Maarten Van Dyck

Een maand geleden vertelde ik in een koude kerk in Gent over Galileo Galilei en Maffeo Barberini. Le Vecchie Musiche bracht schitterende muziek die in de zeventiende eeuw gecomponeerd werd voor Barberini en zijn entourage. Bekijk het hele concert nu hier: youtube.com/watch?v=mtBNF6…

The Department of Philosophy and Moral Science at Ghent University is hiring a TT assistant professor in Critical Religion Studies & Comparative Philosophy. Deadline for applications: 20 January. Spread the word! jobs.ugent.be/job/Ghent-Prof…

New paper with Pieter Beck that just came out, in which we engage with Hasok Chang's interpretation of the chemical revolution. A limited number of free copies available here: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

Good news! 💡The @SartonCentre at @ugentlw changed its name and is now the Sarton Centre for the History of Science AND Humanities. As a historian of the humanities, I am obviously delighted with this! + our programme for the autumn semester is ready, check this out below! 🍂⬇️

@MatteoVagelli @viktorblasjo I think this is indeed what F is hinting at. He knew Koyré’s work quite well, so he would be familiar with this kind of shifts.

@viktorblasjo Interesting!

Does anyone happen to know why Foucault in The Archaeology of Knowledge (Routledge 2002: 116) claim the following: "The affirmation that the earth is round or that species evolve does not constitute the same statement before and after Copernicus, before and after Darwin"? 1/2

Heading to Ghent tomorrow, to present "On The Possibility of an (liberal) art of Government: Foucault, professional philosophy, and Kuhn Loss" research.flw.ugent.be/en/hico

New publication, together with Wim Vanrie: “Boghossian, Bellarmine, and Galileo: Adjudicating epistemic relativism”, just out in Dialectica. dialectica.philosophie.ch/dialectica/art…

@pertransibunt Thanks! Looks interesting.

@dyck_maarten Perhaps see *The Word and the World* eds Forshaw and Killeen link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9…

Most importantly, we hope that the article shows that analytic philosophy and historical perspectives can be fruitfully brought in conversation to better articulate what rationality consists in.

We argue that Boghossian’s argument against relativism fails to establish his absolutist conclusion. We also show that the historical evidence supports a different argument for relativism than the one that he analyzes, one that is not easily dismissed.

I wrote a long review essay on Jochen Büttner's important book on Galileo's experiments and the emergence of his new science of motion. Out now in @Centaurus_ESHS : brepolsonline.net/doi/epdf/10.14…

Job opening for Professor in Ethics and Moral Science at Ghent University. Apply before 13 March! career012.successfactors.eu/career?career%…

@nescio13 Yes!

@dyck_maarten Well I believe we have a tentative plan for April.

Kuhn and Foucault both think there are radical/revolutionary changes or ruptures in the sciences. But for Foucault consensus is no sign or evidence of maturity of a science, and because of that Foucault is a lot more interesting on what Kuhn treats as immature developments.

@nescio13 Maybe we should try to find another moment to catch up on these matters! I have been thinking a lot on this since then…

catching up on @dyck_maarten, twenty years on.

This will be interesting!

@MassSimons @drjauge This is the the piece: "The History Between Koyré and Husserl" in Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science. Homage to Alexandre Koyré 1892-1964 (Springer, 2018)

@MassSimons @drjauge As far as I know, nobody really knows at this point. Rodney Parker wrote by far the best piece on the relations between Husserl and Koyré, and he also remains uncommitted on the precise role of Koyré in the invitation to Paris and the ensuing translation.

Beginning to think that this "I'm going read Husserl's Cartesian Meditations in the original French trans. by Peiffer and Levinas because that's how my sources would have been introduced to phenomenology" phase may have been a bridge of writing deferral too far

@DeblockBlock @filipbuekens @MassSimons @HofhuisSteije Uiteraard. De receptie van Latour in de meer analytische wetenschapsfilosofie is op z'n minst moeizaam (en daar zijn redenen voor). Maar de stelling was dat je niet ernstig & analytisch kunt zijn én Latour serieus nemen. Dat klopt gewoon niet.

@dyck_maarten @filipbuekens @MassSimons @HofhuisSteije voor de duidelijkhed: er zijn zeker ook (analytische) wetenschapsfilosofen die hem niet ernstig nemen. Ik herinner me vaag iets zeer bijtends wat Kitcher schreef over Latour. Maar analytische wetenschapsfilosofen zijn natuurlijk ook niet altijd lief voor elkaar.