Search

A growing literature in philosophy of science focuses on the role of aesthetics in scientific practice, with the experiment recently recognized for its aesthetic value. However, the literature on aesthetics in experimentation grows out of case studies from the history of science, leaving open the question as to how contemporary scientists experience aesthetics in their experimental work. In this paper we offer the first qualitative, empirical analysis of aesthetic experiences regarding experimental practice, drawing from in-depth interviews with 215 scientists in four countries. We identify six categories of aesthetic experience we find in experimentation, their function, and new questions emerging from our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social scientific research challenges stereotypes of scientists as irreligious, on the one hand, and lacking aesthetic sensitivity, on the other. Yet, while some research suggests connections between these domains, the question remains as to whether and how scientists themselves connect their religion or spirituality with their aesthetic experiences in science. Drawing on interviews with 71 biologists and physicists in India, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, we find three distinct logics by which scientists connect these experiences, which we call "evoking", "grounding", and "defining". We also find some scientists assume a modernist logic on which religion or spirituality and science are seen as separate to explain why they do not experience their religion or spirituality and aesthetic experiences as connected. Our findings enhance our understanding of how personal beliefs can shape and be shaped by professional experiences and suggest opportunities for dialogue between scientists and communities of faith centering aesthetic experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, critical realists have increasingly engaged with the thought of Charles S. Peirce (1839‐1914), the founder of the American pragmatist tradition. But the engagement has been mostly narrow in focus and at times misinformed. This paper examines points of continuity between Peircean thought and critical realism with respect to causation, ontology, and truth. Its purpose is to lay the groundwork for further and more fruitful engagement between the traditions by bringing attention to some things critical realists may not have known, and to correct some inaccurate things they thought they knew, about Peirce's philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charles S. Peirce's realism has been neglected by pragmatists and critical realists alike in the current debate over metatheoretical realism in sociology. This paper introduces Peirce's view of what is at stake in the question of realism, specifically regarding causation. Leveraging current interest in Peirce's conception of abduction, I show how realism about causation is implicit therein. I present a genealogy of the concept of real causation Peirce embraces. I explicate Peirce's view of the scientific significance of realism about causation, and why he finds it compelling. Finally, I argue that Peirce would intervene in the current debate by saying that those committed to abductive theorizing and causal explanation are implicitly realist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]