The Concept of Fact in German Physics around 1900: A Comparison between Mach and Einstein

The concept of fact has a history. Over the past centuries, physicists have appropriated it in various ways. In this article, we compare Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein's interpretations of the concept. Mach, like most nineteenth-century physicists, contrasted fact and theory. He understood facts as real and complex combinations of natural events. Theories, in turn, only served to order and communicate facts efficiently. Einstein's concept of fact was incompatible with Mach's, since Einstein believed facts could be theoretical too, just as he ascribed mathematical theorizing a leading role in representing reality. For example, he used the concept of fact to refer to a generally valid result of experience. The differences we disclose between Mach and Einstein were symbolic for broader tensions in the German physics discipline. Furthermore, they underline the historically fluid character of the category of the fact, both within physics and beyond.Comment: Physics in Perspective, 202

Introduction: Rethinking History of Science in the Anthropocene

The process of thinking through the implications of the Anthropocene for the humanities, including history, is well under way. The time has come for historians of science to take stock of the situation in Anthropocene scholarship and collaboratively reflect on how we want to situate our field toward that scholarship. It will involve taking up such fundamental questions as why and how, as well as for and with whom, we do the history of science. This introduction to the Focus section “History of Science in the An-thropocene” presents the Anthropocene as both a challenge and an opportunity, opening up new avenues of research and widening spatial, temporal, and topical boundaries while giving rise to urgent problems, dilemmas, and choices that will need to be faced. The aim of this Focus section is to put these challenges and opportunities on the history of science’s agenda and, thereby, to start a discipline-wide dialogue

Introduction: Rethinking History of Science in the Anthropocene

The process of thinking through the implications of the Anthropocene for the humanities, including history, is well under way. The time has come for historians of science to take stock of the situation in Anthropocene scholarship and collaboratively reflect on how we want to situate our field toward that scholarship. It will involve taking up such fundamental questions as why and how, as well as for and with whom, we do the history of science. This introduction to the Focus section “History of Science in the An-thropocene” presents the Anthropocene as both a challenge and an opportunity, opening up new avenues of research and widening spatial, temporal, and topical boundaries while giving rise to urgent problems, dilemmas, and choices that will need to be faced. The aim of this Focus section is to put these challenges and opportunities on the history of science’s agenda and, thereby, to start a discipline-wide dialogue

What does the EU actually mean to citizens?: An in-depth study of Dutch citizens' understandings and evaluations of the European Union

Although citizens' attitudes towards the European Union (EU) have been examined extensively, there is a dearth of studies on what the EU actually means to them. Inspired by observations suggesting that the EU means different things to different people, this research aimed to uncover these views using an inductive approach: 13 group interviews with a heterogenous set of homogenous groups. 45 Dutch citizens, strategically selected from various social backgrounds, were interviewed in-depth. Four discourses on the EU were identified: pragmatic, federalist, anti-establishment and disengaged. We also demonstrated that these discourses go hand-in-hand with: 1) specific evaluations of the EU beyond the conventional ‘Europhilia-Euroscepticism’ dimension; and 2) similar criticisms regarding themes emphasised by interviewees themselves – wasting of money and a lack of transparency and democracy – but for very different, sometimes even counterposing, reasons. The wider implications of our findings and possible venues for further research are also discussed

Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a correlational class analysis of novel Dutch survey data

While ample research has scrutinised the causes and consequences of support for the European Union, a pressing question remains: what do people actually mean when they express support for, or opposition to, their country’s membership of the institution? We use Correlational Class Analysis to assess this. Our analysis of high-quality representative Dutch survey data (n = 2053), including novel items informed by in-depth qualitative research, reveals that European Union support comes in three guises: federalist, non-federalist and instrumental-pragmatist Strikingly, many Europhiles are not federalists. In addition, we reveal that the social bases of the three types of support especially differ regarding political competence, political orientation, and media consumption. The implications for ongoing debates on European Union atttidues are discusse

sj-txt-2-eup-10.1177_14651165221101505 - Supplemental material for Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data

Supplemental material, sj-txt-2-eup-10.1177_14651165221101505 for Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data by Elske van den Hoogen, Stijn Daenekindt, Willem de Koster and Jeroen van der Waal in European Union Politic

Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data

While ample research has scrutinised the causes and consequences of support for the European Union, a pressing question remains: what do people actually mean when they express support for, or opposition to, their country’s membership of the institution? We use Correlational Class Analysis to assess this. Our analysis of high-quality representative Dutch survey data (n = 2053), including novel items informed by in-depth qualitative research, reveals that European Union support comes in three guises: federalist, non-federalist and instrumental-pragmatist Strikingly, many Europhiles are not federalists. In addition, we reveal that the social bases of the three types of support especially differ regarding political competence, political orientation, and media consumption. The implications for ongoing debates on European Union atttidues are discussed

sj-dta-1-eup-10.1177_14651165221101505 - Supplemental material for Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data

Supplemental material, sj-dta-1-eup-10.1177_14651165221101505 for Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data by Elske van den Hoogen, Stijn Daenekindt, Willem de Koster and Jeroen van der Waal in European Union Politic

sj-do-4-eup-10.1177_14651165221101505 - Supplemental material for Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data

Supplemental material, sj-do-4-eup-10.1177_14651165221101505 for Support for European Union membership comes in various guises: Evidence from a Correlational Class Analysis of novel Dutch survey data by Elske van den Hoogen, Stijn Daenekindt, Willem de Koster and Jeroen van der Waal in European Union Politic