, how do we make decisions about which cancer patients get drugs?
Our guest, Anne Blanchard from the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities at the University of Bergen, introduced some reflections about the cultural meaning of cancer in today’s society, and how it is influenced by uncertainties in the lab. What followed was an engaging and dynamic discussion about medicalization, priorities in health care and research, and what to do about uncertainty!
February 26 2016: We looked closely at a topic relevant to us all—how to make decisions that match with our values in today’s consumer society. We asked the tough questions: what is the difference between morality and ethics? Should we side with the real or the ideal when making decisions?
Our first guest, Anne Rose Røsbak Feragen from Activa Humanistisk Akademi, supplied us with some philosophical tools for thinking about the hard decisions that come with our desire to be thoughtful consumers and producers of the products in our world, and, over cookies and coffee, we talked about how to apply those tools in our everyday lives.