Dynamical models of cognition have played a central role in recent cognitive science. In this paper, we consider a common strategy by which dynamical models describe their target systems neither as purely static nor as purely dynamic, but rather using a hybrid approach. This hybridity reveals how dynamical models involve representational choices that are important for understanding the relationship between dynamical and non-dynamical representations of a system.

“Actionability” is a key concept in precision oncology. Its precise definition, however, remains contested. This article undertakes a philosophical analysis of “actionability” to aid in conceptual clarification. We map distinct concepts of actionability, arguing that each is best understood as a contextually objective category articulated to mitigate risk of “conceptual slippage.” We defend “interactive pluralism,” acknowledging the need for distinct concepts but also for conceptual interaction in practice. This article thus offers insights for both practitioners and philosophers, clarifying approaches to actionability for scientists and clinicians and serving as a case study to test competing views on scientific pluralism.

Inferences from clinical research results to estimates of therapeutic effectiveness suffer due to various biases. I argue that predictions of medical effectiveness are prone to failure because current medical research overlooks the impacts of a particularly detrimental set of biases: meta-biases. Meta-biases are linked to higher-level characteristics of medical research and their effects are only observed when comparing sets of studies that share certain meta-level properties. I offer a model for correcting research results based on meta-research evidence, the bias dynamics model, which employs regularly updated empirical bias coefficients to attenuate estimates of therapeutic effectiveness.

The late Victorian novelist George Gissing wrote: “I hate and fear ‘science’ because of my conviction that for a long time to come if not forever, it will be the remorseless enemy of mankind. I see it destroying all simplicity and gentleness of life, all beauty of the world; I see it restoring barbarism under the mask of civilization; I see it darkening men's minds and hardening their hearts; I see it bringing a time of vast conflicts which will pale into insignicance ‘the thousand wars of old’, and, as likely as not, will whelm all the laborious advances of mankind in blood-drenched chaos”. The German philosopher Schelling protested against “that blind and thoughtless mode of investigating nature which has become generally established since the corruption of philosophy by Bacon and of physics by Boyle and Newton”.

The developments in 20th century physics which have brought into question the status of causality in subatomic phenomena are common knowledge today in the philosophical world. For the purposes of our discussion attention focusses on the quantum-mechanical solutions which describe atomic states by probability distributions instead of by exact values of observable variables.

This article is an attempt to: (a) outline the essential elements in Alfred North Whitehead's theory of “actual entities“; (b) indicate the erroneous nature of a number of widely held interpretations and criticisms of his speculative scheme; (c) state criticisms which seem legitimately applicable to Whitehead's cosmology.

Whitehead's theory of actual entities can only be understood if one continually bears in mind Whitehead's purpose in formulating this theory and the method which he uses in his project.

The article examines the relationship between a trait’s effect on survival and reproduction and the notion of functional efficiency underlying the biostatistical theory of health (BST). BST faces the problem of how to measure a trait’s joint effect on survival and reproduction in its account of function. If one measures the joint effect by means of the biological notion of fitness, examples such as the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome do not count as a disorder. If one does not invoke biological fitness, it is unclear how to measure the joint effect while keeping to BST’s naturalist credentials.

The Bohr formulation—the original one—is now largely a matter of history. The usual career of a theory was its fate. It explained much, but it failed at the first signs of complication, even for the simplest molecules as hydrogen and helium. Some results were either only approximate in a loose or incomplete fashion, e.g. in the application of the correspondence principle to intensities, the only reliable predictions being only for an absence of certain lines, or they quite disagreed with experiment, e.g. in the case of the hydrogen molecule and the hydrogen molecule ion, the normal and excited states of helium, the anomalous Zeeman effect, the Ramsauer effect (the phenomenon of the deflection of electrons at low speeds being less than at higher speeds in atomic collisions), and in the treatment of problems where more than one electron was involved. In the last mentioned cases the perturbation method, so successful in solving “many-body” problems in celestial mechanics, failed completely because systems of several electrons, possessing frequencies of the order of light waves, cannot interact classically. A bit of much forced pragmatism was practiced in treating the many electron atom as a variation of the hydrogen atom. Besides, there were technical oddities, like ½ quantum numbers, and impenetrated anologies between visible and X-ray spectra.

The social scientist is now applying his knowledge and skills in various fields. But in the American trade-union movement he faces unusual problems. His challenges are essentially those of determining how to serve, and how to implant a belief in the value of his findings and reports. There is no widespread acceptance of the conclusion that he can make a real contribution. He is still not considered necessary or likely to be useful in the routine operation of the union or in the development of its policy and tactics. Progress has been made during the last few years in securing his admission to the staff of unions. But much pioneering work has still to be done to obtain frank acknowledgment of his potential usefulness and free acceptance of his experimental, inquiring and critical approaches.

Realism about progress–that progress consists in the obtaining of some metaphysical relation between a sequence of theories and the world–is often thought to be required by realism about the representational character of theories. The purpose of this paper is to show how one can be a realist about theories without being a realist about progress. The result is a view that cannot be at odds with what the history of science shows.

H. S. Sullivan's approach to the study of psychiatry reflects the fact that his conception of scientific method was derived from work in physics rather than in the biological sciences. His definition of psychiatry as the study of “interpersonal process” appears to have been influenced partly by his previous training in physics, and also by his conclusion that the most significant aspects of personality could be revealed only through an understanding of the person's actual behavior in relation to others.

Belot, Earman, and Ruetsche (1999) dismiss the black hole remnant proposal as an inadequate response to the Hawking information loss paradox. I argue that their criticisms are misplaced and that, properly understood, remnants do offer a substantial reply to the argument against the possibility of unitary evolution in spacetimes that contain evaporating black holes. The key to understanding these proposals lies in recognizing that the question of where and how our current theories break down is at the heart of these debates in quantum gravity. I also argue that the controversial nature of assessing the limits of general relativity and quantum field theory illustrates the significance of attempts to establish the proper borders of our effective theories.

Lately, an increased interest in formal devices has led to an attempt on the part of some mathematicians to do without those aspects of mathematics which require intuition. One consequence of this movement has been a new conception of pure mathematics as a science of axiomatic systems. According to this conception, there is no reality beyond an axiomatic system which the statements of mathematics are about; the fact that a statement is a theorem in the system is all that is of interest. This is a sort of nominalist position, since the contrary position seems to be committed to a belief in the existence of a domain of mathematical entities, which are just as suspect as the universale commonly discussed in metaphysical treatises. More often it is called formalism.

This paper is intended to explore Jeffrey's proposal for the measurement of the simplicity of scientific laws. The first part is a sketch of Jeffreys’ development of a view on simplicity, which will be followed by a discussion of what seem to be some rather crucial defects in the proposal as it stands. It will be suggested here that no plausible way of countering these defects seems available.

In their recent paper, Jackson and Pargetter (1977) have attempted to prove that simultaneity is not a matter of convention. They attempt to show that it is an empirical fact whether or not a moving rod A′B′ is perpendicular to a plane XY. If it is an empirical fact, then such a perpendicular rod can be used to synchronize clocks. We shall show that it is not an empirical fact, but it is in fact synchronization dependent.