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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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/
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”
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 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.
In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Kármen Kovács (University of Pécs) will give a talk titled “Is early novelty switching beneficial for consumers? The impact of impatience on the consumer utility derived from innovation from a behavioural economic perspective”
The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo room 10 and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 29th of April 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or 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
This research investigates from a behavioural economic perspective the reasons, the manifestations and the consequences of the early purchase of various innovations when consumers have present-biased preferences. The present study aims to analyse how consumers’ impatience influences their utility stream when various innovations are launched with increasing frequency. A simple theoretical model is presented that proceeds on the general form of the hyperbolic discounting utility function. Its purpose is to analyse how consumers’ impatience influences their utility stream derived from purchasing various types of innovations and a potential early novelty switching. The findings show why impatient consumers tend to finance the desired innovation by borrowing. The results indicate how the level of impatience, price level, and added value of innovations influence consumers’ utility stream.
Bio
Kármen Kovács graduated from the University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics in 2002. She defended her PhD dissertation with summa cum laude in 2007; then she habilitated successfully in 2015. She was an assistant professor from September 2008 at the University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics. She has been an associate professor since July 2016 at the Faculty. She has taught academic research and writing, research methods, basic mathematics, innovation management, business economics and behavioural economics. Her major research interest is behavioural economics. For the academic year 2016/17, she received a postdoctoral scholarship from the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities. She received the János Bolyai Research Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences between 2017 and 2020. She has won the Hungarian State Eötvös Scholarship for the academic year 2023/24. She is an Associate Editor of the journal Marketing Intelligence and Planning.
In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Charlie Kurth (Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies; Western Michigan University) will give a talk titled “What is the Place of Emotion AI in Moral Education?”
The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 8th of April 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or 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
Cultivating one’s emotions—learning to feel anger, say, at the right time and in the right way—has long been viewed as central to moral education. Recently, educators, philosophers, and entrepreneurs have pointed to “emotion nudges” and other forms of emotion-focused AI (EAI) as powerful, but under-utilized tools for emotion cultivation. The initial results are intriguing: merely placing “watching-eye” icons in online chatrooms can prompt feelings of anxiety that help curb vicious posting, and virtual reality (VR) simulations can engage stereotype-challenging empathy. But while there’s a growing body of research examining the use of AI for education as well as emotion-focused AI in general, there is little that looks specifically at the science and ethics of using EAI for moral education.
In an effort to start filling this gap, my paper has two aims. First, I identify a trio of issues that must be addressed if EAI is to live up to its promise. More specifically, as it stands, we (i) lack answers to basic questions about how EAI will identify, assess, and educate emotions, (ii) have not considered (much less addressed) very real concerns about how EAI could lead to the deskilling of crucial meta-emotional capacities, and (iii) have done little to tackle problematic political and financial influences that threaten to distort the development of EAI educational tools. While these considerations should leave us very worried about the continued use of EAI, the second part of the paper attempts to find reasons for optimism. To do this, I examine emerging VR technologies in order to explore what scientifically and pedagogically responsible uses of EAI for moral education might look like.
Bio
Charlie Kurth is a Core Fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies and a Professor in the Philosophy Department at Western Michigan University. His research focuses on issues at the intersection of ethical theory, moral psychology, and the philosophy of emotion; methodologically, he takes philosophical questions about the nature of value and the mind to be productively informed by empirical inquiry in the cognitive and social sciences. Recently, his work has examined the role that emotions play in shaping moral thought and agency.
In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Sam White (University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Rabbits, Ducks, and Conceptual Problems in the Environmental History of Late Antiquity.”
The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 11th of March 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or 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
Investigations in the historical sciences often confront persistent (contrastive) under-determination of theory by evidence. In some cases, rival theories may persist indefinitely in a state of uncertainty or indifference. Yet in most cases the hope is that new evidence and methods will bring at least partial and provisional resolution. Unfortunately, there can be cases when new evidence and methods appear to aggravate problems of under-determination rather than resolve them, producing sharply divided and apparently irreconcilable positions on historical questions. One such case is the environmental history of the Late Antique Mediterranean (e.g., early Byzantine Empire): once a quaint and obscure branch of study that has now drawn a disproportionate share of research attention and scholarly polemics. Teams of historians, archaeologists, paleoclimatologists, and geneticists have clashed over “maximalist” and “minimalist” positions regarding environmental disasters, plague mortality, and political collapse in the 3rd-6th centuries CE; and in numerous cases, have attacked each other’s methods, epistemology, and reasoning. Using the familiar rabbit-duck illusion as a metaphor, I argue that debates in the field have been derailed by feedbacks between divergent historical interpretations, on the one hand, and divergent approaches to historical analysis and interdisciplinary consilience, on the other. The paper proposes some modest solutions grounded in Bayesian reasoning. Problems in the environmental history of Late Antiquity analyzed in my paper may also represent wider problems in historical epistemology.
Author bio
Sam White joined the University of Helsinki as professor of political history in October 2022. He teaches on environmental history, historiography, and the uses and politics of history. His research specializes in reconstructing past climates and extreme weather and understanding their roles in human history. His publications include narrative monographs, scientific collaborations, and works on theory and methods. He currently leads the Past Global Changes (PAGES) working group on Climate Reconstruction and Impacts from the Archives of Societies.
In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, María Jiménez-Buedo (UNED) will give a talk titled “Explanation and generality in Analytical Sociology: what is a catalogue of mechanisms?” (Joint work with Saúl Pérez-González (University of Valencia))
The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 12th of February 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or 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:
One of the defining features of current analytical sociology is its emphasis on the centrality of mechanisms in social science. It is considered that the explanation of social phenomena is mainly achieved through the identification and description of underlying social mechanisms. These mechanisms often aggregate individual actions to form macro-phenomena. Following this idea, the founders of analytical sociology envisioned the future of the discipline as one in which there would be a variety of mechanism schemes that would collectively constitute a catalogue of explanations available for social phenomena. This work addresses the idea of a catalogue of mechanisms and examines the promises, but also the difficulties, that the idea entails. It evaluates to what extent the catalogue currently plays the role envisioned by early analytical sociologists.
Author bios:
María Jiménez-Buedo is a lecturer at the Department of Logic, History and Philosophy of Science, UNED. She works in the philosophy of the social sciences, with an emphasis on methodological issues. Her recent work focuses on experimental methods in the social sciences and their evidential uses policy formulation.
Saúl Pérez-González is assistant professor at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Valencia. Previously, he held a post-doctoral position at the Center for Logic, Language, and Cognition (LLC) of the University of Turin. His main areas of interest are philosophy of science, philosophy of the social sciences, and philosophy of the biomedical sciences.
In the next Perspectives on Science seminar, Sofia Blanco Sequeiros (University of Helsinki) and Samuli Reijula (University of Helsinki) will give a talk titled “Explaining evidential discordance.”
The seminar takes place in person at Metsätalo and online via Zoom from 14:15 to 15:45 on Monday the 15th of January 2024. To join the seminar, please contact samuli.reijula@helsinki.fi for the location or 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:
Successful replication is a hallmark of scientific truth. Discordant evidence refers to the situation where findings from different studies of the same phenomenon do not agree. Although evidential discordance can spur scientific discovery, it also gives scientists a reason to rationally disagree and thereby compromises the formation of scientific consensus. Discordance indicates that facts about the phenomenon of interest remain unsettled and that a finding may not be reliably replicable. We single out persistent evidential discordance as a particularly difficult problem for the epistemology of science, and distinguish between different causes of evidential discordance – non-systematic error, noise, and bias. Unlike discordance brought about by non-systematic error or noise, persistent discordance often cannot be rationally resolved by temporarily suspending judgment and collecting more data within existing lines of inquiry. We suggest that the analysis of enriched lines of evidence (Boyd 2018) provides a useful approach to diagnosing and evaluating episodes of evidential discordance. Attention to the line of evidence, which extends from raw data to an evidential claim supporting or disconfirming a hypothesis, can help researchers to localize the source of discordance between inconsistent findings. We argue that reference to metadata, information about how the data were generated and processed, is key to resolving normative questions of correctness, i.e., whether a line of evidence provides a legitimate answer to a particular research question. We illustrate our argument with two cases: the alleged discovery of gravitational waves in the late 1960s, and the social priming controversy in experimental psychology.
Author bios:
Sofia Blanco Sequeiros is a PhD-student at the University of Helsinki. She works on questions concerning scientific evidence and methodology and the science-policy interface.
Samuli Reijula is an Academy of Finland research fellow and a university lecturer in theoretical philosophy at the University of Helsinki, Finland. His area of expertise is the philosophy of science, with interests in cognitive science and science studies (incl. science of science). His research interests include collective problem solving, cognitive diversity, science policy, and foundations of evidence-based policy.
