Har du styr på den gode ansøgning og det gode CV?

Empirical evidence from scientific research is considered the most reliable source of factual information in western societies. However, our worldview and ideology can influence scientific research and its outcomes. And vice versa, the results from scientific research also influence our worldview. So how sharply can and should we strive to distinguish science and worldview? Can worldviews be completely fact free, and can science be completely factual and neutral? Probably not. I will discuss three historical and current examples from biology where science and “nonscience” meet:[list=1][*]Social Darwinism and biological evolution[*]Religious belief and biological evolution, and[*]Gender and biological sexes.[/list]Although it is usually thought that “non-science” can hinder scientific progress, I will show that sometimes the opposite has been true. For this and other reasons, I will argue that universities should have space for nonscience next to science in order to remain sanctuaries for academic freedom. However, I will also argue that we should be as clear as possible on what is science and what’s not, and on the motivations for scientists to do scientific research. This will reduce the risk of naturalistic and ideological fallacies. Duur Aanen is a professor of evolution and genetics and studies and teaches fundamental questions and concepts, such as the evolution of cooperation, the evolution of sex and cultural evolution. In his research he uses fungi as model systems of conflict and cooperation, both in interactions within and between species. His team published key studies on the evolution of the mutualistic symbiosis of fungus-growing termites and on the evolutionary stability of multicellular cooperation in fungi. In 2018, he organised a Lorentz center workshop with biologists and theologians on the acceptance of evolutionary theory, resulting in the Leiden Declaration on Evolution and Religion. Professor Aanen collaborates with social scientists, on the topic of science and world view, and on the role of science in society.

Charles Darwin’s theory profoundly challenged the prevailing worldview of his time. Most notably, it called into question the biblical account of human creation and redefined humanity’s relation to other species and to creation as a whole.Resistance to evolutionary theory on theological grounds has persisted to this day. In the United States, for example, nearly 40% of the population continues to reject the theory outright, particularly within evangelical communities. This resistance has at times led to efforts to influence educational curricula and scientific research in ways that align more closely with religious convictions. At the same time, constructive efforts have been made to reconcile evolutionary theory with systems of faith. In the context of emerging AI, also new ideas are being formulated about how evolution could develop independently of genetics.In our workshop, “Evolutionary Theory as an Existential Challenge for Humankind,” we will explore both the historical development and contemporary dynamics of the relationship between religion and science, using evolutionary theory as a central case study. We will also reflect on the broader existential questions raised by Darwin’s work.Agenda15:00 Welcome15:05 Prof. Norbert Krüger (SDU): The development of modern science and its exclusion of mankind’s existential questions15:30 Prof. Duur Aanen (Wageningen University, Netherlands): The two sides of Methodological Naturalism – no scientific inferences based on metaphysics but neither metaphysical inferences based on science15:55 Anders Stjernholm (Ateistik Selskab): Separating life and religion: Dealing with scientific and existential questions without the concept of a God16:20 Hans Henrik Hjermitslev (UC-SYD): Protestant responses to Darwinism from the 1860s to modern-day creationism16:45 Stefan Lumholdt Pedersen (Kristeligt Forbund for Studerende, KFS): The ideas and beliefs that matter the most - how do we learn to talk about them16:50 Discussion17:15 End

Do you want to engage in a collaboration with a company?

En vild onsdags-tværfaglig undersøgelse af (u)normalitet i det moderne DanmarkNormalitet og normalisering er en bærende norm i vores samfund. Normalt er ofte lig med trygt – og det ”onde tvilling” unormalt ses ofte som truende og farligt. Normalisering er en proces, som handler om at passe ind. Ikke nødvendigvis sådan at alt og alle skal være helt ens. Det er en ukonstruktiv stråmand i diskussionen. Normalisering handler i højere grad om rammerne for, hvor meget forskellighed vores samfund kan rumme. Det gælder såvel kroppen som kroppens opførsel. På den ene side, er vi nødt til at have nogen rammer. Et samfund er et sted, hvor jungleloven ikke hersker. På den anden side er det langt fra uskyldigt at sætte rammer: Hvor stramme skal rammerne være, og hvilke fordomme får vi med i købet? Hvilken unormalitet kan vi rumme? Må vi indse, at den normale krop ikke er den raske krop, men den syge krop? Det er svære spørgsmål – og ofte dilemmafyldte og fyldt med uligheder.Vi U(Normaliteten) op til en fælles undersøgelse, udfordring og debat på tværs af kunst og videnskab. Vi har samlet en fantastik spædende flok af deltagere. Kom og vær med.Klik her for at se programmet og deltagerne.

Kan man bruge LinkedIn som studerende?

Are you interested in learning how to get ready for your first job after graduating?

Are you considering approaching a Ph.D.?

Freedom of Movement and Brain Drain:  A Moral DebateThe free cross-border movement of people, when it occurs, is in many respects a great social achievement and a great individual opportunity. Free movement generally produces large individual earnings boosts, and it can be a major contributor to reducing individual and global poverty. But it also contains mechanisms whereby typically richer destination countries appear to exploit the typically poorer origin countries who have invested in the human capital of the migrants. How to think about this hidden cost of free movement and the normative implications of brain drain? Essex University political theorist Paul Bou-Habib will sketch the issues based on his forthcoming OUP book Brain Drain: A Moral Assessment. DIAS Chair Pieter Vanhuysse will then chair a roundtable discussion with three political theorists: Paul Bou-Habib, Lars Tønder (SDU, Politics), and Lasse Nielsen (SDU, Humanities). Paul Bou-Habib is Professor of Political Philosophy in the Department of Government at the University of Essex. His research interests are in the history of political philosophy and contemporary political philosophy. He has written articles on climate change, demography and politics. He is currently writing a book entitled The Brain Drain: A Moral Assessment, which explores the extent to which skilled emigrants and the host states they relocate to owe duties to people in their home states. This Wild Wednesday is organized by DIAS Chair Pieter Vanhuysse.

Are you curious about what Danish employers are looking for in your application? Do you want insight on how to target your CV and cover letter?

There is an increasing demand for critical metals and rare earth elements for production of electronics, technological advancements and the green transition. This has intensified international competition for known terrestrial resources and renewed interest inmining mineral resources on the deep seabed, including polymetallic nodules, seafloor massive sulfides and cobal-rich crusts. However, potential exploitation of these resources raises complex environmental, legal and geopolitical questions.This session will feature three presentations addressing the geological and biological context of deep-sea mineral resources, current scientific understanding of environmental impacts, and the legal and governance challenges associated with potential mining activities. The three 15 min presentations will be followed by a Q&A and discussion with the audience.   Karl Attard, University of Southern Denmark, DIAS, DK - The perspectives of deep-sea mining Bryan O’Malley, Eckerd College, Florida, USA (online) - Deep-Sea Mining Impacts and Recovery: Immediate, Annual, and Decadal Responses of Benthic Ecosystems Ole Larsen, Danish Hydraulic Institute, DK - Environmental impact assessment and governance challenges in deep-sea mining  Q&A and discussion facilitated by Ronnie (15-20 min)

What if communication were not just something humans do, but a process through which all kinds of beings—molecules, machines, institutions, emotions, organisms, laws, and people—come to express themselves and make a difference? Drawing on my forthcoming book, “Thinking the World Communicatively: An Exploration of the More or Less,” this talk introduces a way of approaching reality that transcends the traditional boundaries between the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. I propose that to think communicatively is to examine how relations allow phenomena to manifest themselves more or less in the world.Communication, in this broad sense, encompasses electromagnetic radiation warming our skin, neurons firing, procedures shaping institutional conduct, technologies guiding attention, and people coordinating with one another. Instead of reducing the world to discourse or matter, this communicative ontology highlights how beings both act and “pass through” others. It offers scientists, scholars, and students an anti-reductionist framework for understanding truth, objectivity, materiality, agency, and power across domains, from social interaction to quantum mechanics.BiographyFrançois Cooren (PhD, Université de Montréal, 1996) is a Professor in the Department of Communication at Université de Montréal, Canada. His research focuses on organizational communication, language and social interaction, as well as communication theory. He is the Past President of the International Communication Association (ICA, 2010–2011), the Past President of the International Association for Dialogue Analysis (IADA, 2012–2021), and former Editor-in-Chief of the journal Communication Theory (2005–2008). He was elected ICA Fellow in 2013, NCA (National Communication Association) Distinguished Scholar in 2017, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 2024. He published 16 books (four as an author or co-author and twelve as an editor or co-editor) and authored close to 100 peer-reviewed articles and more than 60 book chapters. He is one of the founding members of what is now known as the Montreal School of Organizational Communication, a primary branch of the Communication as Constitutive of Organization (CCO) approach.

Experts worry that support and tolerance for political violence and violent extremist actors is on the rise in the United States.  Is this true?  If so, what might explain why more Americans view political violence to be acceptable? Finally, what can be done to stem the tide of support for political violence in the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere.  In this lecture I present some of my findings over several years of public opinion research on political violence in the United StatesJames A. Piazza is a Liberal Arts professor of Political Science whose research focuses on terrorism, political violence, and violent extremism in the United States. He holds a Ph.D. in Politics from New York University, an M.A. in Middle East Studies from the University of Michigan, and a B.A. in Political Science from Loyola University Chicago. Piazza’s work examines how democratic processes, demographic change, and extremist ideologies shape patterns of political violence. His research has been published in leading journals, including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Security Studies, and Political Research Quarterly, and he is widely recognized for his comparative studies of left‑wing, right‑wing, and Islamist extremism.