This article begins by distinguishing intrinsic and extrinsic contributions of mathematics to scientific representation. This leads to two investigations into how these different sorts of contributions relate to confirmation. I present a way of accommodating both contributions that complicates the traditional assumptions of confirmation theory. In particular, I argue that subjective Bayesianism does best in accounting for extrinsic contributions, while objective Bayesianism is more promising for intrinsic contributions.

To this date Roger Bacon remains one of the controversial and colorful figures in the history of empirical science. This paper is an attempt to ascertain his views regarding the nature and function of empirical science and to compare his writings on this topic with those of the more famous Francis Bacon. The ground for comparison is the fact that both men have often been cast in the same role in the history of science; i.e., they have both been acclaimed as the first in the western world to emphasize and bring out the importance of experimental method in the accumulation of knowledge. In this connection Francis, of the sixteenth century, has long been acknowledged as the father of the experimental method in preference to Roger, of the thirteenth century. In effect, therefore, this paper probes the relative merits of the claims for each thinker.

At the outset it will be useful, I think, to distinguish the following components in the definitional situation:

1. The “definitional relation” that holds, in a given case, between either (1) a definiendum and definiens (a dyadic symmetrical relation between symbols) or (2) a definiendum, definiens, and referent (a triadic relation between (a) the symbol being defined, (b) the defining symbol, which is usually complex and includes descriptive terms, and (c) any member of the class of non-symbolic referents by means of references to which the descriptive terms in (b) are given their semantical meaning—the relation between (b) and (c) being non-symmetrical, even though the relata are, in some contests, functionally equivalent. The former syntactical relation connects one symbol (the definiendum) with another symbol (the definiens); the latter semantical relation also does this, but includes the additional factor of a descriptive reference, via the definiens, to a class of non-symbolic referents.

The import of Hodgkin and Huxley’s classic model of the action potential has been hotly debated in recent years, with particular controversy surrounding claims by prominent proponents of mechanistic explanation. For these authors, the Hodgkin-Huxley model is an excellent predictive tool but ultimately lacks causal/explanatory import. What is more, they claim that this is how Hodgkin and Huxley themselves saw the model. I argue that these claims rest on a problematic reading of the work. Hodgkin and Huxley’s model is both causal and, in an important sense, explanatory.

Marc Lange has recently raised three objections to the account of minimal model explanations offered by Robert Batterman and Collin Rice. In this article, I suggest that these objections are misguided. I suggest that the objections raised by Lange stem from a misunderstanding of the what it is that minimal model explanations seek to explain. This misunderstanding, I argue, consists in Lange’s seeing minimal model explanations as relating special types of models to particular target systems rather than seeing minimal model explanations as looking to explain robust patterns of behavior that are exhibited by a variety of physically diverse systems.

This paper proposes a novel view in the the philosophy of race & causation literature known as “causal agnosticism” about race. Causal agnosticism about race implies that it is reasonable to refrain from making judgments about whether race is a cause. The paper’s thesis asserts that certain conditions must be met to infer that something is a cause, according to the fundamental assumptions of causal inference. However, in the case of race, these conditions are often violated. By advocating for causal agnosticism, the paper suggests a more modest approach to understanding the role of race in causal relationships.

The canonical formalism of general relativity affords a particularly interesting characterization of the infamous hole argument. It also provides a natural formalism in which to relate the hole argument to the problem of time in classical and quantum gravity. Conceptual and formal inadequacies within the representative language of canonical gravity will be shown to be at the heart of both the canonical hole argument and the problem of time. Interesting and fruitful work at the interface of physics and philosophy relates to the challenge of resolving such inadequacies.

Epistemic stances are collections of attitudes, values, aims, and policies relevant to assessing evidence, eventuating in belief or agnosticism regarding the output of scientific investigations. If, in some cases, conflicting stances promoting scientific realism and antirealism, respectively, are rationally permissible, this would seem to undermine the possibility of resolving certain debates between realists and antirealists. In this article I reply to two concerns about this conception of stances, to the effect that: (1) a stance underlying realism is, in fact, rationally obligatory for realists, given certain natural assumptions; and (2) this sort of permissivism would validate pseudoscience and science denialism.

Grant Ramsey and Michael Deem argue that appreciating the role that empathy plays in posttransgression guilt leads to a more promising account of the emotion’s evolutionary origins. But because their proposal fails to adequately distinguish guilt from shame, we cannot say which of the two emotions we are actually getting an evolutionary account of. Moreover, a closer look at the details suggests both that empathy may be more relevant for our understanding of shame’s evolutionary origins than guilt’s and that guilt is unlikely to be an adaptation.

In recent debates about the replication crisis, two positions have been dominant: one that focuses on methodological reforms and one that focuses on theory building. This paper takes up the suggestion that there might be a deeper difference in play, concerning the ways the very subject matter of psychology is construed by opposing camps, i.e., in terms of stable effects versus in terms of complexity. I argue that each gets something right, but neither is sufficient. My analysis suggests that the context sensitivity of the psychological subject matter needs to be front and center of methodological and theoretical efforts.

This essay introduces, develops, and appraises the mitonuclear compatibility species concept (MCSC), identifying advantages and limitations with respect to alternative species concepts. While the consensus amongst most philosophers of biology is that (kind) essentialism about species is mistaken, and that species at most have relational essences, we appeal to the MCSC to defend thoroughgoing intrinsic essentialism. Namely, the doctrine that species have fully intrinsic essences and, thus, are natural kinds (of sorts), while allowing that species aren’t categorically distinct.

The demise of the value-free ideal constitutes a threat to public trust in science. One proposal is that, whenever making value judgments, scientists rely only on democratic values. Because the influence of democratic values on scientific claims and recommendations is legitimate, public trust in science is warranted. I challenge this proposal. Appealing to democratic values will not suffice to secure trust because of at least two obstacles: polarization and marginalization.

Traditionally, the debate about health and disease is characterized as an opposition between naturalism and normativism. However, recent contributions show that theories of health and disease need not be purely naturalistic or normative but may be located somewhere in between. The first purpose of this article is to further advance this line of nuancing. The second purpose is to argue in favor of a specific position, which the added nuances reveal. I call this position subjectively salient naturalism. If one is interested in scientific concepts of health and disease, subjectively salient naturalism is a more plausible position than naturalism.

Some thinkers distrust Darwinist explorations of complex human behaviors, particularly investigations into possible differences in valued skills between genders, races or classes. Such projects, it is claimed, tend to have adverse effects on people who are already disadvantaged. A recent argument by Philip Kitcher both clarifies and generalizes this charge to cover a wider genre of scientific projects. In this paper I try to spell out and analyze Kitcher's argument. The argument fails, I suggest, because some of its key premises fail to convince. My analysis focuses on relevant facts about the role of inquiry in fallibilist contexts, the texture of belief in contemporary natural science, and the moral dimension of scientific research.

The following comments represent what seem to me promising lines of approach to some of the broader issues in the philosophy of logic. They are offered, it is perhaps unnecessary to say, with the intent of stimulating rather than foreclosing discussion. And if the conclusions advanced are formulated loosely and with only a crude indication of the arguments which support them, I hope that thereby they will provoke all the more the free flow of discourse which it is the object of this Conference to promote.