New publications by EENPS members

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear EENPS members,

It’s a pleasure to share two new publications by our members.

See https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html and also below.

Let me also use this opportunity to remind you of our upcoming conference in Tartu, Estonia in August.The deadline for submissions is April 10. It is now also official that the conference will allow for a hybrid participation (although in-person participation is encouraged).

Best wishes,

Borut Trpin (coordinator of the EENPS)

Jaana Eigi-Watkin (University of Tartu)

“Applying the notion of epistemic risk to argumentation in philosophy of science”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Abstract:

I analyse an empirically informed argument in philosophy of science to show that it faces several varieties of risk commonly discussed as inductive risk. I argue that this is so even though the type of reasoning used in this argument differs from the reasoning in some of the arguments usually discussed in connection with inductive risk. To capture the variety of risks involved, I use the more general notion of epistemic risk proposed by Justin Biddle and Quill Kukla. I show how the argument in question faces several of the epistemic risks already described in connection with empirical reasoning. Importantly, I also argue that the subtype of inductive reasoning used in the argument merits a separate discussion. To analyse it, I recommend using the model of colligation, or reasoning through offering synthesising expressions. I then argue that it is desirable to recognise the risk in colligating inductive reasoning as a distinct type of epistemic risk that is relevant for understanding risk in other fields as well. Thus, I suggest that philosophy of science is one of the fields subject to non-trivial epistemic risk; I characterise several of these risks on the example of a specific argument; and I describe epistemic risk that accompanies colligation – colligating inductive risk.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00455-z

M. Efe Ates (Department of Philosophy, MSKÜ, Turkey)

“Pioneers of the ice age models: a brief history from Agassiz to Milankovitch”. History of Geo- and Space Sciences.

Abstract:

It is now widely accepted that astronomical factors trigger the emergence of glacial and interglacial periods. However, nearly two centuries ago, the overall situation was not as apparent as it is today. In this article, I briefly discuss the astronomical model of ice ages put forward in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This period was indeed anni mirabiles for scientists to understand the ice age phenomenon. Agassiz, Adhémar and Croll laid the foundation stones for understanding the dynamics of ice ages. But it was Milankovitch who combined empirical geology with mathematical astronomy. Specifically, he identified the shortcomings of the preceding ice age models and modified his model accordingly. In what follows, I review earlier approaches to the ice age problem and show how they failed to meet their objectives. Next, I show how Milankovitch's model managed to capture all sufficient astronomical elements. The final sections focus on Milutin Milankovitch's successful approach, including his accomplishment of tackling the problem mathematically.

URL: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-13-23-2022

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear EENPS,

to follow up, we also have a recent publication by Martin Zach and please note that I forgot to mention M. Efe Ates’ twitter account @efeates__.

See https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html and also below.

Best wishes,

Borut Trpin

Martin Zach (Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague)

“Revisiting abstraction and idealization: how not to criticize mechanistic explanation in molecular biology”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Abstract:

Abstraction and idealization are the two notions that are most often discussed in the context of assumptions employed in the process of model building. These notions are also routinely used in philosophical debates such as that on the mechanistic account of explanation. Indeed, an objection to the mechanistic account has recently been formulated precisely on these grounds: mechanists cannot account for the common practice of idealizing difference-making factors in models in molecular biology. In this paper I revisit the debate and I argue that the objection does not stand up to scrutiny. This is because it is riddled with a number of conceptual inconsistencies. By attempting to resolve the tensions, I also draw several general lessons regarding the difficulties of applying abstraction and idealization in scientific practice. Finally, I argue that more care is needed only when speaking of abstraction and idealization in a context in which these concepts play an important role in an argument, such as that on mechanistic explanation.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00453-1

Twitter: @martinzach_

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear EENPS,

it is a pleasure to share that a member of our steering committee Richard David-Rus published a new paper.

See https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html and also below.

Best wishes,

Borut Trpin

Richard David-Rus (Francisc I. Rainer Institute of Anthropology, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania)

“Understanding without Explanation: A Still Open Issue”. Filozofia Nauki.

Abstract:

This paper takes a stance in the debate concerning scientific understanding. It claims that the case for a specific type of understanding, understanding without explanation (UwE), is still open, despite the tendency in the current literature that might suggest otherwise. The paper begins by situating the distinction between an explanatory and non-explanatory understanding in the debate on understanding by introducing Lipton’s account of UwE. The paper then discusses the significance of Lipton’s proposals for the debate and argues that Kelp’s interpretation does not exhaust the challenge they pose to any theory of understanding. The paper then examines the best articulated critique of Lipton’s account provided by Khalifa and rejects it as inadequate. It ends by sketching out a list of positive reasons that support the continued examination of UwE.

Link: https://doi.org/10.14394/filnau.2021.0009

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear EENPS, I am happy to mention two more recent (2021) publications by our member Daria Jadreškić. See https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html and also below. Best wishes, Borut Trpin

Daria Jadreškić (University of Klagenfurt)

"Adapt to Translate – Adaptive Clincal Trials and Biomedical Innovation", European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 

The article presents the advantages and limitations of adaptive clinical trials for assessing the effectiveness of medical interventions and specifies the conditions that contributed to their development and implementation in clinical practice. I advance two arguments by discussing different cases of adaptive trials. The normative argument is that responsible adaptation should be taken seriously as a new way of doing clinical research insofar as a valid justification, sufficient understanding, and adequate operational conditions are provided. The second argument is historical. The development of adaptive trials can be related to lessons learned from research in cases of urgency and to the decades-long efforts to end the productivity crisis of pharmaceutical research, which led to the emergence of translational, personalized, and, recently, precision medicine movements.

https://doi.org/10.31820/ejap.17.3.2

"Diversity as an Epistemic Value – From Individual to Social Objectivity", in Radhika Natarajan (ed.) Sprache – Bildung – Geschlecht: Interdisziplinäre Ansätze in Flucht- und Migrationskontexten. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. 

The paper presents the role of diversity in ensuring the objectivity of scientific research as understood in recent ‘values in science’ debates within philosophy of science. Along with traditional epistemic values, i.e. values that promote the attainment of truth, such as accuracy and consistency, the new picture of desirable epistemic values includes diversity as an indispensable indicator of critical scrutiny which is not only beneficial for the goal of attaining knowledge, but also for the goal of attaining social justice. Objectivity is in this new understanding achieved through diversity and inclusion of different perspectives open to mutual criticism. Diversity as a safeguard against individual and group biases is especially acknowledged in its critical role by feminist contributions to philosophy of science.

The paper starts by introducing the focus of philosophy of science in general and values in science debates in particular, followed by an overview of standard accounts of epistemic and non-epistemic values and their often conflicting roles in decision making in science. Subsequently, the benefits of diversity are discussed and exemplified by Anke Bueter’s case study (Bueter, 2015) on female health research. Several normative ideals for science are put forward and certain problems and solutions of each are outlined.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28341-4_11

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear members,

To follow up, you may also be interested in reading What is Science? A Book Review of Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions: Exposing Frauds, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. --- by Roman Krzanowski, our member.

See link below:

https://www.gcasreview.com/magazine-1/2022/4/16/what-is-science-a-book-review-of-stuart-ritchies-science-fictions-exposing-frauds-bias-negligence-and-hype-in-science-by-roman-krzanowski

Best wishes,

Borut

--
Website: https://eenps.weebly.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EastEuropeanNetworkforPhilosophyofScience/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EastEurpnPhlSci
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East European Network for Philosophy of Science - members" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to eenps_member...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/eenps_members/F672FEE6-DB52-406F-830C-693789D1E6F5%40gmail.com.

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear members,

I would like to bring your attention to two recently published papers, co-authored by Daniel Kostić, a member of the EENPS steering committee. See below and for further info here https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html.

Best wishes,

Borut Trpin

1.     Kostić, Daniel. and Khalifa, Kareem. (2022). "Decoupling Topological Explanations from Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.29

Abstract:

We provide three innovations to recent debates about whether topological or “network” explanations are a species of mechanistic explanation. First, we more precisely characterize the requirement that all topological explanations are mechanistic explanations and show scientific practice to belie such a requirement. Second, we provide an account that unifies mechanistic and non-mechanistic topological explanations, thereby enriching both the mechanist and autonomist programs by highlighting when and where topological explanations are mechanistic. Third, we defend this view against some powerful mechanist objections. We conclude from this that topological explanations are autonomous from their mechanistic counterparts.


2.     Khalifa, Kareem. Islam, Farhan. Gamboa, J.P. Wilkenfeld, Daniel. Kostić, Daniel. (2022). “Integrating Philosophy of Understanding with the Cognitive Sciences”, Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2022.764708.

Abstract:

We provide two programmatic frameworks for integrating philosophical research on understanding with complementary work in computer science, psychology, and neuroscience. First, philosophical theories of understanding have consequences about how agents should reason if they are to understand that can then be evaluated empirically by their concordance with findings in scientific studies of reasoning. Second, these studies use a multitude of explanations, and a philosophical theory of understanding is well suited to integrating these explanations in illuminating ways.

[EENPS (Borut Trpin)]

Dear members,

To follow up, here’s another recent publication by Özlem Yılmaz, also a member of the EENPS SC. The paper is in Turkish, but another member of ours suggested it because such articles are important for philosophy of biology in Turkey.

See below and https://eenps.weebly.com/members-publications.html.

 

Best wishes,

Borut

Yılmaz, Özlem . "Biyoloji Felsefesinde Organizma Kavramı". Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 1 / 1 (April 2022): 78-86 .

Kilikya Journal of Philosophy

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kilikya/issue/69763/1111764

Özet: Çevre sorunlarının katlanarak arttığı ve biyoloji biliminin büyük sıçramalarla geliştiği günümüzde organizma kavramının incelenmesi, hem kendi doğamızı (dolayısıyla da diğer canlılarla etkileşimlerimizi) hem de günümüz biyolojisindeki değişimleri daha iyi anlayabilmemiz için faydalı olacaktır. Bu çalışma, organizma kavramını özellikle organizma-çevre etkileşimi üzerinden inceleyerek günümüz biyolojisindeki önemini vurgulayacaktır. Organizma kavramı özellikle Modern Sentezden, Genişletilmiş Evrimsel Senteze geçişle birlikte ayrı bir önem kazanmıştır. Köklerini yirminci yüzyılın başlarındaki organizma-merkezci biyolojiden alan bu kavramın gelişimi, son birkaç on yıldır biyoloji biliminde gerçekleşmiş olan gelişmelerle (özellikle gelişim biyolojisi, sistem biyolojisi ve ekoloji dallarında) iyice dinamikleşmiştir. Organizma kavramının gelişimini incelemek sadece biyoloji biliminin felsefesi açısından değil, bunun yanında, insan olarak kendi biyolojik varlığımızı -organizma- ve çevremizle (hem abiyotik hem de biyotik) olan etkileşimlerimizi, tekrar düşünmek açısından değerlidir.

Twitter @OzlemYilmaz___

--
Website: https://eenps.weebly.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EastEuropeanNetworkforPhilosophyofScience/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/EastEurpnPhlSci
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "East European Network for Philosophy of Science - members" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to eenps_member...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/eenps_members/10C0A291-69A4-4FC1-8A2A-927E9378FCB3%40gmail.com.