Recent policy debates are commonly framed as questions of “sci-ence” versus “ideology”. This is seen in polemics around issues that can be informed by bio–medical or geo–physical sciences: the coronavirus pandemic and climate change. The paper explores the basis for claims of difference between science and ideology: truth versus delusion; representations of reality and the means for interpreting it; and their relation to conflicting interests. Each of these three characteristics of ideology is explored by relating them to the methods of (...) the sciences. Three questions are derived from that analysis: Does science hide premises or assumptions; or, conversely, does it proceed by unmasking hidden premises in rival scientific positions? Are the facts of science immediately interpretable, or are they embedded in a web of methodological and metaphorical operations? Are the operations of science insulated from human interests, conflicts, and ethical considerations for how one should live? These are then approached through a compressed case study of three phases of medical science: neo– Platonic herbal studies deriving from Paracelsus; the Enlightenment development of clinical medicine; and the development of immunology from the nineteenth to the twenty–first century. The concluding section draws on the case studies to answer the three questions. Each of the key elements of ideology is shown to also be involved in scientific reasoning. The development of medical science demonstrates that semiotic operations characteristic of ideology are also found in good scientific practice. In conclusion, it is proposed that science is better off for having learned from ideology. Critique is an epistemic virtue; images and metaphors enrich scientific thinking; and science will better serve humanity as its connections to the interests of all species, and to the Earth itself, are exposed. (shrink)

Norms applying to food interact with conceptions of nationhood, identity and law. This occurs through gastronomies and ethico-religious standards, recognition and conviviality, and the voice of communities in the sourcing and labelling of their food. Law, nation and identity intersect in the notion of citizenship. The chapter moves from the tight relationships by which persons are constrained within overdetermined categories of state law and national citizenship, to explore the possibilities unleashed by a loosening of the bonds between law, nation and (...) identity. Sections deal in turn with each of these “loosenings”, as we prize apart the knots that bind identity and nation, nation and law, and law and identity, each in relation to the cultural and legal context of food. With these loosenings, the unified jurisdiction of the nation-state gives way to plural and informal law; a single national identity expands into multiple ethical and ethnic associations; identity is no longer determined by state-centred legal interpellation but allows persons to “inhabit” a range of norms. By expanding the scope for participation and interaction in each of these areas, citizenship finds new networks for expansion, enrichment and reflexivity. The full spectrum of social justice can only be addressed by regimes and networks that ensure fair and adequate distribution of food, that respect the cultural demands as well as the biological needs of communities, and that ensure participation, through choices informed by personally relevant criteria and social and political structures. (shrink)

The much-anticipated anthology on Plato’s_Timaeus_—Plato’s singular dialogue on the creation of the universe, the nature of the physical world, and the place of persons in the cosmos—examining all dimensions of one of the most important books in Western Civilization: its philosophy, cosmology, science, and ethics, its literary aspects and reception. Contributions come from leading scholars in their respective fields, including Sir Anthony Leggett, 2003 Nobel Laureate for Physics. Parts of or earlier versions of these papers were first presented at the (...) _Timaeus_ Conference, held at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign in September of 2007._ To this day, Plato’s _Timaeus_ grounds the form of ethical and political thinking called Natural Law—the view that there are norms in nature that provide the patterns for our actions and ground the objectivity of human values. Beyond the intellectual content of the dialogue’s core, its literary frame is also the source of the myth of Atlantis, giving the West the concept of the “lost world.” From Platonic space to Presocratic vortices, from Philosopher-Kings to Craftsman-Gods and from modern physics to the myth of Atlantis, _One Book, The Whole Universe_ presents in one volume the most up-to-date and penetrating scholarship on Plato’s _Timaeus_ by some of the greatest minds alive today. Contributors__ _Ann Bergren Gábor Betegh Sean Carroll Alan Code Zina Giannopoulou Verity Harte Thomas Kjeller Johansen Charles H. Kahn Anthony J. Leggett Anthony A. Long Stephen Menn Richard D. Mohr Kathryn A. Morgan Alexander P.D. Mourelatos Ian Mueller Thomas M. Robinson Barbara M. Sattler Allan Silverman Jon Solomon Anthony Vidler Matthias Vorwerk Donald Zeyl. (shrink)

The paper argues that in the "timaeus" plato views the phenomena in and of themselves as a positive source of evil, moving erratically without psychic causes whether rational or irrational, direct or indirect, and so the paper argues that "timaeus" contradicts the psychic autokenetic doctrine from the "phaedrus" and "laws x". The argument is based on a detailed analysis of "timaeus", 52d-53a and 58a-c, plato's description of chaos an his 'atomic' theory.

Shocks from disasters challenge the normality of everyday life. Emotional and political reactions include anxiety and blame, but these must come together with knowledge through shared discourse to formulate responses, often immediate. The study draws on a phenomenological analysis of personal experience and discursive reactions to fires and the pandemic. It is informed by ethical and social approaches to epistemology and discourse, drawing on sociology of knowledge and studies of rhetoric. From this it is concluded that facts are agreed elements (...) for debate, as in the legal tradition, rather than guarantees of certainty. Knowledge relevant to disaster discourse arises through shared experience and robust communicative institutions, from the local to the scientific, and including the wisdom of First Nations. Disasters are uncanny because they defy everyday know-how. In disrupting the relationship of people to their milieu, they require a new accommodation among and between human and non-human actors. (shrink)