Table of contentsI1 Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research IntegrityConcurrent Sessions:1. Countries' systems and policies to foster research integrityCS01.1 Second time around: Implementing and embedding a review of responsible conduct of research policy and practice in an Australian research-intensive universitySusan Patricia O'BrienCS01.2 Measures to promote research integrity in a university: the case of an Asian universityDanny Chan, Frederick Leung2. Examples of research integrity education programmes in different countriesCS02.1 Development of a state-run “cyber education program of research ethics” in (...) KoreaEun Jung Ko, Jin Sun Kwak, TaeHwan Gwon, Ji Min Lee, Min-Ho LeeCS02.3 Responsible conduct of research teachers’ training courses in Germany: keeping on drilling through hard boards for more RCR teachersHelga Nolte, Michael Gommel, Gerlinde Sponholz3. The research environment and policies to encourage research integrityCS03.1 Challenges and best practices in research integrity: bridging the gap between policy and practiceYordanka Krastev, Yamini Sandiran, Julia Connell, Nicky SolomonCS03.2 The Slovenian initiative for better research: from national activities to global reflectionsUrsa Opara Krasovec, Renata SribarCS03.3 Organizational climate assessments to support research integrity: background of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate and the experience with its use at Michigan State UniversityBrian C. Martinson, Carol R. Thrush, C.K. Gunsalus4. Expressions of concern and retractionsCS04.1 Proposed guidelines for retraction notices and their disseminationIvan Oransky, Adam MarcusCS04.2 Watching retractions: analysis of process and practice, with data from the Wiley retraction archivesChris Graf, Verity Warne, Edward Wates, Sue JoshuaCS04.3 An exploratory content analysis of Expressions of ConcernMiguel RoigCS04.4 An ethics researcher in the retraction processMichael Mumford5. Funders' role in fostering research integrityCS05.1 The Fonds de Recherche du Québec’s institutional rules on the responsible conduct of research: introspection in the funding agency activitiesMylène Deschênes, Catherine Olivier, Raphaëlle Dupras-LeducCS05.2 U.S. Public Health Service funds in an international setting: research integrity and complianceZoë Hammatt, Raju Tamot, Robin Parker, Cynthia Ricard, Loc Nguyen-Khoa, Sandra TitusCS05.3 Analyzing decision making of funders of public research as a case of information asymmetryKarsten Klint JensenCS05.4 Research integrity management: Empirical investigation of academia versus industrySimon Godecharle, Ben Nemery, Kris Dierickx5A: Education: For whom, how, and what?CS05A.1 Research integrity or responsible conduct of research? What do we aim for?Mickey Gjerris, Maud Marion Laird Eriksen, Jeppe Berggren HoejCS05A.2 Teaching and learning about RCR at the same time: a report on Epigeum’s RCR poll questions and other assessment activitiesNicholas H. SteneckCS05A.4 Minding the gap in research ethics education: strategies to assess and improve research competencies in community health workers/promoteresCamille Nebeker, Michael Kalichman, Elizabeth Mejia Booen, Blanca Azucena Pacheco, Rebeca Espinosa Giacinto, Sheila Castaneda6. Country examples of research reward systems and integrityCS06.1 Improving systems to promote responsible research in the Chinese Academy of SciencesDing Li, Qiong Chen, Guoli Zhu, Zhonghe SunCS06.4 Exploring the perception of research integrity amongst public health researchers in IndiaParthasarathi Ganguly, Barna Ganguly7. Education and guidance on research integrity: country differencesCS07.1 From integrity to unity: how research integrity guidance differs across universities in Europe.Noémie Aubert Bonn, Kris Dierickx, Simon GodecharleCS07.2 Can education and training develop research integrity? The spirit of the UNESCO 1974 recommendation and its updatingDaniele Bourcier, Jacques Bordé, Michèle LeducCS07.3 The education and implementation mechanisms of research ethics in Taiwan's higher education: an experience in Chinese web-based curriculum development for responsible conduct of researchChien Chou, Sophia Jui-An PanCS07.4 Educating principal investigators in Swiss research institutions: present and future perspectivesLouis Xaver Tiefenauer8. Measuring and rewarding research productivityCS08.1 Altimpact: how research integrity underpins research impactDaniel Barr, Paul TaylorCS08.2 Publication incentives: just reward or misdirection of funds?Lyn Margaret HornCS08.3 Why Socrates never charged a fee: factors contributing to challenges for research integrity and publication ethicsDeborah Poff9. Plagiarism and falsification: Behaviour and detectionCS09.1 Personality traits predict attitude towards plagiarism of self and others in biomedicine: plagiarism, yes we can?Martina Mavrinac, Gordana Brumini, Mladen PetrovečkiCS09.2 Investigating the concept of and attitudes toward plagiarism for science teachers in Brazil: any challenges for research integrity and policy?Christiane Coelho Santos, Sonia VasconcelosCS09.3 What have we learnt?: The CrossCheck Service from CrossRefRachael LammeyCS09.4 High p-values as a sign of data fabrication/falsificationChris Hartgerink, Marcel van Assen, Jelte Wicherts10. Codes for research integrity and collaborationsCS10.1 Research integrity in cross-border cooperation: a Nordic exampleHanne Silje HaugeCS10.3 Research integrity, research misconduct, and the National Science Foundation's requirement for the responsible conduct of researchAaron MankaCS10.4 A code of conduct for international scientific cooperation: human rights and research integrity in scientific collaborations with international academic and industry partnersRaffael Iturrizaga11. Countries' efforts to establish mentoring and networksCS11.1 ENRIO : a network facilitating common approaches on research integrity in EuropeNicole FoegerCS11.2 Helping junior investigators develop in a resource-limited country: a mentoring program in PeruA. Roxana Lescano, Claudio Lanata, Gissella Vasquez, Leguia Mariana, Marita Silva, Mathew Kasper, Claudia Montero, Daniel Bausch, Andres G LescanoCS11.3 Netherlands Research Integrity Network: the first six monthsFenneke Blom, Lex BouterCS11.4 A South African framework for research ethics and integrity for researchers, postgraduate students, research managers and administratorsLaetus OK Lategan12. Training and education in research integrity at an early career stageCS12.1 Research integrity in curricula for medical studentsGustavo Fitas ManaiaCS12.2 Team-based learning for training in the responsible conduct of research supports ethical decision-makingWayne T. McCormack, William L. Allen, Shane Connelly, Joshua Crites, Jeffrey Engler, Victoria Freedman, Cynthia W. Garvan, Paul Haidet, Joel Hockensmith, William McElroy, Erik Sander, Rebecca Volpe, Michael F. VerderameCS12.4 Research integrity and career prospects of junior researchersSnezana Krstic13. Systems and research environments in institutionsCS13.1 Implementing systems in research institutions to improve quality and reduce riskLouise HandyCS13.2 Creating an institutional environment that supports research integrityDebra Schaller-DemersCS13.3 Ethics and Integrity Development Grants: a mechanism to foster cultures of ethics and integrityPaul Taylor, Daniel BarrCS13.4 A culture of integrity at KU LeuvenInge Lerouge, Gerard Cielen, Liliane Schoofs14. Peer review and its role in research integrityCS14.1 Peer review research across disciplines: transdomain action in the European Cooperation in Science and Technology “New Frontiers of Peer Review ”Ana Marusic, Flaminio SquazzoniCS14.2 Using blinding to reduce bias in peer reviewDavid VauxCS14.3 How to intensify the role of reviewers to promote research integrityKhalid Al-Wazzan, Ibrahim AlorainyCS14.4 Credit where credit’s due: professionalizing and rewarding the role of peer reviewerChris Graf, Verity Warne15. Research ethics and oversight for research integrity: Does it work?CS15.1 The psychology of decision-making in research ethics governance structures: a theory of bounded rationalityNolan O'Brien, Suzanne Guerin, Philip DoddCS15.2 Investigator irregularities: iniquity, ignorance or incompetence?Frank Wells, Catherine BlewettCS15.3 Academic plagiarismFredric M. Litto16. Research integrity in EuropeCS16.1 Whose responsibility is it anyway?: A comparative analysis of core concepts and practice at European research-intensive universities to identify and develop good practices in research integrityItziar De Lecuona, Erika Löfstrom, Katrien MaesCS16.2 Research integrity guidance in European research universitiesKris Dierickx, Noémie Bonn, Simon GodecharleCS16.3 Research Integrity: processes and initiatives in Science Europe member organisationsTony Peatfield, Olivier Boehme, Science Europe Working Group on Research IntegrityCS16.4 Promoting research integrity in Italy: the experience of the Research Ethics and Bioethics Advisory Committee of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Cinzia Caporale, Daniele Fanelli17. Training programs for research integrity at different levels of experience and seniorityCS17.1 Meaningful ways to incorporate research integrity and the responsible conduct of research into undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral and faculty training programsJohn Carfora, Eric Strauss, William LynnCS17.2 "Recognize, respond, champion": Developing a one-day interactive workshop to increase confidence in research integrity issuesDieter De Bruyn, Bracke Nele, Katrien De Gelder, Stefanie Van der BurghtCS17.4 “Train the trainer” on cultural challenges imposed by international research integrity conversations: lessons from a projectJosé Roberto Lapa e Silva, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos18. Research and societal responsibilityCS18.1 Promoting the societal responsibility of research as an integral part of research integrityHelene IngierdCS18.2 Social responsibility as an ethical imperative for scientists: research, education and service to societyMark FrankelCS18.3 The intertwined nature of social responsibility and hope in scienceDaniel Vasgird, Stephanie BirdCS18.4 Common barriers that impede our ability to create a culture of trustworthiness in the research communityMark Yarborough19. Publication ethicsCS19.1 The authors' forum: A proposed tool to improve practices of journal editors and promote a responsible research environmentIbrahim Alorainy, Khalid Al-WazzanCS19.2 Quantifying research integrity and its impact with text analyticsHarold GarnerCS19.3 A closer look at authorship and publication ethics of multi- and interdisciplinary teamsLisa Campo-Engelstein, Zubin Master, Elise Smith, David Resnik, Bryn Williams-JonesCS19.4 Invisibility of duplicate publications in biomedicineMario Malicki, Ana Utrobicic, Ana Marusic20. The causes of bad and wasteful research: What can we do?CS20.1 From countries to individuals: unravelling the causes of bias and misconduct with multilevel meta-meta-analysisDaniele Fanelli, John PA IoannidisCS20.2 Reducing research waste by integrating systems of oversight and regulationGerben ter Riet, Tom Walley, Lex Marius BouterCS20.3 What are the determinants of selective reporting?: The example of palliative care for non-cancer conditionsJenny van der Steen, Lex BouterCS20.4 Perceptions of plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundancy in research: preliminary results from a national survey of Brazilian PhDsSonia Vasconcelos, Martha Sorenson, Francisco Prosdocimi, Hatisaburo Masuda, Edson Watanabe, José Carlos Pinto, Marisa Palácios, José Lapa e Silva, Jacqueline Leta, Adalberto Vieyra, André Pinto, Mauricio Sant’Ana, Rosemary Shinkai21. Are there country-specific elements of misconduct?CS21.1 The battle with plagiarism in Russian science: latest developmentsBoris YudinCS21.2 Researchers between ethics and misconduct: A French survey on social representations of misconduct and ethical standards within the scientific communityEtienne Vergès, Anne-Sophie Brun-Wauthier, Géraldine VialCS21.3 Experience from different ways of dealing with research misconduct and promoting research integrity in some Nordic countriesTorkild VintherCS21.4 Are there specifics in German research misconduct and the ways to cope with it?Volker Bähr, Charité22. Research integrity teaching programmes and their challengesCS22.1 Faculty mentors and research integrityMichael Kalichman, Dena PlemmonsCS22.2 Training the next generation of scientists to use principles of research quality assurance to improve data integrity and reliabilityRebecca Lynn Davies, Katrina LaubeCS22.3 Fostering research integrity in a culturally-diverse environmentCynthia Scheopner, John GallandCS22.4 Towards a standard retraction formHervé Maisonneuve, Evelyne Decullier23. Commercial research and integrityCS23.1 The will to commercialize: matters of concern in the cultural economy of return-on-investment researchBrian NobleCS23.2 Quality in drug discovery data reporting: a mission impossible?Anja Gilis, David J. Gallacher, Tom Lavrijssen, Malwitz David, Malini Dasgupta, Hans MolsCS23.3 Instituting a research integrity policy in the context of semi-private-sector funding: an example in the field of occupational health and safetyPaul-Emile Boileau24. The interface of publication ethics and institutional policiesCS24.1 The open access ethical paradox in an open government effortTony SavardCS24.2 How journals and institutions can work together to promote responsible conductEric MahCS24.3 Improving cooperation between journals and research institutions in research integrity casesElizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert25. Reproducibility of research and retractionsCS25.1 Promoting transparency in publications to reduce irreproducibilityVeronique Kiermer, Andrew Hufton, Melanie ClyneCS25.2 Retraction notices issued for publications by Latin American authors: what lessons can we learn?Sonia Vasconcelos, Renan Moritz Almeida, Aldo Fontes-Pereira, Fernanda Catelani, Karina RochaCS25.3 A preliminary report of the findings from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer biologyElizabeth Iorns, William Gunn26. Research integrity and specific country initiativesCS26.1 Promoting research integrity at CNRS, FranceMichèle Leduc, Lucienne LetellierCS26.2 In pursuit of compliance: is the tail wagging the dog?Cornelia MalherbeCS26.3 Newly established research integrity policies and practices: oversight systems of Japanese research universitiesTakehito Kamata27. Responsible conduct of research and country guidelinesCS27.1 Incentives or guidelines? Promoting responsible research communication through economic incentives or ethical guidelines?Vidar EnebakkCS27.3 Responsible conduct of research: a view from CanadaLynn PenrodCS27.4 The Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: a national initiative to promote research integrity in DenmarkThomas Nørgaard, Charlotte Elverdam28. Behaviour, trust and honestyCS28.1 The reasons behind non-ethical behaviour in academiaYves FassinCS28.2 The psychological profile of the dishonest scholarCynthia FekkenCS28.3 Considering the implications of Dan Ariely’s keynote speech at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in MontréalJamal Adam, Melissa S. AndersonCS28.4 Two large surveys on psychologists’ views on peer review and replicationJelte WichertsBrett Buttliere29. Reporting and publication bias and how to overcome itCS29.1 Data sharing: Experience at two open-access general medical journalsTrish GrovesCS29.2 Overcoming publication bias and selective reporting: completing the published recordDaniel ShanahanCS29.3 The EQUATOR Network: promoting responsible reporting of health research studiesIveta Simera, Shona Kirtley, Eleana Villanueva, Caroline Struthers, Angela MacCarthy, Douglas Altman30. The research environment and its implications for integrityCS30.1 Ranking of scientists: the Russian experienceElena GrebenshchikovaCS30.4 From cradle to grave: research integrity, research misconduct and cultural shiftsBronwyn Greene, Ted RohrPARTNER SYMPOSIAPartner Symposium AOrganized by EQUATOR Network, Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health ResearchP1 Can we trust the medical research literature?: Poor reporting and its consequencesIveta SimeraP2 What can BioMed Central do to improve published research?Daniel Shanahan, Stephanie HarrimanP3 What can a "traditional" journal do to improve published research?Trish GrovesP4 Promoting good reporting practice for reliable and usable research papers: EQUATOR Network, reporting guidelines and other initiativesCaroline StruthersPartner Symposium COrganized by ENRIO, the European Network of Research Integrity OfficersP5 Transparency and independence in research integrity investigations in EuropeKrista Varantola, Helga Nolte, Ursa Opara, Torkild Vinther, Elizabeth Wager, Thomas NørgaardPartner Symposium DOrganized by IEEE, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersRe-educating our author community: IEEE's approach to bibliometric manipulation, plagiarism, and other inappropriate practicesP6 Dealing with plagiarism in the connected world: An Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers perspectiveJon RokneP7 Should evaluation of raises, promotion, and research proposals be tied to bibliometric indictors? What the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is doing to answer this questionGianluca SettiP8 Recommended practices to ensure conference content qualityGordon MacPhersonPartner Symposium EOrganized by the Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science of ICSU, the International Council for ScienceResearch assessment and quality in science: perspectives from international science and policy organisationsP9 Challenges for science and the problems of assessing researchEllen HazelkornP10 Research assessment and science policy developmentCarthage SmithP11 Research integrity in South Africa: the value of procedures and processes to global positioningRobert H. McLaughlinP12 Rewards, careers and integrity: perspectives of young scientists from around the worldTatiana Duque MartinsPartner Symposium FOrganized by the Online Resource Center for Ethics Education in Engineering and Science / Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society of the National Academy of EngineeringP13 Research misconduct: conceptions and policy solutionsTetsuya Tanimoto, Nicholas Steneck, Daniele Fanelli, Ragnvald Kalleberg, Tajammul HusseinPartner Symposium HOrganized by ORI, the Office of Research Integrity; Universitas 21; and the Asia Pacific Research Integrity NetworkP14 International integrity networks: working together to ensure research integrityPing Sun, Ovid Tzeng, Krista Varantola, Susan ZimmermanPartner Symposium IOrganized by COPE, the Committee on Publication EthicsPublication without borders: Ethical challenges in a globalized worldP15 Authorship: credit and responsibility, including issues in large and interdisciplinary studiesRosemary ShinkaiPartner Symposium JOrganized by CITI, the Cooperative Institutional Training InitiativeExperiences on research integrity educational programs in Colombia, Costa Rica and PeruP16 Experiences in PeruRoxana LescanoP17 Experiences in Costa RicaElizabeth HeitmanP18 Experiences in ColumbiaMaria Andrea Rocio del Pilar Contreras NietoPoster Session B: Education, training, promotion and policyPT.01 The missing role of journal editors in promoting responsible researchIbrahim Alorainy, Khalid Al-WazzanPT.02 Honorary authorship in Taiwan: why and who should be in charge?Chien Chou, Sophia Jui-An PanPT.03 Authorship and citation manipulation in academic researchEric Fong, Al WilhitePT.04 Open peer review of research submission at medical journals: experience at BMJ Open and The BMJTrish GrovesPT.05 Exercising authorship: claiming rewards, practicing integrityDésirée Motta-RothPT.07 Medical scientists' views on publication culture: a focus group studyJoeri Tijdink, Yvo SmuldersPoster Session B: Education, training, promotion and policyPT.09 Ethical challenges in post-graduate supervisionLaetus OK LateganPT.10 The effects of viable ethics instruction on international studentsMichael Mumford, Logan Steele, Logan Watts, James Johnson, Shane Connelly, Lee WilliamsPT.11 Does language reflect the quality of research?Gerben ter Riet, Sufia Amini, Lotty Hooft, Halil KilicogluPT.12 Integrity complaints as a strategic tool in policy decision conflictsJanneke van Seters, Herman Eijsackers, Fons Voragen, Akke van der Zijpp and Frans BromPoster Session C: Ethics and integrity intersectionsPT.14 Regulations of informed consent: university-supported research processes and pitfalls in implementationBadaruddin Abbasi, Naif Nasser AlmasoudPT.15 A review of equipoise as a requirement in clinical trialsAdri LabuschagnePT.16 The Research Ethics Library: online resource for research ethics educationJohanne Severinsen, Espen EnghPT.17 Research integrity: the view from King Abdulaziz City for Science and TechnologyDaham Ismail AlaniPT. 18 Meeting global challenges in high-impact publications and research integrity: the case of the Malaysian Palm Oil BoardHJ. Kamaruzaman JusoffPT.19 University faculty perceptions of research practices and misconductAnita Gordon, Helen C. HartonPoster Session D: International perspectivesPT.21 The Commission for Scientific Integrity as a response to research fraudDieter De Bruyn, Stefanie Van der BurghtPT. 22 Are notions of the responsible conduct of research associated with compliance with requirements for research on humans in different disciplinary traditions in Brazil?Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Sonia Maria Ramos de VasconcelosPT.23 Creating an environment that promotes research integrity: an institutional model of Malawi Liverpool Welcome TrustLimbanazo MatandikaPT.24 How do science policies in Brazil influence user-engaged ecological research?Aline Carolina de Oliveira Machado Prata, Mark William NeffPoster Session E: Perspectives on misconductPT.26 What “causes” scientific misconduct?: Testing major hypotheses by comparing corrected and retracted papersDaniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, Vincent LarivièrePT.27 Perception of academic plagiarism among dentistry studentsDouglas Leonardo Gomes Filho, Diego Oliveira GuedesPT. 28 a few bad apples?: Prevalence, patterns and attitudes towards scientific misconduct among doctoral students at a German university hospitalVolker Bähr, Niklas Keller, Markus Feufel, Nikolas OffenhauserPT. 29 Analysis of retraction notices published by BioMed CentralMaria K. Kowalczuk, Elizabeth C. MoylanPT.31 "He did it" doesn't work: data security, incidents and partnersKatie SpeanburgPoster Session F: Views from the disciplinesPT.32 Robust procedures: a key to generating quality results in drug discoveryMalini Dasgupta, Mariusz Lubomirski, Tom Lavrijssen, David Malwitz, David Gallacher, Anja GillisPT.33 Health promotion: criteria for the design and the integrity of a research projectMaria Betânia de Freitas Marques, Laressa Lima Amâncio, Raphaela Dias Fernandes, Oliveira Patrocínio, and Cláudia Maria Correia Borges RechPT.34 Integrity of academic work from the perspective of students graduating in pharmacy: a brief research studyMaria Betânia de Freitas Marques, Cláudia Maria Correia Borges Rech, Adriana Nascimento SousaPT.35 Research integrity promotion in the Epidemiology and Health Services, the journal of the Brazilian Unified Health SystemLeila Posenato GarciaPT.36 When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration of clinical trials published in the BioMed Central series, UKStephanie Harriman, Jigisha PatelPT.37 Maximizing welfare while promoting innovation in drug developmentFarida LadaOther posters that will be displayed but not presented orally:PT.38 Geoethics and the debate on research integrity in geosciencesGiuseppe Di Capua, Silvia PeppoloniPT.39 Introducing the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program James M. DuBois, John Chibnall, Jillon Van der WallPT.40 Validation of the professional decision-making in research measureJames M. DuBois, John Chibnall, Jillon Van der Wall, Raymond TaitPT.41 General guidelines for research ethicsJacob HolenPT. 42 A national forum for research ethicsAdele Flakke Johannessen, Torunn EllefsenPT.43 Evaluation of integrity in coursework: an approach from the perspective of the higher education professorClaudia Rech, Adriana Sousa, Maria Betânia de Freitas MarquesPT.44 Principles of geoethics and research integrity applied to the European Multidisciplinary Seafloor and Water Column Observatory, a large-scale European environmental research infrastructureSilvia Peppoloni, Giuseppe Di Capua, Laura BeranzoliF1 Focus track on improving research systems: the role of fundersPaulo S.L. Beirão, Susan ZimmermanF2 Focus track on improving research systems: the role of countriesSabine Kleinert, Ana MarusicF3 Focus track on improving research systems: the role of institutionsMelissa S. Anderson, Lex Bouter. (shrink)

One of the difficulties in understanding the meaning of perception in Merleau-Ponty’s work comes from the ambiguous tone of his descriptions. Therefore, to understand it thoroughly one should question the origin of this tone and inquire about the relationship between perception and language and, more particularly, between philosophy and literature. This is what is at stake in his last courses at the Collège de France, where Merleau-Ponty envisages perception as being associated with literature and as having a special kinship to (...) the notion of “poetic vision,” which appears in Rimbaud’s first ‘Letter from the Seer’.L’une des difficultés qui se posent pour comprendre le sens de la perception chez Merleau-Ponty vient du ton ambigu de ses descriptions. C’est ainsi que pour comprendre ce qu’il entend par perception, il faudrait questionner l’origine de ce ton et interroger le rapport que la perception entretient avec le langage, et plus particulièrement celui que la philosophie entretient avec la littérature. Voilà justement l’une des questions abordées dans ses derniers cours au Collège de France, où il comprend la perception comme associée à la littérature et ayant une proximité particulière avec la notion de «vision poétique» qui apparaît dans la première «Lettre du voyant» de Rimbaud. (shrink)

Trata-se de considerara origem das representações fundamentais , face à crítica de Kant às idéias inatas e abstratas.Il s'agit d'examiner l'origine des représentations fondamentales face à la critique faite par Kant des idées innées et abstraites.

S'il est un point que les réflexions contemporaines sur le temps ont mis en relief et inscrit profondément dans notre conscience, c'est que l'avenir qu'on espère dépend directement du présent qu'on réalise. Telle est notre attitude en face du présent, telle elle sera inéluctablement en face de l'avenir; et donc l'avenir lui-même, puisque ce dernier n'est rien sinon un présent caché encore, au cœur d'un présent déjà actuel, et explicite. Il est en effet de l'essence même de notre condition humaine (...) d'avoir un présent structuré et comme stratifié. Certes on peut imaginer le présent comme un point sans épaisseur, comme la limite évanescente entre un segment de ligne qui marque le passé à jamais révolu, et l'avenir qui se meut vers nous pour basculer inexorablement vers le non-être en franchissant ce présent. Mais cette image, utile pour bien des tâches, ne correspond d'aucune manière à la réalité vivante de la conscience humaine et des activités qui lui sont propres. Nous sommes dans le présent ce que nous sommes et ce que, en un sens, nous croyons pouvoir dire que nous avons été. Une grande partie de ce que nous appelons le passé, notre passé personnel et sans doute notre passé spécifique, est présent, non seulement à titre de souvenir, pouvant être, ou non, évoqué, mais à titre de schéma dynamique modifiant notre être-au-monde, notre présente réaction au réel le plus réel, à la situation où nous avons à déployer notre activité. (shrink)

Cet article se concentre sur le jeu de danse d’une petite fille de neuf ans, filmé par elle-même dans la cour d’une école primaire écossaise, en 2018. Olivia incorpore dans son jeu des objets numériques, non numériques, et son environnement, passant de la sélection de chansons sur un téléphone à la danse avec la caméra, au jeu avec le vent, et à la manipulation d’un cône de signalisation. Elle créé un espace de jeu personnel au milieu de l’espace commun, marqué (...) par la musique, le mouvement, les objets et elle-même. Cet article examine comment, à travers ce processus de danse ludique, Olivia met en scène son enfance genrée au féminin, dans sa façon d’interagir avec les gens, l’espace et les objets. Olivia s’inscrit ainsi dans la tradition du jeu dansé des filles. Mais dans la cour post-numérique, les objets numériques deviennent une partie de son jeu, suivant une autre tradition enfantine du jeu, le “bricolage”, dans lequel les enfants utilisent le monde qui les entoure, à travers le temps et l’espace. (shrink)

A major difficulty for currently existing theories of inductive inference involves the question of what to do when novel, unknown, or previously unsuspected phenomena occur. In this paper one particular instance of this difficulty is considered, the so-called sampling of species problem.The classical probabilistic theories of inductive inference due to Laplace, Johnson, de Finetti, and Carnap adopt a model of simple enumerative induction in which there are a prespecified number of types or species which may be observed. But, realistically, this (...) is often not the case. In 1838 the English mathematician Augustus De Morgan proposed a modification of the Laplacian model to accommodate situations where the possible types or species to be observed are not assumed to be known in advance; but he did not advance a justification for his solution. (shrink)

La metaphysique moderne met en oeuvre un nouveau concept de raison, tourne vers la connaissance des objets intelligibles. Comme ces denominations impliquent une conception determinee de la raison, le partage s'opere entre ceux qui peuvent etre tenus pour senses, et les insenses. Dans la tradition augustinienne, sense est celui qui met la raison au service de la foi, insense celui qui doute et se conduit selon la seule raison. L'argument ontologique de Saint Anselme enjoint la raison de s'enquerir des criteres (...) de la connaissance de Dieu, en chevauchant les frontieres de la foi. Descartes, en s'appuyant sur les preuves de l'immaterialite de l'ame et de l'existence de Dieu, rompt avec cette tradition. Ainsi, la metaphysique moderne est le fruit d'une demesure de la raison qui marque de son empreinte l'avenir de la philosophie et annonce l'horizon de ses crises. (shrink)

The Unknowable, arguably the greatest Russian philosophical work of the 20th century, was the culmination of S. L. Frank's intellectual and spiritual development, the boldest and most imaginative of all his writings, containing a synthesis of epistemology, ontology, social philosophy, religious philosophy, and personal spiritual experience.

Un système philosophique peut-il se maintenir à travers le temps ? Peut-il renaître après des siècles ? Oui, s'il peut faire l'objet d'une pensée vivante et, donc, personnelle.C'est pourquoi le cardinal Mercier estime que le thomisme authentique est appelé à se rajeunir sans cesse et à prendre la forme d'un néothomisme. Pour renouveller le thomisme, dit le Cardinal, « il ne peut s'agir simplement de retourner en arrière » ; il ne peut être question de considérer la doctrine thomiste comme (...) « une momie ensevelie dans un tombeau et autour duquel nous n'aurions qu'à monter la garde, mais comme un organisme toujours jeune, toujours en activité » ; en l'occurrence, ce qui importe avant tout, c'est esprit » dont la doctrine est animée. Pour saisir exactement l'idée du cardinal Mercier, il faut se référer à l'époque de son enseignement à l'Université de Louvain. En particulier, on doit se rappeler l'importance attachée à l'organisation universitaire de la recherche scientifique, au cours des dernières décades du dix-neuvième siècle, et il est nécessaire de se souvenir de la distinction introduite alors entre la « science faite » et la « science qui se fait » . Le cardinal Mercier n'a pas hésité à appliquer ces vues à la philosophie et dès lors au thomisme, qu'il considérait comme la philosophie vraie . Cependant il ne lui était guère possible, à cette époque, d'établir, à ce point de vue, une nette différence entre les sciences et la philosophie. Depuis lors, les résultats obtenus par la « critique des sciences », ainsi que certaines considérations de la philosophie d'aujourd'hui, sont venus jeter quelque lumière sur ce point capital. Au lieu d'étudier directement le problème, examinons le comportement du philosophe, pour savoir en quoi il diffère de celui de l'homme de science. Dans une étude philosophique se rencontrent régulièrement des références aux philosophes anciens, dont on discute les idées. On remarque que tout philosophe véritable garde indéfiniment son actualité : il ne se trouve jamais entièrement remplacé, annulé, par les penseurs qui le suivent. Assurément, personne ne songerait à prétendre, par exemple, qu'au vingtième siècle il n'y a plus aucun profit à étudier les classiques grecs ; et qui donc s'aviserait de nier que la disparition des œuvres de ces philosophes constituerait une perte irréparable ? A considérer l'histoire, il semble que tout se passe comme si un « colloque philosophique » se poursuivait depuis des siècles. Quelques dizaines de penseurs y prennant une part active. Or, il est remarquable qu'aucun des membres effectifs de ce Symposion ne s'efface jamais, ni ne cède la place à un autre. De fait, le groupe des penseurs déjà réunis voit, de temps à autre, de nouveaux se joindre à eux, mais toujours les derniers venus reconnaissent l'autorité des anciens et ils ne manquent pas de s'expliquer avec eux. Dans le secteur des sciences, il en va tout autrement. Pour s'y mettre au courant, c'est uniquement aux auteurs les plus récents qu'il convient de s'adresser. Les hommes de science du passé n'ont plus qu'une importance historique. Dès lors, on ne s'y réfère pas, on ne discute plus leurs opinions. A la lumière des résultats obtenus grâce à la critique des sciences, il est devenu possible de se faire une idée exacte de la valeur des sciences modernes, de définir la nature de leurs méthodes et la portée de leurs résultats. En conséquence, l'on peut poser le problème de la distinction entre les sciences et la philosophie avec quelque chance d'aboutir à une solution précise et dûment fondée. L'homme de science considère les données d'un point de vue objectif , du « point de vue de Sirius ». C'est notamment ce que fait le physicien lorsqu'il utilise des instruments pour enregistrer les faits et pour noter la régularité de leurs rapports spaciaux et temporels. Tout au contraire, le philosophe s'attache à « intelliger » ces mêmes réalités et à déceler les « significations » qu'elles comportent. Dès lors, en philosophie, un facteur personnel intervient immanquablement, tant en ce qui concerne la richesse des données d'expérience qu'en ce qui concerne la force du regard intellectuel qui les pénètre et les saisit. Ce qui n'autorise nullement de conclure au subjectivisme, bien au contraire. Dès lors, on comprend que tout système philosophique porte la marque de la personnalité « incommunicable » de son auteur et que, pour autant, il demeure irréductible à tout autre, — ce qui entraîne la condamnation de l'éclectisme. En effet, comme la personnalité humaine, tout en demeurant liée à la matière, est essentiellement fonction de l'esprit et, par conséquent de l'activité libre, on comprend que l'œuvre d'un philosophe ne puisse remplacer adéquatement celle d'un autre, même lorsqu'elle lui est de beaucoup supérieure : l'une et l'autre demeurera donc actuelle et chacune vaudra d'être entendue, discutée, fût-ce pour être réfutée. Par ailleurs, on ne voit pas le moyen de prévoir comment la pensée philosophique s'orientera dans la suite. A cet égard, il y a bien des traits communs à l'art et à la philosophie. Cependant la différence demeure profonde, car le propre de la philosophie est de tendre à découvrir la vérité dans sa valeur absolument universelle ; et en cela son activité de recherche rejoint celle de l'homme de science. C'est pourquoi, les différents systèmes ne présentent pas la même valeur philosophique ; et, comme il nous est donné de suivre les échange de vues du grand « colloque philosophique », nous sommes en droit de donner la palme à tel ou tel penseur, par exemple S. Thomas, s'il nous paraît être le meilleur. Il reste, que les autres penseurs se trouvent, eux aussi, d'une manière qui leur est propre, en possession de quelque vérité, même s'ils s'égarent sur les questions fondamentales ; ainsi qu'aimait à le répéter le cardinal Mercier : « dans toute erreur il y a une âme de vérité » Il en résulte que si l'on veut se faire le disciple de S. Thomas, c'est par un effort personnel qu'on doit poursuivre l'œuvre de celui-ci. Sans doute, le thomiste est-il supposé reprendre la structure essentielle du système, l'ensemble des thèses doctrinales, mais c'est pour les faire vivre, à savoir pour les rendre fécondes en les gardant enracinées dans une expérience de base, comme S. Thomas, sans aucun doute, a dû le faire lui-même. C'est à partir de pareille expérience que le Docteur Angélique a abstrait ses dées et qu'il a établi les catégories fondamentales de son système ; et c'est à ces données d'expérience qu'il n'a cessé de se référer, pour éclairer toujours davantage ses idées et en équilibrer le contenu, pour les compléter et, au besoin, les corriger. Il faudrait donc découvrir où se situe cette expérience chez S. Thomas, — par exemple, en rapport avec sa conception si personnelle de l'unité substantielle de l'homme et celle non moins personnelle de la signification de Y esse ; — travail difficile, car S. Thomas se retire modestement derrière l'exposé sincère de sa doctrine, sans fournir la description « phénoménologique » de son expérience personnelle, comme les auteurs actuels se plaisent à le faire ; travail ardu, qui suppose l'étude attentive et scrupuleuse du texte authentique, du milieu doctrinal, des sources littéraires et de la manière dont S. Thomas les utilise. Les résultats de pareille étude permettront de voir se profiler l'expérience qui fut la terre nourricière de la doctrine élaborée par le Docteur Angélique. Il faudra s'efforcer de faire soi-même une expérience analogue, tout aussi personnelle, c'est-à-dire liée étroitement au tempérament de la personne qui la fait, à la formation qu'elle a acquise, dès lors aux conditions de temps et d'espace dans lesquelles elle s'est développée, à l'atmosphère philosophique qu'elle respire, etc. : bref, une expérience réelle, vivante, donc « d'aujourd'hui ». C'est à partir de là que surgira la doctrine et que pourra se construire le système ; comme c'est à partir de là que l'idée thomiste pourra croître, se renouveller, garder sa perpétuelle jeunesse et sa fécondité. (shrink)

According to Heidegger, we are living in an ever worsening ?worldnight?, whose fundamental nihilism is due to an ?abandonment by Being? (Seinsverlassenheit) or a ?forgetting of Being? (Seinsvergessenheit). In this paper, I attempt to clarify the notion of an ?abandonment by Being? through an examination of two themes prominent in Heidegger's later philosophy: Being as ?event? (Ereignis); and the obscure ?mystery? or ?secret? of Being. ?Seinsvergessenheit? is interpreted as a forgetting of the mystery or secret of Being which is the (...) ?ontological difference? between Being and beings, i.e. between some concrete revelation of a world and the conditions which make possible any revelation whatsoever. Since these conditions make up that ontological structure which is Dasein and since Dasein is human being, to forget Being is to be in a condition of profound self?estrangement. The origin and growth of this condition constitutes the history of metaphysics, which unfolds as the history of a progressive increase in ?subjectivism?, culminating in the nihilistic ?will to will? as the mode of revelation of the modern world. Finally, Heidegger's two ?remedies? for Seinsverlassenheit are examined: the first, the need for a cultivation of ?essential thinking? is shown to be fundamentally sterile and unable, therefore, to bear the burden of world?transformation which Heidegger lays upon it, while the second, the exhortation to experience the ?thing? as ?assembler? of the ?foursome?, it is argued, does not grow organically out of Heidegger's central philosophical preoccupations, but represents quite a radical departure from them. (shrink)

“Doing Gender,” Candance West and Don Zimmerman’s famous 1987 article, has become a folk concept—a trope or commonsense resource within the sociology of gender. Yet at the same time, most gender scholars overlook its ethnomethodological premise, visible in both poststructuralist misunderstandings of its argument outside the discipline of sociology and what I term a realist misunderstanding of it in the study of structures and identities within the discipline. Reading West and Zimmerman queerly while clarifying ethnomethodology’s ontology, I refocus attention for (...) critical scholarship on ethnomethodology’s analytic sensibilities for research on gender, race, and sexuality, among other embodiments. Specifically, ethnomethodology reframes a vision of actors as relational, practical actors; repositions gender as accountable, jointly produced social relations, not individual identity; and foregrounds resistance in addition to conformity. Hence, my gender is not mine; it is ours. Ethnomethodology’s ontological shift in temporality to reality-in-production enables interpretive-materialism: a queer, anti-racist, intersectional sociology that is future-facing and in motion. (shrink)

This article explores refusal of medical treatment by adult patients from ethical and legal perspectives. Initially, consequentialist and deontological ethical theory are outlined. The concepts of autonomy, paternalism and competence are described and an overview of Beauchamp and Childress’s principle-based approach to moral reasoning is given. Relevant common law is discussed and the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in assessing competence is evaluated. In order to demonstrate the consideration of moral issues in clinical practice, ethical theory is applied (...) to two well-known incidents: the case of Re MB, where doubt over decision-making capacity led to a paternalistic act to override a patient’s choice; and the death of Emma Gough, a situation where respect for autonomy prevailed when healthcare staff acted lawfully in following a patient’s refusal of life-saving treatment. Finally, guidance from regulatory bodies on the roles and responsibilities of health professionals in relation to this topic are considered. (shrink)

Inducing the rubber hand illusion (RHI) requires that participants look at an imitation hand while it is stroked in synchrony with their occluded biological hand. Previous explanations of the RHI have emphasized multisensory integration, and excluded higher cognitive functions. We investigated the relationship between the RHI and higher cognitive functions by experimentally testing task switch (as measured by switch cost) and mind wandering (as measured by SART score); we also included a questionnaire for attentional control that comprises two subscales, attention-shift (...) and attention-focus. To assess experience of RHI, the Botvinick and Cohen (1998) questionnaire was used and illusion onset time was recorded. Our results indicate that rapidity of onset reliably indicates illusion strength. Regression analysis revealed that participants evincing less switch cost and higher attention-shift scores had faster RHI onset times, and that those with higher attention-shift scores experienced the RHI more vividly. These results suggest that the multi-sensory hypothesis is not sufficient to explain the illusion: higher cognitive functions should be taken into account when explaining variation in the experience of ownership for the rubber hand. (shrink)

Gaining ethical clearance to conduct a study is an important aspect of all research involving humans but can be time-consuming and daunting for novice researchers. This article stems from a larger ethnographic study that examined research capacity building in Irish nursing and midwifery. Data were collected over a 28-month time frame from a purposive sample of 16 nurse or midwife research fellows who were funded to undertake full-time PhDs. Gaining ethical clearance for their studies was reported as an early ‘rite (...) of passage’ in the category of ‘labouring the doctorate’. This article penetrates the complexities in Irish clinical research ethics by describing the practices these nurse and midwife researchers encountered and the experiences they had. The key issue of representation that occurred in the context of ‘medicalized’ research ethics is further explored including its meaning for nursing or midwifery research. (shrink)