Search

The task of Philosophy in Science (PinS) is to use philosophical tools to help solve scientific problems. This article describes how I stumbled into this line of work and then addressed several topics in philosophy of biology—units of selection, cladistic parsimony, robustness and trade-offs in model building, adaptationism, and evidence for common ancestry—often in collaboration with scientists. I conclude by offering advice for would-be PinS practitioners.

All extant purely probabilistic measures of explanatory power satisfy the following technical condition: if Pr(E | H1) > Pr(E | H2) and Pr(E | ∼H1) < Pr(E | ∼H2), then H1’s explanatory power with respect to E is greater than H2’s explanatory power with respect to E. We argue that any measure satisfying this condition faces three serious problems—the Problem of Temporal Shallowness, the Problem of Negative Causal Interactions, and the Problem of Nonexplanations. We further argue that many such measures face a fourth problem—the Problem of Explanatory Irrelevance.

Darwinowską teorię ewolucji zwykle postrzega się jako zgodną z wymogami naturalizmu metodologicznego, jak jednak można pogodzić to z faktem, że w O powstawaniu gatunków Darwin wielokrotnie mówił o Bogu? Odpowiedź na to pytanie łączę z objaśnieniem znaczenia naturalizmu metodologicznego. Przy okazji zastanawiam się, czy twierdzenia dotyczące istot nadnaturalnych są kiedykolwiek testowalne i czy uprawianie nauki byłoby niemożliwe, gdyby porzucono naturalizm metodologiczny. Inne pytanie dotyczy tego, czy teoria Darwina oraz jej współczesne następczynie są niezgodne z izolowanymi aktami boskiej interwencji, a kolejne brzmi: jeśli liczby rozumiane są na sposób platoński (jako istniejące poza czasem i przestrzenią), to czy tym samym współczesna zmatematyzowana teoria ewolucji sprzeniewierza się naturalizmowi metodologicznemu?

Kiedy rzecznicy teorii inteligentnego projektu (ID) zaprzeczają, że ich teoria ma charakter religijny, opowiadają się za teorią minimalistyczną (teorią mini-ID), według której odkryte w naturze nieredukowalnie złożone adaptacje są dziełem jednego lub większej liczby inteligentnych projektantów. Nie uznają jej za religijną, ponieważ nie określa ona tożsamości projektanta – dzieła stworzenia mógł dokonać nadprzyrodzony Bóg lub grupa istot pozaziemskich. W niniejszym artykule próbuję wykazać, że teza ta bagatelizuje konsekwencje płynące z teorii mini-ID. Teoria mini-ID uzupełniona o kolejne cztery założenia, których wiarygodność została ustalona niezależnie, pociąga istnienie nadprzyrodzonego inteligentnego projektanta. W dalszej części artykułu dowodzę, że takie teorie naukowe, jak darwinowska teoria ewolucji, nie wypowiadają się na temat istnienia nadprzyrodzonych projektantów.

The article is a critical analysis of the explanatory filter concept presented by William Dembski in his book The Design Inference. The filter is understood as formalization of the procedure leading to detection whether a given event is designed. The procedure is based on application of the rules that determine the choice between mutually exclusive hypotheses: Regularity, Chance and Design. Authors refer to the notion of likelihood of a hypothesis understood as the probability that hypothesis confers on observations. They argue that, in contrast to the likelihood of Chance and Regularity hypotheses, Dembski never takes the likelihood of Design hypothesis into consideration. Authors also criticize classification of above mentioned hypotheses proposed in The Design Inference.

The likelihood justification of parsimony proposed in Sober (1983, 1984a) is applied to some problems posed by character weighting. An argument is provided for thinking that the point frequency of a character is not a good descriptor for parsimonious reconstructions of phylogeny. The idea that a good character will be conservative or nonadaptive is also examined from a likelihood point of view.

A Markov process can be invariant under time reversal and it also can exhibit a failure of invariance that is “uniformly positive.” I show how each of these possibilities contributes to the project of deciding when a temporal sequence of states has a higher probability than its mirror image. Neither suffices, but a distinct property of the Markov process completes the project, namely the unconditional probabilities of two possible states of the system at the start of the process. The concept of forward time-translational invariance plays a role in the analysis, but I discuss backward time-translational invariance as well. I argue that the Markov framework helps clarify how the Past Hypothesis (the hypothesis that the universe began in a very low entropy state) is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how each is relevant to explaining why histories that exhibit entropy increase have higher probabilities than histories that exhibit entropy decline. I argue that the Past Hypothesis, if true, helps explain this fact about histories, but a far weaker hypothesis about the universe's initial state suffices to do so.

The requirement of total evidence is a mainstay of Bayesian epistemology. Peter Fisher Epstein argues that the requirement generates mistaken conclusions about several examples that he devises. Here we examine the example of Epstein’s that we find most interesting and argue that Epstein’s analysis of it is flawed.

The disjunction problem and the distality problem each presents a challenge that any theory of mental content must address. Here we consider their bearing on purely probabilistic causal (ppc) theories. In addition to considering these problems separately, we consider a third challenge—that a theory must solve both. We call this “the hard problem.” We consider 8 basic ppc theories along with 240 hybrids of them, and show that some can handle the disjunction problem and some can handle the distality problem, but none can handle the hard problem. This is our main result. We then discuss three possible responses to that result, and argue that though the first two fail, the third has some promise.

Writtten in an engaging lecture-style format, this 8th edition of Core Questions in Philosophy shows students how philosophy is best used to evaluate many different kinds of arguments and to construct sound theories. Well-known historical texts are discussed, not as a means to honor the dead or merely to describe what various philosophers have thought but to engage with, criticize, and even improve ideas from the past. In addition—because philosophy cannot function apart from its engagement with the wider society—traditional and contemporary philosophical problems are brought into dialogue with the physical, biological, and social sciences. Text boxes highlight key concepts, and review questions, discussion questions, and a glossary of terms are also included. Core Questions in Philosophy has served as a premier introductory textbook for three decades, with updates to each new edition. Key updates to this 8th edition include: A new chapter, "Probability and Bayes' Theorem" A new explanation of the concept of "soundness," as a useful tool in assessing arguments A clearer explanation, in the chapter on evolution, of the crucial biological idea that the similarities of different species provide evidence of their common ancestry A new discussion of evolutionary altruism in the chapter on psychological egoism A presentation of two interesting arguments from historically important Islamic and Confusian philosophers Improved clarity and updated material from philosophy and empirical research, throughout Revisions to the online list of recommended resources include: Additional recommendations of supplementary readings, with the inclusion of more work from female philosophers New recommended videos and podcasts, all organized by their relevance to each chapter in the book

Carl Hempel (1965) argued that probabilistic hypotheses are limited in what they can explain. He contended that a hypothesis cannot explain why E is true if the hypothesis says that E has a probability less than 0.5. Wesley Salmon (1971, 1984, 1990, 1998) and Richard Jeffrey (1969) argued to the contrary, contending that P can explain why E is true even when P says that E’s probability is very low. This debate concerned noncontrastive explananda. Here, a view of contrastive causal explanation is described and defended. It provides a new limit on what probabilistic hypotheses can explain; the limitation is that P cannot explain why E is true rather than A if P assign E a probability that is less than or equal to the probability that P assigns to A. The view entails that a true deterministic theory and a true probabilistic theory that apply to the same explanandum partition are such that the deterministic theory explains all the true contrastive propositions constructable from that partition, whereas the probabilistic theory often fails to do so.

Allen and Pardo’s explanation of Relative Plausibility as a theory of evidence and proof in litigation is ambiguous and underspecified. Their account suggests at least three different interpretations of what they mean. They might be advocating “anti-halfism,” which tracks the “conventional account” but merely rejects >0.5 as the proper standard of proof. Or they might be advocating “probabilistic holism,” in which trial decision-makers apply probability to whole claims but not elements – in which case it remains to be explained how such an approach is internally coherent. Or they might be endorsing “total anti-probabilism,” in which “plausibility” obeys rules and axioms different from those of probability – rules and axioms that Allen and Pardo have yet to identify. To date, Allen and Pardo have side-stepped criticisms by shifting from one interpretation to another, strategically. Aside from presenting a theory too formless to determine how well it fits actual jury behavior, Allen and Pardo have not presented any robust empirical observations about how juries actually decide cases (despite their claims to do so). Before we can really assess whether Relative Plausibility is a new paradigm for understanding the structure of evidence and proof in litigation, Allen and Pardo must tell us much more about what it actually is.

Michael Scriven’s (1959) example of identical twins (who are said to be equal in fitness but unequal in their reproductive success) has been used by many philosophers of biology to discuss how fitness should be defined, how selection should be distinguished from drift, and how the environment in which a selection process occurs should be conceptualized. Here it is argued that evolutionary theory has no commitment, one way or the other, as to whether the twins are equally fit. This is because the theory of natural selection is fundamentally about the fitnesses of traits, not the fitnesses of token individuals. A plausible philosophical thesis about supervenience entails that the twins are equally fit if they live in identical environments, but evolutionary biology is not committed to the thesis that the twins live in identical environments. Evolutionary theory is right to focus on traits, rather than on token individuals, because the fitnesses of token organisms (as opposed to their actual survivorship and degree of reproductive success) are almost always unknowable. This point has ramifications for the question of how Darwin’s theory of evolution and R. A. Fisher’s are conceptually different.

Aristotle’s principle that “nature does nothing in vain” (NDNIV) is central to his teleological approach to understanding organisms. First, we argue that James G. Lennox’s influential account of NDNIV is unsuccessful. Second, we propose an alternative account that includes a natural state model. According to a natural state model of development, an organism will develop toward its natural state unless interfering forces prevent that from happening. Third, we argue that this account also fits Aristotle’s discussion in the Generation of Animals and can explain monstrosities in nature that at first sight seem to be counterexamples to NDNIV. Fourth, we take a broader look at NDNIV, arguing that it does not entail that all structures are teleological (since it accommodates the thought that by-products and some neglected items that Aristotle calls “tokens” are nonteleological), that it does not entail that there is only one function per organ, that NDNIV is not an anthropocentric principle, and that, perhaps su...

According to Michael Friedman’s theory of explanation, a law X explains laws Y1, Y2, …, Yn precisely when X unifies the Y’s, where unification is understood in terms of reducing the number of independently acceptable laws. Philip Kitcher criticized Friedman’s theory but did not analyze the concept of independent acceptability. Here we show that Kitcher’s objection can be met by modifying an element in Friedman’s account. In addition, we argue that there are serious objections to the use that Friedman makes of the concept of independent acceptability.

We (2013, 2014) argued that explanatoriness is evidentially irrelevant in the following sense: Let H be a hypothesis, O an observation, and E the proposition that H would explain O if H and O were true. Then our claim is that Pr(H | O & E) = Pr(H | O). We defended this screening-off thesis (SOT) by discussing an example concerning smoking and cancer. Climenhaga (Philos Sci, forthcoming) argues that SOT is mistaken because it delivers the wrong verdict about a slightly different smoking-and-cancer case. He also considers a variant of SOT, called “SOT*”, and contends that it too gives the wrong result. We here reply to Climenhaga’s arguments and suggest that SOT provides a criticism of the widely held theory of inference called “inference to the best explanation”.

Karl Popper argued in 1974 that evolutionary theory contains no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program. Four years later, he said that he had changed his mind. Here we seek ...