Mechanisms to engage lay citizens in science and technology are currently in vogue worldwide. While some engagement exercises aim to influence policy making, research suggests that they have had little discernable impacts in this regard. We explore the potentials and challenges of facilitating citizen engagement in nanotechnology from the “topdown,” addressing the following questions: Can academics and others within institutions initiate meaningful engagement with unorganized lay citizens from the top-down? Can they facilitate effective engagement among citizens, scientists, and policy makers (...) while building citizen engagement capacities? Is it possible to create independent bottom-up citizen engagement in scientific and technological issues from the top-down, and what are the challenges in doing so? Our experiences show that although academics can build citizens' individual, collective, and political capacities to engage with each other, scientists, and policy makers, this work is enormously time and energy intensive, and institutional support is needed to sustain it. (shrink)

In this paper we seek to draw attention to some striking and heretofore unnoticed textual connections between Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature. We find significant textual parallels between the parable of the poor man's son of TMS 4.1 and the famous conclusion to Book 1 of Hume's Treatise. These passages are often regarded as especially intense and moving parts of their respective works. We explore the nature and substance of these connections (...) and comment on their larger significance. The nature of the connections suggests that Smith consciously engaged Hume in his work through philosophical conversation. We suggest that these related passages show both Hume and Smith exploring and developing a particular dialectic between contemplation and action in human life. Both move to invert the classical relationship between contemplation and action through what we call the elevated imagination. (shrink)

Dans le cadre d'une réflexion sur l'expérience de la vérité, l'évocation de la crise moderniste rappelle ou précise des enjeux dont l'acuité explique, pour une part, la convocation du Concile Vatican Il. Sans nier les « avancées salutaires » de ce concile, l'auteur pose en point de départ de sa réflexion la question : Peut-on dire que le concile n'a pas empêché le retour au sein de l'Église catholique d'un « antimodernisme » ? Examinant tour à tour le rapport de (...) la vérité révélée et de la méthodologie scientifique, le problème du pluralisme dans l'Église catholique et le rapport entre dogme et herméneutique, il aboutit à une réflexion sur ce qui constitue aujourd'hui, et constituera de plus en plus, la situation du chrétien par rapport à la vérité de sa propre foi qu'il expérimentera dans un monde interreligieux; ce qui ne peut que confirmer une inévitable tension: « L'expérience effective de la vérité est celle d'une recherche méthodique, mais elle est aussi celle de l'acquiescement à un don. »In the realm of a reflection on the experience of truth, the evocation of the modernist crisis is brought to mind and focuses on what is at stake, the acuteness which explains, for one thing, the convocation of Vatican Council II. Without denying the « salutary advances » of that council, the author begins his reflection with the question : « Can one say that the council did not forestall the return, in the heart of the Catholic Church, to an «anti modernism» ? The author examines one after the other the relationship of revealed truth and scientific methodology, the problem of pluralism in the Catholic Church, and the relationship between dogma and hermeneutics. He arrives at a reflection on that which constitutes today, and will constitute more and more, the situation of the Christian in relation to the truth of his own faith, which he will experience in an irreligious world. This can only confirm an inevitable tension : «The effective expe7ience of the truth is that of a methodological research, but is also that of accepting a gift». ». (shrink)

Cet article pointe certains rapprochements entre la pensée d’Emmanuel Levinas et celle de Svetlana Alexievitch, à qui fut décerné le prix Nobel de littérature en 2015, et tout particulièrement à mettre au jour leur hostilité à l’histoire entendue comme histoire officielle des vainqueurs et la « résistance éthique », au sens que Levinas donne à cette expression, c’est-à-dire à l’immense difficulté pour un être humain d’en tuer un autre, quelles que soient les conditions dans lesquelles s’effectue cet acte.