Search

After a number of years of relative neglect, it is now becoming apparent that Grete Hermann (1901-1984) was one of the most accomplished neo-Kantian philosophers of the last century - in part thanks to the recent publication of two volumes on and of her work, one in English (Crull and Bacciagaluppi [6]) and one in German (Herrmann [11]), both reviewed in this issue. The latter in particular contains Hermann's entire output on modern physics and philosophy of science. 5 For more on Hermann's neo-Kantianism, see Paparo ([13]), Crull ([5]) and Cuffaro ([7]), as well as Bacciagaluppi (in preparation a). 6 This criticism is spelled out in more detail in Hermann's own discussion of the EPR paper (and was perhaps prompted by it). There is further a report in the I Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung i of 1 February 1935 of a talk by Hermann for the Berlin Circle on "Korrektur des Kausalprinzips" ("Correction to the Causality Principle") (see the catalogue of Hermann's I Nachlass i in the Archiv der sozialen Demokratie, Bad Godesberg). [Extracted from the article]

Observational and experimental discoveries of new factual entities such as objects, systems, or processes, are major contributors to some advances in the life sciences. Yet, whereas discovery of theories was extensively deliberated by philosophers of science, very little philosophical attention was paid to the discovery of factual entities. This paper examines historical and philosophical aspects of the experimental discovery by Carl Woese of archaea, prokaryotes that comprise one of the three principal domains of the phylogenetic tree. Borrowing Kuhn's terminology, this discovery of a major biological entity was made during a 'normal science' project of building molecular taxonomy for prokaryotes. Unexpectedly, however, an observed anomaly instigated the discovery of archaea. Substantiation of the existence of the new archaeal entity and consequent reconstruction of the phylogenetic tree prompted replacement of a long-held model of a prokarya and eukarya bipartite tree of life by a new model of a tripartite tree comprising of bacteria, archaea, and eukarya. This paper explores the history and philosophical implications of the progression of Woese's project from normal science to anomaly-instigated model-changing discovery. It is also shown that the consequential discoveries of RNA splicing and of ribozymes were similarly prompted by unexpected irregularities during normal science activities. It is thus submitted that some discoveries of factual biological entities are triggered by unforeseen observational or experimental anomalies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on Kojève's account of history and philosophy of science. Kojève's understanding of science can be characterized as internalism, which is evident in his holistic view of philosophy, theology, quantum physics, and the history of classical Newtonian mechanics. It precipitates the facilitation of a further inquiry into the Christian genesis, secular evolution, and subsequent de-Christianization of scientific thought. The paper includes a critical scrutiny of Kojève's philosophical tenets, followed by a comparative analysis of the views of Hegel, Koyré, and Kojève. The primary objective of this research is to juxtapose Kojève's doctrines with Hegel's contemplations on the history and philosophy of science. In addition to identifying affinities, notably the emphasis on the Christian concept of God's Incarnation for the advancement of science, I draw the distinctions between the positions of Hegel, Kojève, and Koyré, specifically concerning the valuation of mathematical knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Perspectives on Kuhn: Contemporary Approaches to the Philosophy of Thomas Kuhn" is a book that emerged from a conference in Argentina and Uruguay, featuring five substantial papers and five commentaries. The topics covered in the book include epistemological coherentism, the philosophical nature of 'structure,' the theoretical background of Kuhn's philosophy, incommensurability, and 'world change.' The papers present new claims and assessments of Kuhn's philosophy, while the commentaries highlight potential issues and areas for further exploration. The book offers valuable insights into Kuhn scholarship and is a well-structured and accomplished collection. [Extracted from the article]

Emphatic claims of a "microbiome revolution" aside, the study of the gut microbiota and its role in organismal development and evolution is a central feature of so-called postgenomics; namely, a conceptual and/or practical turn in contemporary life sciences, which departs from genetic determinism and reductionism to explore holism, emergentism and complexity in biological knowledge-production. This paper analyses the making of postgenomic knowledge about developmental symbiosis in Drosophila melanogaster by a specific group of microbiome scientists. Drawing from both practical philosophy of science and Science and Technology Studies, the paper documents epistemological questions of artefactuality and representativeness of model organisms as they emerge in the day-to-day labour producing and being produced by the "microbiome revolution." Specifically, the paper builds on all the written and editorial exchanges involved in the troubled publication of a research paper studying the symbiotic role of the microbiota in the flies' development. These written materials permit us to delimit the network of justifications, evidence, standards of knowledge-production, trust in the tools and research designs that make up the conditions of possibility of a postgenomic fact. More than reframing the organism as a radically novel multiplicity of reactive genomes, we conclude, doing postgenomic research on the microbiota and symbiosis means producing a story that deviates from the scripts embedded into the sociotechnical experimental systems of post-Human Genome Project life sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses a version of the hermeneutic philosophy of science. Special focus is placed on the ways of reading theoretical objects in scientific inquiry. In implementing readable technologies, this reading succeeds in contextually visualizing the theoretical objects by means of various sorts of signs. A configuration of readable technology accomplishes a further step. The configuration textualizes the contextually produced signs. Textualizing the reading of theoretical objects interlaces the meaningful articulation and objectification of scientific domains. The horizon of possibilities for textualizing is constantly shifting in the process of normal-scientific inquiry, and the shifting horizon plays the role of a hermeneutic fore-structuring of the outcomes of textualizing. The paper explores the importance of "material hermeneutics" for the contextual reading of theoretical objects. The conclusion is drawn that the hermeneutic study of the entanglement of technological artifacts with the outcomes from reading-as-textualizing requires the introduction of ontic-ontological difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Optimization is about finding the best available object with respect to an objective function. Mathematics and quantitative sciences have been highly successful in formulating problems as optimization problems, and constructing clever processes that find optimal objects from sets of objects. As computers have become readily available to most people, optimization and optimized processes play a very broad role in societies. It is not obvious, however, that the optimization processes that work for mathematics and abstract objects should be readily applied to complex and open social systems. In this paper we set forth a framework to understand when optimization is limited, particularly for complex and open social systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents explication on how paleontologists reconstruct the past using fossils when good modern analogues are not available. I call these pastist methods to differentiate them from presentist methods in which such analogues are available. I do so by presenting two fossil cases: the problematica and graphoglyptids. I describe a forgotten heuristic, "analogue chaining," that involves jumping from fossil anomaly to fossil anomaly using one to make sense of the other in successive fashion, using the relations between fossils to guide reconstruction. I relate this to the philosophy of historical sciences in four ways. First, that methods like analogue chaining have a "linearity" meaning that there are limited ways in which to learn about specimens using analogues. Second, that they are intrinsically difficult to notice, i.e. invisible. Third, that linearity and invisibility put pressure on some accounts of optimism about historical sciences. Fourth, our cases provide novel forms of optimism based on epistemic enhancement: the phenomena that some questions regarding an event are better answered millions of years after its occurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The demise of the scholastic worldview and the rise of the mechanistic one may give the impression of a parallel demise of the scholastic explanatory framework. In this paper, I argue that this impression is wrong. To this end, I first outline Descartes' representative and particularly sharp mechanistic criticism of the scholastic notion of explanation. Deploying conceptual machinery from contemporary philosophy of science, I then suggest a reconstruction of the scholastic notion that is immune to Descartes' criticism. Based on this reconstruction, I reinterpret the dispute between Descartes and the scholastics as one that concerns the extent of two legitimate conceptions of explanation. Finally, I outline a contemporary dispute within cognitive neuroscience that reflects the Cartesian-scholastic one as thus reinterpreted, thereby showing that aspects of the world may well require a scholastic-like approach for their explanation. The aim of this paper, then, is to shed light on a most important philosophical-cum-scientific historical controversy from a modern perspective, but also to highlight the deep historical roots of a related contemporary dispute. Based on this, the paper also seeks to draw a substantial philosophical conclusion concerning the issue under dispute in both controversies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I consider the relationship between coming to understand why something must be the case and coming to understand why it actually is the case in some particular instance. Peter Lipton uses the possibility of coming to understand a phenomenon via a necessity proof as an argument that there can be understanding with no explanation. Lipton's argument has come under criticism, at least partially because one might think that understanding why something must be the case has a different object from understanding the actual phenomenon. In this paper, I argue that that under certain circumstances it is fairly straightforward to come to understand an actual phenomenon on the basis of knowing why it had to be the case. Rather than relying on brute intuitions, my primary strategy will be to show that on least some modern accounts of understanding we can validate Lipton's general point with respect to a variety of possible necessity relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are there so many controversies in evolutionary psychology? Using a couple of concepts from philosophy of science, this paper argues that evolutionary psychology has not reached the stage of mature, normal science, since it does not currently have a unifying research program that guides individual scientists working in the discipline. The argument goes against claims made by certain proponents and opponents of evolutionary psychology, and it is supported by discussion of several examples. The paper notes that just because evolutionary psychology has not reached the stage of normal science, the discipline is nevertheless a source of many progressive theoretical developments and interesting empirical discoveries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A well-known difficulty that affects all accounts of laws of nature according to which the latter are higher-order facts involving relations between universals (the so-called DTA accounts, from Dretske in Philosophy of Science 44:248–268, 1977; Tooley in Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7:667–698, 1977 and Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983)) is the Inference Problem: how can laws construed in that way determine the first-order regularities that we find in the actual world? Bird (Analysis 65:147–55, 2005) has argued that there is no solution to the Inference Problem which is consistent with both categorical monism (that is, the view that all natural properties are categorical) and basic tenets of Armstrong's account of the laws of nature. This paper shows that, given Armstrong's view about laws as first-order structural universals whose instantiation 'produce' nomic regularities and under specific plausible metaphysical assumptions concerning nomic relations which are consistent with a broadly construed DTA approach to laws, there is no extra difficulty regarding the Inference Problem in a categorical monistic context besides the ones that beset structural universals in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study focuses on the discussion of how universities middle managers perceive the effects of strategic plan's elaboration and implementation. The paper presents the institutional context of strategic thinking in the Russian higher education system, and the analysis of changes in universities' activities with the influence of the strategy implementation. The latter is based on the survey data and represents the perception of universities' middle managers (faculty deans and research department heads). The analysis of survey data is complemented by the calculation of changes in organizational-level performance indicators. The results suggest that middle managers' perception of strategies in general correlates to the changes in actual institutional performance indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leadership in higher can influence the structurally embedding of educational technologies in higher education institutions. However, HEIs are complex pluralistic organizational environments with loosely coupled systems, diffused power and goal ambiguity which makes governance of educational innovations a wicked problem in which they have to balance dynamic complex interactions while also setting out a clear vision and enacting this vision towards organizational goals. This paper analyses four qualitative case studies with a focus on the choices made by leaders in four Dutch universities that aim to contribute to organisational educational innovation. We investigated the data through the lens of complexity leadership theory in which three types of leadership play an important role: administrative leadership (i.e. top-down oriented), adaptive leadership (i.e. bottom-up oriented) and enabling leadership that emerges as a leadership type between administrative and adaptive leadership and contributes to governing innovation in complex environments. This study sheds light on how, in the case of HEIs as complex environments, leaders made strategic choices and followed up on them to enable the innovative potential of the organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to show that the logical approach to philosophy of science could be further improved with tools like the ones put forward by Schurz in his proposal to model scientific theory development. Section 2 is a presentation of the basics in AGM epistemology of logical abduction and of their connection. In Sect. 3 several operations for theory change proposed by Schurz (2011; 2018) are presented, followed by my own proposal of a further case of hypothesis refinement, consisting of the instantiation of an existential abduction. Section 4 offers a discussion and conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the findings and conclusions from a previous study concerning Danish psychology students' Master thesis projects are discussed. By conducting eight qualitative semi-structured interviews with nine psychology students, shortly after they had handed in their Master's theses, we attempted to uncover and challenge some of our previous findings. We set out to deepen our previous conclusions concerning (1) why there is a seeming discrepancy between the use of certain methods and theories amongst the students and psychology as a discipline writ large, (2) whether their use of qualitative methods indicated a routine-like relationship to methods, and (3) whether a unification of methods and theories can be identified. Based on the interviews conducted for this commentary, we conclude that the students do indeed take an active stance when it comes to choosing their methods and topics, and that they are fully aware of the discrepancy between their interests and psychology as a discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examples of extended cognition typically involve the use of technologically low-grade bio-external resources (e.g., the use of pen and paper to solve long multiplication problems). The present paper describes a putative case of extended cognizing based around a technologically advanced mixed reality device, namely, the Microsoft HoloLens. The case is evaluated from the standpoint of a mechanistic perspective. In particular, it is suggested that a combination of organismic (e.g., the human individual) and extra-organismic (e.g., the HoloLens) resources form part of a common mechanism that realizes a bona fide cognitive routine. In addition to demonstrating how the theoretical resources of neo-mechanical philosophy might be used to evaluate extended cognitive systems, the present paper illustrates one of the ways in which mixed reality devices, virtual objects (i.e., holograms), and online (Internet-accessible) computational routines might be incorporated into human cognitive processes. This, it is suggested, speaks to the recent interest in mixed/virtual reality technologies across a number of disciplines. It also introduces us to issues that cross-cut disparate fields of philosophical research, such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent publications by several leading philosophers of chemistry have focused on the definition, scope, utility, and nomenclature of issues dealing with acidity and basicity. In this paper, molecular orbital theory is used to explain all acid–base reactions, concluding that the interaction of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of one substrate, "the base," with the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of a second substrate, "the acid," determines the reactivity of such systems. This paradigm provides an understanding of all acid–base reactions as well as other reactions which, on the surface, may not seem like acid–base reactions but which have fundamental underpinnings of that kind of chemistry. Rather than being unable to determine a unified understanding of acidity and basicity as suggested in the philosophy of chemistry literature, we propose that acidity and basicity fit securely in a classification of many other reactions that, using classical chemistry knowledge, pre-quantum chemistry, would not be possible. We strongly support the use of all scientific knowledge and experience in the development of the ideas in the philosophy science. We further suggest increased interactions between philosophers of science and scientists, so that all scholars benefit from the values, knowledge, and perspectives of other disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do scientists generate knowledge in groups, and how have they done so in the past? How do epistemically motivated social interactions influence or even drive this process? These questions speak to core interests of both history and philosophy of science. Idealised models and formal arguments have been suggested to illuminate the social epistemology of science, but their conclusions are not directly applicable to scientific practice. This paper uses one of these models as a lens and historiographical tool in the examination of actual scientific collectives. It centres on the analysis of two episodes from the history of photosynthesis research of the late nineteenth- to mid-twentieth centuries, which display a wide and coordinated intellectual diversity similar to Kitcher's "division of cognitive labour" (1990). The concept, I argue, captures important aspects of the photosynthesis research communities, but the underlying process unfolded in ways that differ from the model's assumption in interesting ways. The paper unravels how the self-organised interplay of cooperation and competition, and the dynamics of individual and collective goals within scientific communities were influential factors in the generation of knowledge. From there, some thoughts are developed on how historical and philosophical approaches in the analysis of science can productively interact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophy of science in the twentieth century tends to emphasize either the logic of science (e.g., Popper and Hempel on explanation, confirmation, etc.) or its history/sociology (e.g., Kuhn on revolutions, holism, etc.). This dichotomy, however, is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Questions regarding scientific understanding and mathematical explanation do not fit neatly inside either category, and addressing them has drawn from both logic and history. Additionally, interest in scientific and mathematical practice has led to work that falls between the two sides of the dichotomy. We might call these less narrow approaches 'holistic'. Prior to 1918, work in the philosophy of science was also somewhat more holistic and interdisciplinary in nature. An exemplar of this type of approach is found in the work of Henri Poincaré. In this paper I will consider one particularly flexible tool Poincaré uses throughout his philosophical writings about science and mathematics: the tool of the unifying concept. More specifically, I will focus on one unifying concept: that of structure. I aim to show first, that structure is a unifying scientific concept for Poincaré; second, a focus on structure helps explain his scientific and mathematical success; lastly, this case study may provide a model for how unifying concepts can facilitate progress in mathematics and science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has a twofold aim. On the one hand, it explores the extent to which Mach was inspired by Kant's approach to philosophical inquiry and tried to further elaborate it through his historico-critical method for enlightening scientific knowledge claims. On the other hand, it argues that the focus on the situated character of these claims that is implied in Mach's epistemology makes it possible to compare his view to recent attempts to defend a perspectival realist account of scientific knowledge, thus revealing the relevance of Mach's own approach as a methodology in the philosophy of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some real life processes, including molecular ones, are context-sensitive, in the sense that their outcome depends on side conditions that are most of the times difficult, or impossible, to express fully in advance. In this paper, we survey and discuss a logical account of context-sensitiveness in molecular processes, based on a kind of non-classical logic. This account also allows us to revisit the relationship between logic and philosophy of science (and philosophy of biology, in particular). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific realism is usually presented as if metaphysical realism (i.e. the thesis that there is a structured mind-independent external world) were one of its essential parts. This paper aims to examine how weak the metaphysical commitments endorsed by scientific realists could be. I will argue that scientific realism could be stated without accepting any form of metaphysical realism. Such a conclusion does not go as far as to try to combine scientific realism with metaphysical antirealism. Instead, it amounts to the combination of the former with a weaker view, called quietism, which is agnostic on the existence of mind-independent structures. In Sect. 2, I will argue that the minimal claim that brings together every scientific realist view is devoid of any metaphysical commitment. In Sect. 3, I will define metaphysical realism and antirealism. Such work will be instrumental in providing a more precise statement of quietism. Finally (Sect. 4), I will argue that assuming quietism, it is still possible to make sense of the debate between scientific realists and antirealists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper traces the empiricist program from early debates between nativism and behaviorism within philosophy, through debates about early connectionist approaches within the cognitive sciences, and up to their recent iterations within the domain of deep learning. We demonstrate how current debates on the nature of cognition via deep network architecture echo some of the core issues from the Chomsky/Quine debate and investigate the strength of support offered by these various lines of research to the empiricist standpoint. Referencing literature from both computer science and philosophy, we conclude that the current state of deep learning does not offer strong encouragement to the empiricist side despite some arguments to the contrary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2015, the XLI Congress of Theoretical Chemists of Latin Expression was held in Italy (Torino, July 26-31, 2015). Published as part of the special collection of articles "CHITEL 2015 - Torino - Italy.". [Extracted from the article]

This December issue is our final traditional issue because I NanoEthics: Studies of New and Emerging Technologies i is transitioning to full open access (OA). However, Springer Nature offers APC waivers and discounts for papers published in fully OA journals whose corresponding authors are based in the world's lowest income countries as defined by the World Bank. In this first and final editorial of 2022, I would like to share with you information on a variety of changes and news concerning our journal as well as some reflections on them and on developments in the world. [Extracted from the article]

This would provide enhanced support to the kind of critical spatial data science advocated by Brunsdon and Comber in their paper. Brunsdon and Comber ([13]) reflect on recent trends in the spatial sciences, which include the practice of coding as a core competency and a turn away from proprietary "black-box" software tools. Opening the spatial sciences The first two papers in the issue discuss two important aspects of opening the spatial sciences. The opening and closing of science Science, of course, has changed remarkably since its quasi-magical origins in the days of Dee and Newton. [Extracted from the article]

This special issue for the Journal for General Philosophy of Science is devoted to exploring the impact and many ramifications of current research in evolutionary epistemology. Evolutionary epistemology (EE) is an inter- and multidisciplinary area of research that can be divided into two ever-inclusive research avenues. One research avenue expands on the EEM program and investigates the epistemology of evolution. The other research avenue builds on the EET program and researches the evolution of epistemology. Since its conception, EE has developed three schools of thought: adaptationist, non-adaptationist, and applied EE. Although diverse in outlook and theoretical background, these research avenues and schools share the same agenda of understanding how knowledge evolves, and how it relates to the world. In this paper, we first explain wherefrom evolutionary epistemological schools of thought developed, and then we highlight current debates in EE by briefly reviewing the papers that form part of this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thought style and thought collective are two well-known concepts from Ludwik Fleck's theory of science, which he originally formulated in Polish and German. This paper contends that these two concepts cannot be fully understood without a third—Stimmung/nastrój, which is one of the musical metaphors that play an important role in Fleck's thinking. Because it is most often translated into English as "mood", Fleck's musical metaphors are mostly lost in translation, appearing as mere rhetoric. Only if and when we understand Stimmung/nastrój in the musical meaning of attunement, we can fully understand thought collectives, for which Stimmung/nastrój is sine qua non, and thought style, which appears if and when a collective turns out to be an enduring and not a momentary one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper puts forward an ontology that is indebted to QBism, Kant, Bohr, Schrödinger, the philosophy of the Upanishads, and the evolutionary philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. Central to it is that reality is relative to consciousness or experience. Instead of a single mind-independent reality, there are different poises of consciousness, including a consciousness to which "we are all really only various aspects of the One" (Schrödinger). This ontology helps clear up unresolved issues in the philosophy of science, such as arise from the reification of quantum states or from disregard of the universal context of science, which is human experience. It further helps clear up unresolved issues in the philosophy of mind, in particular the problem of intentionality and the dilemma posed by the mutual inclusion of self and world (Husserl's paradox of human subjectivity). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daniel J. Nicholson and John Dupré's edited collection of papers in I Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology i is an excellent example of the skillful sampling of an on-going approach in philosophy of science. Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology. I especially warmly recommend it to those philosophers exposed chiefly to the standard topics and approaches in philosophy of biology and in philosophy of science more generally. [Extracted from the article]

The main purpose of this paper is to contribute to the reflection on a potential integrative framework for the psychological sciences based on the target paper in this special issue "Psychology: A Giant with Feet of Clay" by Zagaria, Andò & Zennaro. The paper is organized in three parts. In the first part we will discuss whether introductory textbooks provide a solid and reasonable basis for an analysis of the quality of conceptualization of key concepts in the psychology as well as whether the epistemological analysis could provide arguments for a conclusion that the psychology is a "soft(er)" science. In the second part, we will formulate our reasons why we share with Zagaria, Andò & Zennaro the conclusion that the evolutionary psychology might play a significant role in our quest for the integrative framework, but also why we are not convinced that evolutionary psychology can be integrative enough. In the third part, we are going to formulate an alternative starting point for exploration of for an integrative framework for psychological sciences and their practical applications supporting individuals and communities in their quest for a meaningful and productive existence and navigation of their future lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Here, as in other ML applications, there is a well-known problem of balancing the fit of the ML model to the training data with a possible overfitting to that very data; something which is generally tackled by so called I regularization i methods. Machine Learning (ML) techniques are currently revolutionizing many areas of science. The authors thus compare ML models to standard statistical modeling and highlight what is missing in the case of ML models. As Lam argues in this paper, the implicit use of high-level concepts by ML systems can be seen as an example of tacit knowledge, and hence he argues for the existence of propositional content in ML black box systems. [Extracted from the article]

Although true in some aspects, the suggested characterization of today's science as a dichotomy between traditional science and data-driven science misses some of the nuance, complexity, and possibility that exists between the two positions. Part of the problem is the claim that Data Science works without theories. There are many theories behind the data that are used in science. However, for data science, the only theories that matter are those in mathematics, statistics, and computer science. In this conceptual paper, we add two other philosophy of science tenets, experiments and data, to the discussion to create a more nuanced view of how data science uses theories. Following Ihde's concept of technoscience and the incessant quest for more precision, magnification, and resolution, we argue that technology-driven science created a need for more technology-driven science, culminating in data science. Further, we adapt Hacking and Galison's views on physics to argue that data science is also an experimental science, which uses data objects in experiments. Drawing from Heelan (The Journal of Philosophy 85:515–524, 1988), we called these objects "data-objects-for-knowing". Finally, we conclude that data science is a science to study artificially created phenomena—a science to study the data manipulated by the equations and operations of AI. It disregards the connections between data and the real world that were carefully built by the theories from other sciences. In the experiments of data science, data are the world itself. The knowledge created by data science is purposely disconnected from any theory from other sciences; it is a knowledge for the sake of itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to a widespread view in metaphysics and philosophy of science (the "Dependence Thesis"), all explanations involve relations of ontic dependence between the items appearing in the explanandum and the items appearing in the explanans. I argue that a family of mathematical cases, which I call "viewing-as explanations", are incompatible with the Dependence Thesis. These cases, I claim, feature genuine explanations that aren't supported by ontic dependence relations. Hence the thesis isn't true in general. The first part of the paper defends this claim and discusses its significance. The second part of the paper considers whether viewing-as explanations occur in the empirical sciences, focusing on the case of so-called fictional models (such as Bohr's model of the atom). It's sometimes suggested that fictional models can be explanatory even though they fail to represent actual worldly dependence relations. Whether or not such models explain, I suggest, depends on whether we think scientific explanations necessarily give information relevant to intervention and control. Finally, I argue that counterfactual approaches to explanation also have trouble accommodating viewing-as cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Design process models have a complex and changing relationship to the processes they model, and mean different things to different people in different situations. Participants in design processes need to understand each other's perspectives and agree on what the models mean. The paper draws on philosophy of science to argue that understanding a design process model can be seen as an imagination game governed by agreed rules, to envisage what would be true about the world if the model were correct. The rules depend on the syntax and content of the model, on the task the model is used for, and on what the users see the model as being. The paper outlines twelve alternative conceptualizations of design process models—frames, pathways, positions, proclamations, projections, predictions, propositions, prophecies, requests, demands, proposals, promises—and discusses when they fit situations that stakeholders in design processes can be in. Articulating how process models are conceptualised can both help to understand how process management works and help to resolve communication problems in industrial practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the number of medical and health humanities degree programs in the United States rapidly increases (Berry, Lamb and Jones 2016, 2017), it is especially timely to consider the range of specific disciplinary (and multidisciplinary) perspectives that might benefit students enrolled in these programs. This paper discusses the inclusion of one such perspective from the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS.) The author asserts that STS benefits students in the medical and health humanities in four particular ways, by: (1) challenging the "progress narrative" around the advancement of biomedicine as scientific practice, (2) evaluating the meaning of technology, especially in how technology orients us towards sickness and how health technology is in turn shaped by social and cultural values, (3) assessing the plurality of biomedical epistemologies, rather than assuming biomedicine is one, cohesive body of knowledge that does not differ across contexts, and (4) critiquing bias in biomedical practice and science, especially in the marginalization of women's voices and in the racial and postcolonial trajectories of contemporary biomedicine. The paper discusses the theoretical importance of these four trajectories to the medical and health humanities, as well as the venues for inclusion of STS within coursework and programming at Case Western Reserve University. The paper also comments on how programming at other institutions might be adapted to incorporate STS scholarship. By drawing on numerous examples of research in the anthropology, sociology, history, and the philosophy of science, this article seeks to open a conversation about the value of science and technology studies to health humanities pedagogy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I critically evaluate several related, provocative claims made by proponents of data-intensive science and "Big Data" which bear on scientific methodology, especially the claim that scientists will soon no longer have any use for familiar concepts like causation and explanation. After introducing the issue, in Section 2, I elaborate on the alleged changes to scientific method that feature prominently in discussions of Big Data. In Section 3, I argue that these methodological claims are in tension with a prominent account of scientific method, often called "Inference to the Best Explanation" (IBE). Later on, in Section 3, I consider an argument against IBE that will be congenial to proponents of Big Data, namely, the argument due to Roche and Sober Analysis, 73:659–668, (2013) that "explanatoriness is evidentially irrelevant." This argument is based on Bayesianism, one of the most prominent general accounts of theory-confirmation. In Section 4, I consider some extant responses to this argument, especially that of Climenhaga Philosophy of Science, 84:359–368, (2017). In Section 5, I argue that Roche and Sober's argument does not show that explanatory reasoning is dispensable. In Section 6, I argue that there is good reason to think explanatory reasoning will continue to prove indispensable in scientific practice. Drawing on Cicero's oft-neglected De Divinatione, I formulate what I call the "Ciceronian Causal-nomological Requirement" (CCR), which states, roughly, that causal-nomological knowledge is essential for relying on correlations in predictive inference. I defend a version of the CCR by appealing to the challenge of "spurious correlations," chance correlations which we should not rely upon for predictive inference. In Section 7, I offer some concluding remarks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many philosophers are baffled by necessity. Humeans, in particular, are deeply disturbed by the idea of necessary laws of nature. In this paper I offer a systematic yet down to earth explanation of necessity and laws in terms of invariance. The type of invariance I employ for this purpose generalizes an invariance used in meta-logic. The main idea is that properties and relations in general have certain degrees of invariance, and some properties/relations have a stronger degree of invariance than others. The degrees of invariance of highly-invariant properties are associated with high degrees of necessity of laws governing/describing these properties, and this explains the necessity of such laws both in logic and in science. This non-mysterious explanation has rich ramifications for both fields, including the formality of logic and mathematics, the apparent conflict between the contingency of science and the necessity of its laws, the difference between logical-mathematical, physical, and biological laws/principles, the abstract character of laws, the applicability of logic and mathematics to science, scientific realism, and logical-mathematical realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a sorely-needed evaluation of the view that mathematical explanations in science explain by unifying. Illustrating with some novel examples, I argue that the view is misguided. For believers in mathematical explanations in science, my discussion rules out one way of spelling out how they work, bringing us one step closer to the right way. For non-believers, it contributes to a divide-and-conquer strategy for showing that there are no such explanations in science. My discussion also undermines the appeal to unifying power in support of the enhanced indispensability argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent work in AI ethics often calls for AI to advance human values and interests. The concept of "AI for people" is one notable example. Though commendable in some respects, this work falls short by excluding the moral significance of nonhumans. This paper calls for a shift in AI ethics to more inclusive paradigms such as "AI for the world" and "AI for the universe". The paper outlines the case for more inclusive paradigms and presents implications for moral philosophy and computer science work on AI ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

And, I teach three different courses on talent development: one for graduate students, one for Honors students, and a university-wide mini course for undergraduate students. Kenneth Kiewra is professor of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska. This experience led to my conducting two note-taking studies that were the basis of my qualifying paper into the doctoral program and four more note-taking studies that were the basis of my dissertation, with Dr. Fletcher advising me every ANOVA of the way (e.g., Kiewra and Fletcher [26]).Dr. Kiewra [4]; Kiewra and Creswell [25]; Patterson-Hazley and Kiewra [40]; Prinz et al. [41]). After developing the SOAR method, I conducted research led by graduate student collaborators Dharma Jairam and Tareq Daher and confirmed that SOAR methods boosted achievement more than students' preferred study methods for text-based learning (Jairam and Kiewra [10]), computer-based learning (Jairam and Kiewra [11]), and learning from multiple sources (Daher and Kiewra [3]). [Extracted from the article]

Researchers in cultural evolutionary theory (CET) have recently proposed the foundation of a new field of research in cultural evolution named 'epistemic evolution'. Drawing on evolutionary epistemology's early studies, this programme aims to study science as an evolutionary cultural process. The paper discusses the way CET's study of science can contribute to the philosophical debate and, vice versa, how the philosophy of science can benefit from the adoption of a cultural evolutionary perspective. Here, I argue that CET's main contribution to an evolutionary model of scientific growth comes from the application of 'population thinking' to science. Populationism offers a 'variation based' understanding of scientists' epistemic and socio-epistemic criteria that is able to better accommodate the variegated preferences that intervene in scientific epistemic decisions. A discussion of the so called theory choice context is offered as an example of the way a populationist approach can shed new light on the operation of scientists' epistemic choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cross-sectional research design, especially when used with self-report surveys, is held in low esteem despite its widespread use. It is generally accepted that the longitudinal design offers considerable advantages and should be preferred due to its ability to shed light on causal connections. In this paper, I will argue that the ability of the longitudinal design to reflect causality has been overstated and that it offers limited advantages over the cross-sectional design in most cases in which it is used. The nature of causal inference from a philosophy of science perspective is used to illustrate how cross-sectional designs can provide evidence for relationships among variables and can be used to rule out many potential alternative explanations for those relationships. Strategies for optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs are noted, including the inclusion of control variables to rule out spurious relationships, the addition of alternative sources of data, and the incorporation of experimental methods. Best practice advice is offered for the use of both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, as well as for authors writing and for reviewers evaluating papers that report results of cross-sectional studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dellsén (2016) has recently argued for an understanding-based account of scientific progress, the noetic account, according to which science (or a particular scientific discipline) makes cognitive progress precisely when it increases our understanding of some aspect of the world. I contrast this account with Bird’s (2007, 2015); epistemic account, according to which such progress is made precisely when our knowledge of the world is increased or accumulated. In a recent paper, Park (2017) criticizes various aspects of my account and his arguments in favor of the noetic account as against Bird’s epistemic account. This paper responds to Park’s objections. An important upshot of the paper is that we should distinguish between episodes that constitute and promote scientific progress, and evaluate account of scientific progress in terms of how they classify different episodes with respect to these categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper deals with the philosophy of science and technology from a new perspective. The analysis connects closely to the novel approach to scientific research called practical realism of the late Estonian philosopher of science and chemistry Rein Vihalemm. From his perspective, science is not only theoretical but even more clearly a practical activity. This kind of practice-based approach puts chemistry rather than physics into the position of the most typical science as chemistry has a dual character resting on both constructive-hypothetico-deductive (ϕ-science) and classifying-historico-descriptive (non-ϕ-science) types of cognition. Chemists deal with finding out the laws of nature just like the physicists do. However, in addition to this chemistry deals with substances or stuff that is rather an activity typical to natural history. The analysis of the dual character of chemistry brings forward the need to analyse philosophically also the reasons why physics has held the position of the model science so far. The problem unfolds in the context of practical realism. However, some earlier observations concerning the dual character of chemistry influenced us as well, i.e. by Friedrich Paneth, Michael Polanyi and Edward Caldin. More recently, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Jonathan Simon have given their own explanation of why and how chemistry has a dual character. From their perspective, chemistry is a perfect technical science as it aims at applications, literally at producing something new. Bensaude-Vincent and Simon call their approach operational realism. The latter, however, does not differ from practical realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In computational complexity theory, decision problems are divided into complexity classes based on the amount of computational resources it takes for algorithms to solve them. In theoretical computer science, it is commonly accepted that only functions for solving problems in the complexity class P, solvable by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time, are considered to be tractable. In cognitive science and philosophy, this tractability result has been used to argue that only functions in P can feasibly work as computational models of human cognitive capacities. One interesting area of computational complexity theory is descriptive complexity, which connects the expressive strength of systems of logic with the computational complexity classes. In descriptive complexity theory, it is established that only first-order (classical) systems are connected to P, or one of its subclasses. Consequently, second-order systems of logic are considered to be computationally intractable, and may therefore seem to be unfit to model human cognitive capacities. This would be problematic when we think of the role of logic as the foundations of mathematics. In order to express many important mathematical concepts and systematically prove theorems involving them, we need to have a system of logic stronger than classical first-order logic. But if such a system is considered to be intractable, it means that the logical foundation of mathematics can be prohibitively complex for human cognition. In this paper I will argue, however, that this problem is the result of an unjustified direct use of computational complexity classes in cognitive modelling. Placing my account in the recent literature on the topic, I argue that the problem can be solved by considering computational complexity for humanly relevant problem solving algorithms and input sizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophers have usually highlighted how the weakness and paucity of historical evidence underdetermine the choice between rival historical explanations. Focusing underdetermination on the link between theory and evidence comes, I argue, with three assumptions: (a) competing hypotheses are easy to generate, (b) investigators agree on the constitution and interpretation of the evidence and (c) a plurality of hypotheses is a useful evil to reach consensus. The last assumption implies that the sustained coexistence of incompatible hypotheses is considered as a scientific failure. I argue that this negative vision of sustained disagreement has monistic undertones. By drawing from a case study in evolutionary biology, this paper defends a form of scientific pluralism. Firstly, I show that underdetermination is not only found at the inferential level but also (a) at the level of the constitution and interpretation of the evidence, (b) on the choice of investigative scaffolds and (c) when interpreting background theories. Because of that, competing hypotheses exhibit a degree of methodological incommensurability. While catastrophic from a monistic standpoint, I defend that scientific pluralism gives a different, and I think richer, account of such situations. On the plus side, competing approaches benefit from their sustained coexistence and interaction. I argue that this generates direct and indirect epistemic goods independently of whether the controversy is solved. Scientific pluralism also shifts our attention from achieving consensus to managing disagreement. The challenge becomes to maintain the conditions for fruitful interactions in a community with incommensurable approaches and heterogeneous expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]