Failing to Play by the Rules

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Good Strategy

This chapter assesses whether focusing on rules of engagement for fruitful discussions about competing scientific views provides a good strategy for reliably identifying normatively inappropriate dissent (NID). It discusses some of the rules for effective criticism dominant in the philosophy of science literature: shared standards, uptake, and expertise. It shows that although all these criteria appear eminently reasonable as requirements for transformative criticism, what they actually involve is not straightforward. Some of the interpretations of these criteria are likely to identify as inappropriate dissent that is actually epistemically valuable, while other interpretations of these criteria would fail to pinpoint the very cases of dissent that some consider paradigm cases of NID.

scholarly journals A Defence of Manipulationist Noncausal Explanation: The Case for Intervention Liberalism

Erkenntnis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Emmerson
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
The Core ◽  
Mechanistic Constitution ◽  
Core Feature ◽  
Specific Position

AbstractRecent years have seen growing interest in modifying interventionist accounts of causal explanation in order to characterise noncausal explanation. However, one surprising element of such accounts is that they have typically jettisoned the core feature of interventionism: interventions. Indeed, the prevailing opinion within the philosophy of science literature suggests that interventions exclusively demarcate causal relationships. This position is so prevalent that, until now, no one has even thought to name it. We call it “intervention puritanism”. In this paper, we mount the first sustained defence of the idea that there are distinctively noncausal explanations which can be characterized in terms of possible interventions; and thus, argue that I-puritanism is false. We call the resultant position “intervention liberalism” (I-liberalism, for short). While many have followed Woodward (Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) in committing to I-pluralism, we trace support for I-liberalism back to the work of Kim (in: Kim (ed) Supervenience and mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1974/1993). Furthermore, we analyse two recent sources of scepticism regarding I-liberalism: debate surrounding mechanistic constitution; and attempts to provide a monistic account of explanation. We show that neither literature provides compelling reasons for adopting I-puritanism. Finally, we present a novel taxonomy of available positions upon the role of possible interventions in explanation: weak causal imperialism; strong causal imperialism; monist intervention puritanism; pluralist intervention puritanism; monist intervention liberalism; and finally, the specific position defended in this paper, pluralist intervention liberalism.

scholarly journals Modeling Psychopathology: From Data Models to Formal Theories

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas M B Haslbeck ◽  
Oisín Ryan ◽  
Donald Robinaugh ◽  
Lourens Waldorp ◽  
Denny Borsboom
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Formal Theory ◽  
Data Models ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Prediction And Control ◽  
Using Data ◽  
And Control ◽  
Formal Theories

Over the past decade there has been a surge of empirical research investigating mental disorders as complex systems. In this paper, we investigate how to best make use of this growing body of empirical research and move the field toward its fundamental aims of explaining, predicting, and controlling psychopathology. We first review the contemporary philosophy of science literature on scientific theories and argue that fully achieving the aims of explanation, prediction, and control requires that we construct formal theories of mental disorders: theories expressed in the language of mathematics or a computational programming language. We then investigate three routes by which one can use empirical findings (i.e., data models) to construct formal theories: (a) using data models themselves as formal theories, (b) using data models to infer formal theories, and (c) comparing empirical data models to theory-implied data models in order to evaluate and refine an existing formal theory. We argue that the third approach is the most promising path forward. We conclude by introducing the Abductive Formal Theory Construction (AFTC) framework, informed by both our review of philosophy of science and our methodological investigation. We argue that this approach provides a clear and promising way forward for using empirical research to inform the generation, development, and testing of formal theories both in the domain of psychopathology and in the broader field of psychological science.

The Expected Utility Theory of Conflict: Measuring Theoretical Progress

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roslyn Simowitz ◽  
Barry L. Price
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Theory Choice ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Imre Lakatos ◽  
Theoretical Progress ◽  
Definition Of

We examine the “progressivity” of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's theory of conflict as originally developed in The War Trap and as extended later. Bueno de Mesquita offers the progressivity of the expected utility theory relative to other theories and approaches to conflict as his major defense in responding to critics. Bueno de Mesquita essentially relies on Imre Lakatos' definition of theoretical progress in presenting his argument. A review of the literature addressing the concept of theoretical progress indicates that Bueno de Mesquita's application of Lakatosian criteria is incomplete and that Lakatos' criteria are themselves flawed. We review the philosophy of science literature dealing with theoretical progress or rational criteria for theory choice and evaluate the progressivity of the expected utility theory of conflict in light of criteria other than Lakatos'. While we do recommend further elaboration of Bueno de Mesquita's theory, we do not find it more progressive than its rivals.

Model Pluralism

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Veit
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Multiple Models ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Scientific Goal ◽  
Scientific Context ◽  
Modeling Practices ◽  
Successful Analysis ◽  
Target Sets ◽  
Models And Modeling

This paper introduces and defends an account of model-based science that I dub model pluralism. I argue that despite a growing awareness in the philosophy of science literature of the multiplicity, diversity, and richness of models and modeling practices, more radical conclusions follow from this recognition than have previously been inferred. Going against the tendency within the literature to generalize from single models, I explicate and defend the following two core theses: (i) any successful analysis of models must target sets of models, their multiplicity of functions within science, and their scientific context and history and (ii) for almost any aspect x of phenomenon y, scientists require multiple models to achieve scientific goal z.

scholarly journals Theoretical vocabularies and styles of explanation of robot behaviours in children

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Edoardo Datteri ◽  
Luisa Zecca
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Primary School ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
School Children ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Robotic Systems ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Different Types

Abstract How do children describe and explain the behaviour of robotic systems? In this paper, some distinctions between different types of explanations, drawing from the philosophy of science literature, are proposed and exemplified by reference to an activity in which primary school children are asked to describe and explain the behaviour of a pre-programmed Braitenberg-like vehicle. The proposed distinctions are also discussed against other studies drawn from the related scientific literature. A qualitative study has provided insights to further refine the analysis described here, through the introduction of other sub-categories of explanation of robotic behaviours.

scholarly journals REFLEKSI KETERHUBUNGAN FILSAFAT ILMU PENGETAHUAN DAN SASTRA

mezurashii ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zida Wahyuddin
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Literary Work ◽  
The Other ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Literary Works ◽  
Critical Reasoning

Abstrak: Ilmu sastra merupakan salah satu ilmu diantara keilmuan yang lain yang mempunyai posisi dalam kedudukannya sebagai bagian dari ilmu pengetahuan. Ilmu sastra sangat terkait dengan kehidupan sosial dalam sebuah masyarakat. Fenomena yang dijelaskan melalui ilmu sastra menjadi sebuah pengetahuan adalah totalitas segala pengamatan terhadap suatu permasalahan yang dapat dijelaskan secara rasional. Sedangkan ilmu filsafat membantunya dalam membangun penalaran secara kritis dengan mendialektikkan sesuatu secara terus menerus supaya yang tersembunyi dapat dieksplisitkan dengan jelas. Selanjutnya, ilmu sastra juga sangat berkaitan dengan konteks keilmuan lainnya dalam usahanya menjelaskan permasalahan yang muncul pada sebuah karya sastra.Kata kunci: Refleksi, Filsafat Ilmu Pengetahuan, Karya Sastra Abstract: Literature is one of the other sciences that has a position in its position as part of science. Literature is very much related to social life in a society. The phenomenon that is explained through literature becomes knowledge is the totality of all observations of a problem that can be explained rationally. Whereas philosophy helps him in building critical reasoning by dialectizing something continuously so that what is hidden can be explicitly explicit. Furthermore, literary science is also closely related to other scientific contexts in an effort to explain the problems that arise in a literary work. Keywords: Reflections, Philosophy of Science, Literary Works

scholarly journals Distinguishing regeneration from degradation in coral ecosystems: the role of value

Synthese ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elis Jones
Keyword(s):  
Coral Reefs ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Algal Reef

AbstractIn this paper I argue that the value attributed to coral reefs drives the characterisation of evidence for their regeneration or degradation. I observe that regeneration and degradation depend on an understanding of what an ecosystem looks like when undegraded (a baseline), and that many mutually exclusive baselines can be given for any single case. Consequently, facts about ecological processes are insufficient to usefully and non-arbitrarily characterise changes to ecosystems. By examining how baselines and the value of reefs interact in coral and algal reef examples, I argue that considering the value of an ecosystem is a necessity when describing processes like regeneration and degradation. This connects value as studied in socio-ecological and economic research with values as discussed in the philosophy of science literature. It also explains why such a broad range of processes may be considered regenerative, including those which introduce significant novelty, as well as pointing towards ways to mediate related debates, such as those surrounding novel and ‘pristine’ ecosystems.

scholarly journals Philosophy of sustainability experimentation _ experimental legacy, normativity and transfer of evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stojanovic Milutin
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Sustainability Science ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Values In Science ◽  
General Philosophy ◽  
Usable Knowledge ◽  
The Social ◽  
Further Development ◽  
General Philosophy Of Science

AbstractThe recent proliferation of types and accounts of experimentation in sustainability science still lacks philosophical reflection. The present paper introduces this burgeoning topic to the philosophy of science by identifying key notions and dynamics in sustainability experimentation, by discussing taxonomies of sustainability experimentation and by focusing on barriers to the transfer of evidence. It integrates three topics: the philosophy of experimentation; the sustainability science literature on experimentation; and discussions on values in science coming from the general philosophy of science, the social sciences, and sustainability science. The aim is to improve understanding of how sustainability experimentation has evolved, from a broader picture of the history and philosophy of science, with a specific focus on understanding evidence production and how evidence traveling in and from sustainability experiments can be improved, particularly in the context of complex and pervasive normative commitments of the research. By engaging in these topics, this research is one of the first philosophical accounts of sustainability experimentation, contributing both to the knowledge on specific philosophies of science and to the further development of an evidence-based sustainability science through a better understanding of the barriers to more relevant and usable knowledge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document