Humanities and Social Sciences Tuesdays for Quantum

You are hereHomeTIQuAHumanitiesQuantum Ethics & Innovation

Humanities and Social Sciences Tuesdays for Quantum

Print Share

"Les Mardis SHS pour le Quantique" - MSHSQ

MSHSQ examines the relationships between science, society and innovation. These relationships are complex, and this complexity stems first and foremost from the fact that the socialization of discoveries and inventions never obeys a univocal logic. Several different levels need to be taken into account. Firstly, the interests of research players, whether individual or institutional, do not correspond exactly to those of entrepreneurs who wish to disseminate discoveries and inventions in the form of innovations. Secondly, the reception of these innovations by users obeys social phenomena such as direct institutional prescription, mercantile incentives and varying degrees of social acceptability, all of which distort the innovators' initial intentions.

This seminar series takes a broad look at these phenomena in three different ways. Firstly, it uses philosophy to explore a variety of themes concerning fundamental and social epistemology, research and technology ethics, and the politics and influence of science and technology.

Secondly, it invites researchers in the humanities and social sciences to talk about their backgrounds and analyze their working methods, in order to encourage dialogue between scientific disciplines.

Thirdly , it takes a closer look at certain fields of research, inviting those involved to engage in dialogue with the Grenoble community of quantum scientists.

Venue: Common room (salle de convivialité), Laboratoire de Physique et Modélisation des Milieux Condensés (LPMMC, UMR 5493) Bat G, 25 avenue des Martyrs, 38042 GRENOBLE CEDEX 9

Dissemination of information via the QuantAlps Research Federation's internal mailing list. If you are not part of this mailing list and you wish to be notified, please contact us at : tiqua@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr .

Free entry subject to online registration.

Agenda of Seminars: Season 2 (2023-24)

In the second season of debates, Thierry Ménissier and special guests, invite quantum scientist and other eager audience to delve deeper into subjects related to Humanities and Social Sciences.

The "in-depth" series chosen for this season is entitled "Artists and Quantum Scientists". Its aim is to explore the relationship between the work of quantum scientists and that of artists. To this end, artists interested in quantum-related themes are invited to meet with scientists and discuss the effect these themes have on their approaches, in the form of free reflections but also in their own specific ways, for example in the form of experiential workshops.

As the season progresses, descriptions of the previous season's sessions will be made available on this page, so make sure to check it regularly.

Date	Session's Topic
September 12^th 2023 "Exploration" serie	How can science and technology be ethically reasoned today? (Resumed session from last season) Research orientations, scientific and technological choices, and difficulties encountered at the very project level can all raise ethical dilemmas. In these varied situations, some subjects even challenge our conscience on a moral level that goes beyond research ethics. The question is whether, of the four forms of ethical reasoning, some are more appropriate for science and technology, and others less so. In order to evaluate a research situation ethically, should we prefer the calculation of costs and benefits (the consequentialism of utilitarianism), the dilemmas of conscience (deontologism), the desire to cultivate virtues and shun vices and thereby "perfect oneself" (aretaism), or the choice to inscribe one's action in certain values considered indisputable or deemed superior to others (axiologism)? And how can we choose the most appropriate form of ethical reasoning? An interesting hypothesis is that the most suitable form of ethical reasoning depends on the particular situation of the person undergoing the ethical experience: perhaps there is a ranking of the suitability of forms of ethical reasoning according to the maturity of the research subjects, i.e., in relation to their state with regard to leaving the laboratory. It is possible to approach these subjects in absolute terms. This is often the case in moral philosophy, as a fundamental research discipline. It is also possible to pose them from other points of view: with regard to science as it appears and is expressed in public debate, and with regard to the roles it takes on through the activities and commitments of those who make it. This approach appears more committed and provides researchers with interesting points of reference for their practice.
October 10^th "Special Guest" serie	What are the methodologies and aims of experimental economics? Presentation by Laurent Muller, INRAE Research Director, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory, UGA
December 5^th "In-depth" serie	Artists and Quantum Scientist #1 - Artistic creation and quantum knowledge Session presented by Alain Lafuente, musician and improviser The session focuses on what Alain Lafuente calls the "state of improvisation", which he describes as a certain relationship between the outside and the inside, from which a particular path emerges. A state of receptivity in which we open ourselves to inspiration. The question is whether this can be grasped with the tools of quantum knowledge. This is perhaps akin to the position of wonder that some physicists have been able to approach by questioning reality at the limits of the human mind, or by shifting those limits.
December 19^th 2023 "Exploration"	Doesn't the idea of a "geopolitics of scientific knowledge" contradict the universality of science? This intervention is based on an examination of two apparently competing logics. The question is whether this is the case, and to what extent. On the one hand, scientific research, in its public expression, is based on principles such as the worldwide contribution of researchers to the advancement of knowledge, marked by their free cooperation and their material or at least financial disinterestedness, and is thus thought of in terms of the universal of truth. On the other hand, the idea of a geopolitics of scientific knowledge calls for the observation of international competition, and behind the complex games played by the powers that be lie the stakes of national sovereignty. On the one hand, an idealistic logic, and on the other, a realistic one, both of which appear very difficult to coordinate. Indeed, when scientists want to go beyond the issues of sovereignty, proponents of realism accuse them of having a utopian vision of the world; and when realists point out that science is a resource for the state, scientists object that they haven't understood what science is. We will examine the relationship between the two logics in greater depth, starting with an analysis of the notion of sovereignty and then examining the various ways of thinking about the relationship between states. How can we develop a realistic conception of science as well as an enlightened definition of geopolitics? And as a researcher, what posture should we adopt?
January 16^th2024 "Special Guest"	Using the methods of social psychology, can we achieve a science of emotions? Presented by Anna Tcherkassof, Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Psychologie, UGA.
February 13^th "Exploration"	What sobriety for environmental transitions? Utilitarian ethics vs. aetaism or moral perfectionism, or two versions of sobriety We hear a lot about sobriety in societies in transition, and it is often defined in a negative way. Sobriety is defined as non-spending behavior; in fact, sobriety is evidenced by the quantities of energy or flows that we have succeeded in not spending. This conception of sobriety can be called "economistic", since it involves measuring unspent resources. It fits in very well with the "consequentialist" form of ethical reasoning exemplified by the various currents of utilitarianism. However, the effects of this form of ethics appear insufficient, with little capacity to meet the challenges of the climate emergency. In this talk, we want to examine another definition of sobriety, often thematized in cultures that are both alien to modern individualism and instrumental rationalism, because they are polytheistic or animistic. Their "anti-economist" conception leads us to question the moral excellence we might place behind the notion of sobriety, which corresponds to an equally well-known form of ethical reasoning: aetaism (virtue ethics or moral perfectionism). Considering sobriety as excellence may seem tempting, but it raises a number of important questions: what can we keep of modern comforts? To what extent are we invited to become animists once again? What does this mean for both the design and use of innovations?
March 12^th "In-depth"	Artists and Quantum Scientist #2 - Artistic creation and quantum knowledge : Playing...together Session conducted by Anne-Marie Pascoli, choreographer and osteopath. Based on simple propositions, the aim is to experiment with states of presence around a notion that, for want of an appropriate existing term, I call "the inextricable". It's a sensitive invitation to slip into sensory and perceptual observations, as if exploring the extreme porosity we maintain with each other, with things, with the world in general, whether we're aware of it or not. I don't have the mathematical skills to approach quantum mechanics from the heart of its language, but I'm fascinated by the apprehension of the world it opens up, and I'm listening to what certain scientists are willing to try and translate into a more commonly shared language. Artistic practice, and more specifically improvisation, leaves a great deal of room for the "indeterminate", so that something new, or at least unforeseen, can emerge from what already exists. When Carlo Rovelli writes in Helgoland: "Quantum entanglement is not a dance for two, it's a dance for three..." this shift opens up the possibility of "mediation", in the sense of placing a new language between. Perhaps, based on these few experiences and this time of sharing, we can tackle this question of languages together, and tell the tale.
April 9^th Special Guest	A research program in the anthropology of communication Presented by Fabienne Martin-Juchat, Groupe de recherche sur les enjeux de la communication (Gresec) UGA
May 14^th	"In-depth" series: Speaker and Topic to be confirmed
June 4^th	"Exploration" or "Special guest" series: Speaker and Topic to be confirmed

Agenda of Past Season

Date	Session's Topic
March 21^st 2023	Introduction, seminar scope and ambition, program presentation
April 25^th	If the humanities and social sciences are not strictly speaking sciences, what are they? This contribution on the status of the humanities and social sciences are based on the assumption that they cannot, strictly speaking, be considered as sciences, for a number of reasons. They are, however, (and have been for a long time) both established in the academic landscape and invited to intellectual discussion, to the extent that it is impossible to ignore their contributions on many subjects. There isn't even an important decision (organizational, legal & political) that isn't taken without consulting them. So how do we (epistemologically) define their relationship to truth? And how (structurally) are we to understand the roles they play in/for modern, rationalist-type societies?
May 16^th	Does Science have a social role to play? Of course, the question posed may seem provocative, for several reasons. Science is certainly not a "social" activity in the same way as "social services", because its aim is not the direct improvement of society's problems. It refers to the intellectual activities of public or private research, and its aims are: to pursue the truth, to shed light on reality, to improve the conditions of life and existence for humans and non-humans alike. The role of science is not to take charge of social problems. However, neither is it "above ground": it depends on social conditions, and contributes to social dynamics. In fact, it would be particularly surprising to reason as if science were external to society. For example, in every country where it is guaranteed, science education contributes to reducing social, racial and gender inequalities. And given academic logic, all scientific activities, even those that generate controversy, contribute to a high form of sociality: academic civility. Finally, we must emphasize the value of the scientific spirit in terms of ethical example: passion for truth and respect for integrity are combined with the obligation to be open-minded and to exercise tolerance. But as soon as we adopt a position on this subject that could be described as realistic (taking into account the "situated" nature of scientific activity), many formidable questions arise: what roles does scientific activity play for society? Should we limit, sort out and sometimes reject the roles that the State, industry and citizens sometimes want it to play? What social roles should science not play, at least without running the risk of denaturing itself? In this talk, we will address these questions by considering the epistemological plane of the principles of science and taking into account various historical and political contexts.
June 6^th	How to reason ethically This talk prepares participants for future discussions on more specific ethical topics, whether fundamental or applied. To this end, it has three objectives: 1) to clarify the relationship between ethics and morality, 2) to distinguish the levels of ethical reflection (research ethics, moral philosophy, meta-ethics, normative ethics, applied ethics), 3) to present the various forms of ethical reasoning (consequentialism, deontologism or deontism, aetaism and axiologism). Today, there seems to be a strong social demand for ethics in many different sectors. We'll be looking at what this means, how it translates, and what we can expect from such a demand in terms of social transformation. Another aspect of the talk is intended to shed light on a trend currently at work that we find both astonishing and worrying: that of equating applied ethics, in all fields, with the cost-benefit ratio that is characteristic of consequentialism (articulated in particular by utilitarian ethics). We will show the limits of this type of reasoning in the field of ethics, suggest the importance of confronting it with other forms of ethical reasoning, and finally demonstrate the risks of limiting ourselves to this form alone.

Published on September 18, 2023
Updated on March 13, 2024

Print Share