I look forward to exploring this:
Sage, indeed ….
We recently received some exciting news this week, one of our editors, Professor Randall Curren has been appointed to the position of ‘Professor of Moral and Virtue Education’ by the University of Birmingham. This post is the first of its kind in the UK and is also the first professorship ever established by the Royal Institute of Philosophy. In this role, Professor Curren will collaborate with and offer guidance to the multidisciplinary research teams in The Jubilee Centre for Character and Values at the University of Birmingham. The centre was established in May 2012 in the aftermath of the London Riots.
The teams at the centre are investigating the understanding and role of character and virtue education in British schools, the role of ethical values in decision making in the professions, and public understanding and valuing of gratitude.
Professor Curren is currently Professor in Philosophy and has a secondary professorship…
View original post 35 more words
This essay asks some good questions:
• Who decides that the research has had impact and how?
• Who gets to tell the story of events, to whom and with what effects?
• In whose interests is this?
• Where is mess in the impact story?
• Who is the hero/heroine of this plan/case? Does the research impact plan/case HAVE to have one?
My favorite is the one about the mess!
I often notice that simple things make my life better. For instance, when I fall asleep early, the world seems a little better when I awake. How much more notable, then, is the fact that I usually fight sleep, as if the worst thing in the world would be to fall asleep early, lest I miss something? Not letting myself enjoy the simple things — a problem that itself seems susceptible to a simple solution — makes my life worse.
Today, then, I issue myself a challenge: find simple ways to stop making your life worse. Then, do those things, rather than fighting them!
Steve Fuller sent me this review of Evgeny Morozov’s latest book:
Of note was the comparison of Morozov with Oakeshott:
It remains unclear just how far Morozov would go to defeat “the cult of efficiency” that he says haunts us. Would he join Oakeshott in insisting that “the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be expected to be on the whole beneficial, rests with the would-be innovator”—in other words, applying the precautionary principle to technological change? Morozov’s solutionism of “erratic appliances” and “technological troublemakers” would certainly constitute a preemptive, precautionary approach to digital regulation, should anyone attempt to apply them.
I haven’t read the book, yet. But this review makes me want to do so. Even if I don’t agree with Morozov’s conclusions — and I’m not saying I don’t or won’t — he seems to be asking some of the right questions.
Here’s an exchange with Adam Briggle, Steve Fuller, and Veronika Lipinska regarding the proactionary and precautionary principles.
Author Information: Adam Briggle, University of North Texas, firstname.lastname@example.org; Steve Fuller, University of Warwick, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology, S.W.Fuller@warwick.ac.uk; J. Britt Holbrook, University of North Texas, email@example.com; Veronika Lipinska, Lund University, Sweden, SERRC,firstname.lastname@example.org
Briggle, Adam, Steve Fuller, Britt Holbrook and Veronika Lipinska. 2013. “Exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s ‘Knowing and Acting’”. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5) 38-44.
Please refer to: Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making.”Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15-37.
Editor’s Note: The following e-mail exchange on Holbrook and Briggle’s “Knowing and Acting” (published on the SERRC as a pre-print on 16 April 2013) took place from 20 to 22 March 2013. The participants are J. Britt Holbrook, Adam Briggle, Veronika…
View original post 3,531 more words
This is a preprint of a paper I’m working on with my colleague Adam Briggle. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Holbrook, J. Britt and Adam Briggle. 2013. “Knowing and acting: The precautionary and proactionary principles in relation to policy making.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5): 15-37.
This essay explores the relationship between knowledge (in the form of scientific risk assessment) and action (in the form of technological innovation) as they come together in policy, which itself is both a kind of knowing and acting. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue…
View original post 9,287 more words