Perspectives on Science seminar – Centre for Philosophy of Social Science

17 November 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

Perspectives on Science / Helsinki Philosophy Colloquium Seminar 27.11 with Jan-William Romeijn

The next Perspectives on Science Seminar is organized together with the Helsinki Philosophy Colloquium, where Jan-Willem Romeijn (University of Groningen) will give a talk titled “Overfitting in statistics and machine learning”.

The seminar takes place in Metsätalo (room 10), and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Thursdaythe 27^th of November 2025. Please note, that this talk is exceptionally on Thursday!

Perspectives on Science is a research seminar which brings together experts from the philosophy of science and several fields of science studies. It is organized by TINT – Centre for Philosophy of Social Science at the University of Helsinki. More information about the seminar can be found on the TINT webpage https://tint.helsinki.fi.

What: “Overfitting in statistics and machine learning” by Jan-Willem Romeijn

When: Thursday 27.10.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST, Helsinki time).

Where: Metsätalo (room 10), and Zoom.

Zoom link: Contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link.

Abstract:

“Overfitting in statistics and machine learning”

Machine learning (ML) methods seem to defy statistical lore on the risks of overfitting. They often have many more adjustable parameters than are needed for fitting the data perfectly but, after showing predictive loss in the realm of normal overfitting, highly overparameterized ML models show surprisingly good predictive performance. In my talk I will review several attempts by statisticians and computer scientists to explain this so-called “double descent phenomenon” and distill three philosophical lessons from them that each derive from seeking continuity between statistics and ML. One is that our conception of model capacity needs an update, as it harbors a variety of ideas about complexity. A further lesson is that we have to flip the script on the problem of underdetermination: the use of unidentified statistical models offers predictive advantages, and this invites a fresh look at our empiricist ideals. A final lesson relies on De Finetti’s representation theorem and on basic insights into the problem of induction: understanding the success of machine learning requires that we delve into processes of model and data construction.

This talk is based on joint work with Daniel Herrmann (UNC Chapel Hill) and Tom Sterkenburg (LMU Munich).

Bio:

Jan-Willem Romeijn is professor of philosophy of science in the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Groningen. His research focuses on statistical methods, social epistemology, and the philosophy of psychiatry. Together with two PhD students and two postdocs, Romeijn currently investigates the philosophical foundations of machine learning methods, and the uses of these methods in psychiatry and the psychiatric clinic.

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

All are warmly welcome!

30 October 202530 October 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

3.11. Perspectives on Science Seminar: Anna Mudde

In the next Perspectives on Science Seminar, Anna Mudde (Campion College, University of Regina) will give a talk titled “’Neglected Things:’ Rethinking Intellectual Work”.

The seminar takes place in Metsätalo (room 10), and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 3rd of November 2025.

What: “’Neglected Things:’ Rethinking Intellectual Work” by Anna Mudde

When: Monday 03.11.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST, Helsinki time).

Where: Metsätalo (room 10), and Zoom.

Zoom link: Contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link.

Abstract:

Many forms of marginalized knowledge are eschewed from philosophical consideration, particularly those associated with making. This includes parts of the labour of philosophy. Drawing on approaches from philosophy of science, STS, and feminist epistemologies, in this talk, I offer a philosophical engagement with craft (rooted in technê) as a way of thinking through the implications of many assumed distinctions between theory and practice, mental and manual, knowing and doing, pure and applied knowledge. I ask how attending to lo-tech craft practices and knowledges might make many forms of ontological knowledge show up as philosophically relevant and might reveal much of our philosophical labour as forms of craft work.

Bio:

Anna Mudde is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Campion College, University of Regina, on Treaty 4 Lands in current Canada. She specializes in using feminist epistemologies, Science and Technology Studies, existential philosophies, and metaphilosophical methods to theorize critical objectivity and subjectivity, self-knowledge, and responsible, embodied knowing and being. She often draws on philosophies of technology, literature, science, and care, and has abiding interests in mirrors, in the limits of philosophical practices of “reflection,” and in theorizing responsibility and privilege. Her current projects are focused on technê as craft, and consider marginalized knowledges and metaphysical practices as they are expressed through human engagements with objects, bodies, and technologies, like knitting and sound. She has recently been experimenting with academic podcasting with Kristin Rodier on thinking bodies: a feminist philosophy podcast. In Fall 2025, she is a visiting scholar at the University of Helsinki.

____

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

All are warmly welcome!

21 October 202521 October 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

27.10. Perspectives on Science Seminar: Abigail Nieves Delgado

In next week’s Perspectives on Science Seminar, Abigail Nieves Delgado (Utrecht University) will give a talk titled “Beyond Race: Rethinking Population Descriptors in Microbiome Research”.

The seminar takes place in Metsätalo (room 10), and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 27^th of October 2025.

What: “Beyond Race: Rethinking Population Descriptors in Microbiome Research” by Abigail Nieves Delgado

When: Monday 27.10.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST, Helsinki time).

Where: Metsätalo (room 10), and Zoom.

Zoom link: Contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link.

Abstract:

Population descriptors like race, ethnicity, nation, or genetic ancestry are commonly used in biomedicine. They aim to convey relevant information about populations and their relation to one another. In this context, several authors have discussed the problems of using race and ethnicity interchangeably (Panofsky and Bliss 2017), using race as proxy (Gravlee 2009; Lin and Kesley 2000), and assuming that genetic ancestry is a neutral descriptor (Gannett 2014; Haddad 2025). In the field of human microbiome research (investigating differences in the microbiome depending on genetic and/or cultural contexts) these population descriptors are yet more problematic and imprecise. Given that microbiome composition changes depending on many organismal and environmental factors, the epistemic role of racial differences, ethnic characteristics, nation specific traits, or genetic ancestry percentages in distinguishing microbial patterns remains to be clarified. In this presentation we argue that population descriptors suffer especially from two problems: They introduce explanations with low proportionality that fail to grasp relevant causal relations; and their usage is motivated by an overly strong focus on global instead of local health issues. Both problems together amount to what we call the ‘missing locality challenge’ of descriptors. Not addressing it leads to epistemic biases and stereotypes against local communities. By drawing on a case study on human microbiome research, we introduce a new framework to meet this challenge. It ranks population descriptors from ‘global’ to ‘local’ contexts of application, which helps selecting appropriate descriptors for different kinds of disease causalities and groups without stereotyping them.

Bio:

Abigail Nieves Delgado is associate professor at the Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University. She works on the history and philosophy of the life sciences, especially on racialization practices in the history of science as well as in contemporary biomedical research (e.g., in microbiome research and epigenetics) and in biometric technologies (e.g., facial recognition). She also investigates the politics of transdisciplinary knowledge production and the history of ethnobiology in Latin America. She is the principal investigator of the project “Microbiome research and race in the ‘Local South’” funded by the NWO. This project aims to develop epistemically fruitful, non-discriminatory, and locally relevant classification criteria of human diversity to be used in human microbiome research instead of pernicious and ambiguous categories of race.

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

8 October 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

13.10. Perspectives on Science Seminar: Jan Sprenger

In next week’s Perspectives on Science Seminar, Jan Sprenger (University of Turin) will give a talk titled “The Productive Model of Explanation in Psychology and Beyond”.

The seminar takes place in Metsätalo (room 10), and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 13^th of October 2025.

What: ”The Productive Model of Explanation in Psychology and Beyond” by Jan Sprenger

When: Monday 13.10.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST, Helsinki time).

Where: Metsätalo (room 10), and Zoom.

Zoom link: Contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link.

Abstract:

In their influential 1988 paper “Saving the Phenomena”, Bogen and
Woodward argued that scientific theories do not, in the first place,
predict and explain facts about observables. Rather, theories account
for phenomena, which are placed at an intermediate level between data
and theory. This work tries to take Bogen and Woodward’s thesis
seriously: it develops a model of explanation based on a tri-partition
between theory, phenomena and data. The model squares well with
explanatory practices in experimental psychology and the use of formal
models and statistical analysis. Finally I show how classical
philosophical models of explanation—the deductive-nomological model,
the mechanistic model and the interventionist model—can be obtained as
limiting cases of this more general account.

Bio:

Jan Sprenger obtained his PhD in 2008 from the University of Bonn in
Germany with a thesis on confirmation and statistical inference.
Subsequently he worked at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, from
2014 onwards as Full Professor and Director of the research center
TiLPS. In 2017 he moved to the University of Turin in Italy, his current
affiliation. He directed numerous national and international research
projects, among which an ERC Starting Grant on scientific objectivity
(2015-2021). In 2019 Oxford University Press published his monograph
“Bayesian Philosophy of Science” (jointly with Stephan Hartmann). His
current research interests focus on themes in semantics, formal
epistemology and philosophy of science, such as indicative conditionals,
counterfactuals and scientific explanation.

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

2 October 20258 October 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

10.10. Perspectives on Science Seminar: Katherine Furman

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Katherine Furman (University of Liverpool) will give a talk titled ““Doing your own research” and the Curious Case of Thabo Mbeki: Making implicit cases in philosophical reasoning explicit”.

The seminar takes place in Metsätalo (room 10) and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Friday the 10^thof October 2025. Please note, that this talk is exceptionally on Friday!

What: “”Doing your own research” and the Curious Case of Thabo Mbeki: Making implicit cases in philosophical reasoning explicit”” by Katherine Furman

When: Friday 10.10.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST, Helsinki time)

Where: Metsätalo room 10, and Zoom.

Zoom link: Contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link.

Abstract:

Plenty has been written philosophically about the phenomenon of “doing your research”. That is, when individuals distrust the experts and try to rely on their own competencies to figure out scientific issues for themselves. Typically, the agents are non-specific – they are a philosophical construct for the purposes of theory development. However, what happens when we fill in the details?

This talk offers a deep dive into Thabo Mbeki’s AIDS denialist policies in South Africa in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That is, the health policies that prevented access to HIV/AIDS treatment via the public health system. This was based on beliefs that HIV does not cause AIDS and that the prescribed medications are toxic. These beliefs were the result of Mbeki’s own distrust of mainstream HIV/AIDS science at the time and his resulting independent evidence gathering. Detailed analysis of this case suggest that it substantially deviates from the standard accounts of “doing your own research” in the philosophical literature. Overall, this talk argues that we need to be careful of who our hypothetical agents are in our theorising, because changing the cases can change the theory.

Bio:

Katherine Furman is a senior lecturer of Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Liverpool. She predominantly works on philosophy and public policy, with a special interest in health policy development in contexts of distrust, especially in African countries.

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

3 June 20253 June 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

Perspectives on Science seminar / Helsinki Philosophy Colloquium talk 5.6 with Lorenzo Casini: “Realization Independence and the Epiphenomenalist Revenge”

This Thursday TINT will organize a joint session together with Helsinki Philosophy Colloquium, where Lorenzo Casini (University of Bologna) will give a talk on his joint work with Alexander Gebharter titled “Realization Independence and the Epiphenomenalist Revenge“. The session opens up University of Helsinki spring festival.

The session takes place live in Metsätalo sali 2 and via Zoom from 12:15 to 13:45 on Thursday the 5thof June 2025.

Please note the unusual room and time!

What: ”Realization Independence and the Epiphenomenalist Revenge” by Lorenzo Casini

When: Thursday 05.06.2025 from 12 to 2 pm (EEST, Helsinki time)

Where: Metsätalo (sali 2), and Zoom.

Zoom link: Contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link.

Abstract:

For the last two decades, James Woodward has been attempting to defend mental causation against ephiphenomenalism by drawing on his interventionist theory of causation. Recently, he has imposed a “realization independence” condition, aiming to address a charge of underdetermination levelled by Michael Baumgartner. If sound, Woodward’s proposal promises to solve an age-old metaphysical debate based on ideal experimental evidence.

Here, we argue that the proposal runs into a dilemma: Either it contradicts the core tenet of interventionism and leads to absurd consequences or it cannot escape the underdetermination charge. This renders it vulnerable to what we call the epiphenomenalist revenge: the most plausible way out of the dilemma is to give up mental causation altogether. More generally, our argument undermines the claim that the mental causation problem can be solved on evidence-based grounds.

Bio:

Lorenzo Casini is a philosopher of science specializing in causal inference, and working on conceptual and methodological issues in the special sciences, more generally. After obtaining his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Kent in 2013, Casini held positions at Konstanz, LMU Munich, Geneva, the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, and the IMT School for Advanced Studies in Lucca. Currently, he is Assistant Professor in Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of Bologna.

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

28 May 20252 June 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

2.6. Perspectives on Science Seminar / The ReSES project: Diane Coyle

The next Perspectives on Science seminar will be held together with The ReSES project, and Diane Coyle (University of Cambridge) will give a lecture titled “The Measure of Progress”, based on her book The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters (2025).

The seminar takes place only online via Zoom starting 14:00 on Monday the 2nd of June 2025.

The ReSES project aims to rethink how economics can better serve society. The project’s Argumenta Distinguished Lectures series provides a platform for leading experts to present ideas that challenge conventional economic thought and promote societal well-being.

Read more about the event, Coyle’s book, and The ReSES project here.

What: “The Measure of Progress” by Diane Coyle

When: Monday 02.06.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST, Helsinki time)

Where: Zoom.

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/61931407064?pwd=4ItMhJnNP78TSxXRZL7ZoIGPQxI9JQ.1

Abstract:

The ways that statisticians and governments measure the economy were developed in the 1940s, when the urgent economic problems were entirely different from those of today. In her talk, Diane Coyle will argue that the framework underpinning today’s economic statistics is so outdated that it functions as a distorting lens, or even a set of blinkers. When policymakers rely on such an antiquated conceptual tool, how can they measure, understand, and respond with any precision to what is happening in today’s digital economy? Coyle will make the case for a new framework, one that takes into consideration current economic realities.

Coyle will explain why economic statistics matter and argue that to understand the current economy, we need different data collected in a different framework of categories and definitions, and she will offer some suggestions about what this would entail. She will argue that only with a new approach to measurement will we be able to achieve the right kind of growth for the benefit of all.

Bio:

Professor Diane Coyle is the Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. Professor Coyle co-directs the Bennett Institute where she heads research under the themes of progress and productivity. Coyle is also a Director of the Productivity Institute, a Fellow of the Office for National Statistics, and an expert adviser to the National Infrastructure Commission. She has served in public service roles including as Vice Chair of the BBC Trust, member of the Competition Commission, of the Migration Advisory Committee and of the Natural Capital Committee. Coyle was Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester until March 2018 and was awarded a DBE for her contribution to economic policy in the 2023 King’s Birthday Honours.

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

30 April 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

5.5 Perspectives on Science Seminar: Pekka Syrjänen

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Pekka Syrjänen (University of Helsinki) will give a talk on his paper co-authored with Mark Rubin (Durham University) titled “Methodological Pluralism and the Replication Crisis”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 5th of May 2025.

What: “Methodological Pluralism and the Replication Crisis” by Pekka Syrjänen

When: Monday 05.05.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST)

Where: Metsätalo (sali 10), and Zoom.

For Zoom link, please contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

Abstract:

In the scientific literature, solutions to the replication crisis often involve imposing stricter restrictions on the research process, such as preregistration and adherence to confirmatory research methods. In this article, we argue that reliable results can be produced through a variety of research methods. We support this claim by examining factors that influence the reliability of research findings across multiple levels of scientific inference, including background knowledge and assumptions, theory content and structure, methodology, and data. We argue that the reliability of findings depends on a set of key factors across these levels, rather than adhering to a particular methodological stance. Our analysis thus shows that reliable results can emerge through diverse pathways, including both theory-driven and data-driven methods.

Bio:

Pekka Syrjänen is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki. His work focuses on the role of prediction in science.

And co-author, Mark Rubin bio:

Mark Rubin is a professor of social psychology at Durham University. His research focuses on social identity, stereotyping, and prejudice. He has published metascientific work on issues connected with the replication crisis in science such as preregistration, multiple testing, significance testing, and hypothesising after the results are known (HARKing).

If you have any questions about the seminar, do not hesitate to contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi.

27 March 2025 tint Perspectives on Science seminar

7.4. Perspectives on Science Seminar: Jennifer Jhun

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Jennifer Jhun (Duke University) will give a talk titled “Revisiting the question of reduction in economics”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 7th of April 2025. Please contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom link. The speaker is present through Zoom.

What: “Revisiting the question of reduction in economics” by Jennifer Jhun

When: Monday 07.04.2025 from 2 to 4 pm (EEST)

Where: Metsätalo (sali 10), and Zoom

Abstract:

This talk revisits the question of whether macroeconomics reduces to microeconomics, or, alternatively, whether we should think of the former as autonomous from the latter. I argue (1) that the answer to the question is, at best, “sometimes”, and (2) if we take economic practice seriously, we are led to a more interesting question that is distinct from the reductionist question in its usual epistemological or metaphysical formulations.

Bio:

Jennifer Jhun is an Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department at Duke University, as well as a Faculty Fellow at the Center for the History of Political Economy. She holds a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh. Her main research interests lie in the philosophy of science, especially economics, though she occasionally thinks about issues in other areas such as psychology and physics. She currently works on a project that investigates antitrust from a history and philosophy of science perspective. She co-hosts “Smith and Marx walk into a bar: A history of economics podcast” (https://hetpodcast.libsyn.com/) and her academic website can be found at www.jenniferjhun.com.

3 March 20253 March 2025 tint Event, Perspectives on Science seminar

10.3. Perspectives on Science Seminar: Inkeri Koskinen

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Inkeri Koskinen (TINT / University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Peer Review in Artistic Research: a Case Study”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 10th of March 2025. To join the seminar, please contact mirja-leena.zgurskaya@helsinki.fi for the Zoom invitation.

Abstract

We examine the introduction of academic peer review practices to a field that resists the idea of shared epistemic standards of evaluation and does not have stable epistemic communities. Artistic research, as an academic discipline that gives doctoral degrees and has peer reviewed publications, has emerged over the past few decades largely as a result of broader science policy trends, and the resulting reorganisation of higher education in many countries. In its internal discussions questions about peer review are often treated as a part of the complex set of problems resulting from the institutional pressure to adaptat to academic institutional structures that are not well aligned with artistic practice.

Is epistemically well-functioning peer review possible in artistic research? How to best understand the nature and epistemic functions of the kind of small and transient communities that emerge in different fields of art and in artistic research? We approach these questions from the point of view of social epistemology and recent philosophical discussions about peer review. Our work is based on a case study of The Journal for Artistic Research.

Bio

Inkeri Koskinen is a philosopher of science working as an Academy of Finland Research Fellow in Practical philosophy, University of Helsinki. Her research interests include objectivity, the social epistemology of scientific knowledge, diversity in science, transdisciplinarity, philosophy of the humanities, and demarcation.

3 February 20257 February 2025 tint Perspectives on Science seminar

10.2. Perspectives on Science seminar: Karoliina Pulkkinen

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Karoliina Pulkkinen (TINT / University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Legitimacy through outputs: how science and technology can contribute to nondemocratic legitimization”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 10th of February 2025. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the Zoom invitation.

Perspectives on Science is a research seminar which brings together experts from the philosophy of science and several fields of science studies. It is organized by TINT – Centre for Philosophy of Social Science at the University of Helsinki. More information about the seminar can be found on the TINT web page https://tint.helsinki.fi.

Abstract:
Many normative accounts of values in science propose that democratic mechanisms such as deliberative polling can help to legitimize values that influence research. However, since a considerable amount of scientific research occurs in nondemocratic countries, we also need explanatory approaches to better understand legitimization strategies in nondemocratic settings. A closer study of Soviet science shows how science and technology can help to legitimize regimes, as evidenced by Kendall Bailes’ (1976,1978) classic case study on Soviet aviation. Building Bailes’ work, this talk offers two explications on the role of science and technology in legitimising regimes. First, the achievements of research can be co-opted into legitimization. Second, researchers may be told or incentivised to contribute to outputs viewed as important for the regime, which can further legitimize political rule. All this points towards how we need to keep output-oriented theories of political legitimacy on board alongside input-oriented ones for a fuller grasp on political legitimacy and science.

Bio:
Karoliina Pulkkinen is a postdoctoral researcher based in the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki. She specializes in the role of values in science and history and philosophy of physical sciences, especially focusing on chemistry. She earned her PhD in 2019 from the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University. Prior to joining Aleksanteri Institute, she was based in KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, working on a collaborative project that involved climate scientists and philosophers. She currently serves as the editor of Chemical Intelligence and one of the co-founders of Jargonium, a blog on history and philosophy of chemistry, which will also transform into a podcast in spring 2025.

7 January 20257 February 2025 tint Perspectives on Science seminar

13.1. Perspectives on Science seminar: Jaakko Kuorikoski

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Jaakko Kuorikoski (TINT / University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Structure without foundations? – DSGE, microfoundations, and causality”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 13th of January 2025. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the Zoom invitation.

Abstract
This paper argues that the standard narrative emphasizing the necessity of microfoundations in justifying assumptions about causal structure in DSGE models is a red herring and that the exclusive focus on the Lucas critique has meant that the more general role of theoretical grounds for causal inference and scenario modeling has been widely misunderstood. In contrast to the standard narrative, the practice of model building and modification within the DGSE program does not exemplify an epistemic strategy of deriving more secure structural assumptions from improved knowledge of individual choice behavior. Instead, the development of DSGE models largely consists in incorporating new and independently justified assumptions about aggregate invariances or meso-level mechanisms under general equilibrium constraints.

Author bio
Jaakko Kuorikoski is a professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Helsinki and a member of The Centre for Philosophy of the Social Sciences TINT. Before this, Kuorikoski worked as an associate professor in a cross-disciplinary New Social Research program at Tampere University and as a lecturer in Theoretical Philosophy at Helsinki. His main areas of specializations are philosophy of economics and philosophy of the social sciences. His current research interests include new kinds of data and evidence in the social sciences, scientific understanding, philosophy of macroeconomics, and model-based social epistemology of science.

25 November 202425 November 2024 tint Perspectives on Science seminar

2.12. Perspectives on Science seminar: Guido Caniglia

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Guido Caniglia (University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Impure evidence for sustainability transformations”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 2nd of December 2024. To join the seminar, please contact jessica.north@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Abstract:

Biodiversity loss, climate change, rapid urbanization, and increasing inequalities are major sustainability challenges of our time. They are clearly messy, somewhat unsolvable, and often wicked. Similarly, the transformation processes that are advocated as necessary to address these challenges are complex, constantly emerging, and essentially uncontrollable. Yet, there is a problem in the way we think about the evidence produced through research about how to understand and foster sustainability transformations. Namely, we often work under the assumption that, in order to count as evidence-based, knowledge for actions, interventions, and policies needs to be purified and amended from the influence of the people, of the contexts, and of the processes that contribute to generating it. In my talk, I will argue that following epistemic purity is rather counterproductive. I will present cases of so-called transdisciplinary sustainability science and claim that we can retain important functions of evidence as supporting and guiding decisions and actions, while abandoning any pretense of epistemic purity. Relying on these examples and critically engaging with philosophical and STS literature on evidence for use and action, I will present a way of understanding evidence about and for sustainability transformations that praises and levers epistemic impurity. In this way, I will finally argue, evidence-based knowledge might support our capacities to muddle through the dirty waters of a world that we barely understand, can hardly anticipate, and definitely cannot control.

Author bio:

Guido Caniglia (he/him) is Associate Professor of Social Policy at the University of Helsinki. He previously worked as Scientific Director of the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research (Austria). His work deals with the intersecting ethical, epistemological, and political dimensions of knowledge co-production both in theory and in practice. Guido recently acquired an ERC Consolidator Grant with the title: “Whose Sustainability? Understanding and redefining just sustainability transformations through disability and queer perspectives” (WEIRD). He earned a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Florence (Italy) in 2010 and a second PhD in Biology from Arizona State University (USA) in 2015.

29 October 2024 tint Perspectives on Science seminar

5.11. Perspectives on Science seminar: Ahmad Elabbar

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Ahmad Elabbar (University of Cambridge) will give a talk titled “Trusting scientific advisors as epistemic curators: from error to attention”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Tuesday the 5th of November 2024. To join the seminar, please contact jessica.north@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Abstract:

Scientific advice plays a key role in shaping public policy. In light of its influence, and the growing realisation among philosophers of the depth of value-ladenness in science, the literature on epistemic trust in science has recently flourished. Yet, despite its richness, work on epistemic trust in science remains ‘error-centric’: epistemic trust in science is understood in terms of the reliability of inquiry, epistemic risk, and expert disagreement, among other related notions that centre on error. In this talk, I argue for expanding accounts of epistemic trust in science away from error towards attention. Building on an account of scientific advice as ‘epistemic curation’, and a case study of the IPCC’s assessment of the collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet, I argue trusting scientific advisors as epistemic curators requires more than what error-centric accounts presume. In particular, it requires that we look beyond questions of reliability and error-management towards the fair distribution of attention.

Author bio:

Ahmad Elabbar completed a PhD in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge in 2024. His thesis developed a framework of distributive epistemic justice for global climate assessment. He is currently the Adrian Research Fellow in Environmental Humanities at Darwin College, Cambridge, where he will continue working on the distribution of climate science. He is interested in the ethics and politics of science more broadly, and in bringing perspectives from political theory into the social epistemology of science and values-in-science literatures.

30 September 202430 September 2024 admin Perspectives on Science seminar

7.10. Perspectives on Science seminar: Benjamin Santos Genta

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Benjamin Santos Genta (University of California, Irvine) will give a talk titled “The Easy and Hard Problem of Similarity”.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 7th of October 2024. To join the seminar, please contact jessica.north@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Abstract:

In this talk, I distinguish between two kinds of similarity judgments made when reasoning analogically from models: an easy and a hard kind. The easy kind can be empirically explored and analysed, while it is much harder to conceptualize how to do this with the hard kind. I then show how some of the most forceful recent objections against the similarity view of model representation are substantially mitigated when this distinction is taken into account.

Author bio:

Benjamin Santos Genta is a PhD candidate in Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of California, Irvine. His work lies at the intersection of philosophy of science and social science. His dissertation explores the role similarity judgments play in the methodology of social sciences.

16 September 202416 September 2024 admin Perspectives on Science seminar

23.9. Perspectives on Science seminar: Vincent Lam

In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Vincent Lam (University of Bern) will give a talk titled “Anthropocene, planetary boundaries and tipping points: interdisciplinarity and values in Earth system science”

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 23rd of September 2024. To join the seminar, please contact jessica.north@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Abstract:

Earth system science (ESS) and modelling have given rise to a new conceptual framework in the recent decades, which goes much beyond climate science. Indeed, Earth system science and modelling have the ambition “to build a unified understanding of the Earth”, involving not only the physical Earth system components (atmosphere, cryosphere, land, ocean, lithosphere) but also all the relevant human and social processes interacting with them. This unified understanding that ESS aims to achieve raises a number of epistemological issues about interdisciplinarity. We argue that the interdisciplinary relations in ESS between natural and social / human sciences are best characterized in terms of what is called ‘scientific imperialism’ in the literature and we show that this imperialistic feature has some detrimental epistemic and non-epistemic effects, notably when addressing the issue of values in ESS. This paper considers in particular the core ESS concepts of Anthropocene, planetary boundaries and tipping points in the light of the philosophy of science discussions on interdisciplinarity and values. We show that acknowledging the interconnections between interdisciplinarity and values suggests ways for ESS to move forward in view of addressing the climate and environmental challenges.

Author bio:

Vincent Lam is a Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) professor in the Institute of Philosophy and at the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research (OCCR) at the University of Bern, where he is leading the Epistemology of Climate Change project (philoclimate.ch). He is also a Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Queensland. Between 2018 and 2021 he held a Chair of Excellence in Philosophy of Quantum Physics at the University of Grenoble Alpes. Besides his work in philosophy of physics and metaphysics of science, his current research concerns the philosophy of climate and Earth system sciences, as well as, more broadly, philosophical issues related to the climate and global environmental challenges.

14 May 202411 June 2025 admin Perspectives on Science seminar

20.5. Perspectives on Science seminar: Patricia Rich

In the Perspectives on Science seminar on 20 May, 2024, Patricia Rich (University of Bayreuth) will give a talk “The Evolution of Cooperation … in Science“

Perspectives on Science is a research seminar which brings together experts from the philosophy of science and several fields of science studies. It is organized by TINT – Centre for Philosophy of Social Science at the University of Helsinki. More information about the seminar can be found on the TINT web page https://tint.helsinki.fi.

The seminar takes place in person at Soc&kom, room 209 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 20th of May 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the Zoom invitation.

Abstract
Explaining human cooperation has been a major interdisciplinary challenge, but we now have many insightful accounts to draw on. One example comes from Bowles, Choi and Hopfensitz; they offer a fairly detailed account of the co-evolution of cooperative individuals and group-level institutions supporting cooperation. Specifically, they argue that intergroup conflict can explain altruistic behaviors and leveling institutions (such as food sharing and monogamy). This talk addresses the question of whether the authors’ analysis can be used to construct an explanation of cooperation in the context of modern science. I argue that the basic argument can be translated, but that this leads us to three distinct evolutionary stories (potentially) explaining three distinct kinds of scientific cooperation. For each case, I indicate the relevant individuals, groups, and currency of evolution; the nature of the intergroup conflict and the types of scientific cooperation that give the group an advantage in such a conflict; and the group-level institutions that lower the costs to the relevant types of cooperation. Thus, a framework for analyzing scientific cooperation emerges. This framework can be used to situate existing models and arguments from the philosophy of science and social epistemology; it also highlights further aspects of scientific cooperation that can be integrated.

Bio
Patricia Rich is the Junior Professor for Philosophy of Economics at the University of Bayreuth. Her research generally focuses on human rationality and covers game and decision theory, epistemology, philosophy of science, and computational cognitive science. For links to her publications, see https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=1-fm_skAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

7 May 20245 April 2025 admin Perspectives on Science seminar

13.5. Perspectives on Science seminar: Emrah Aydinonat

In the Perspectives on Science seminar on 13 May, 2024, N. Emrah Aydinonat (University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Economic Models as Argumentative Devices”

Perspectives on Science is a research seminar which brings together experts from the philosophy of science and several fields of science studies. It is organized by TINT – Centre for Philosophy of Social Science at the University of Helsinki. More information about the seminar can be found on the TINT web page https://tint.helsinki.fi.

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 13th of May 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Abstract
In this talk I critically evaluate Itzhak Gilboa, Andrew Postlewaite, Larry Samuelson, and David Schmeidler’s account of economic models. First, I give a selective overview of their argument, highlighting its emphasis on similarity and their oversight of the role of idealizations in economics. Second, I propose a sketch of an account that views models as arguments and argumentative devices. This approach not only sheds light on Gilboa et al.’s approach, including its shortcomings, but also identifies key challenges in model-based inference, suggesting a fresh perspective on the uses of models in economics for diverse objectives.

Author Bio:
N. Emrah Aydinonat (PhD, Docent) is a philosopher of economics working at the University of Helsinki, and a member of the Centre for Philosophy of Social Science (TINT). He is one of the Chief Editors of the Journal of Economic Methodology, and a member of the Editorial Board of the History of Economic Ideas. He also serves in the International Advisory Board of The Review of Evolutionary Political Economy (REPE). More info: https://neaydinonat.com/

29 April 202413 June 2024 admin Perspectives on Science seminar

6.5. Perspectives on Science seminar: Mattia Gallotti

In the Perspectives on Science seminar on 6 May, 2024, Mattia Gallotti (London Interdisciplinary School) will give a talk titled “Towards a Framework for Interdisciplinary Integrative Research”

The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 6th of May 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or Zoom invitation.

Abstract

Despite widespread recognition, interdisciplinarity still lacks a consistent system of research evaluation. At a time when ever more research is recognized and classed as being interdisciplinary, the need for clear and shared evaluative standards is now seen as a pressing concern in the academic and policy world. Calls have been made for better theoretically founded, more sophisticated, and dynamic approaches to accurately capture the ethos of interdisciplinary research. In recent years, important systematic work has been done to distill general criteria for cross-disciplinary integration from successful cases of local research activity and design. However, increasing knowledge of the processes and techniques through which interdisciplinary outputs can be generated through integration has not yet led to an agreed upon framework. This paper seeks to address this issue in the context of the broader debate on integration as the guiding method of interdisciplinarity, thus contributing to current efforts towards a philosophy of science of interdisciplinarity.

Author Bio:

Mattia Gallotti is a founding Faculty member and currently the Head of Research & Development at the new London Interdisciplinary School (LIS). A trained philosopher of social science, he has researched concepts of collective intentionality across several disciplines spanning from cognitive science to literary criticism. His current research focuses on the methodology of interdisciplinary research and teaching.