14065 research outputs found
Sort by
Four Formal Versions of The Two-Envelope Paradox
Get PDFPhilosophical discussion of the Two-Envelope Paradox has suffered from a lack of formal precision. I discuss various versions of the paradoxical argument using modern probability theory, which helps to make diagnoses that are simpler, more insightful, and provably correct. Paradoxical arguments are revealed to be fallacious for one of three reasons: (1) the argument makes a formal mistake such as an equivocation fallacy; (2) the argument disregards relevant uncertainty about or variability in a unit of measurement; (3) the argument uses an invalid decision rule. I improve upon various existing diagnoses and discuss what kind of philosophical and decision-theoretic import the paradox has
On Dawkins: The Biologist’s Shadow on the Cave Wall
Get PDFRichard Dawkins is widely celebrated as a key figure in contemporary evolutionary biology, but his intellectual legacy resists simple classification.
While he is often framed as a hardline defender of empirical science and naturalism, the structure of his contributions reveals a more ambivalent posture—one that is deeply philosophical, even as it disavows philosophy.
This essay argues that Dawkins’ enduring influence derives not from experimental discoveries or novel data, but from his role as a conceptual architect: a theorist who reshapes how we think about genes, selection, and organismal design. Through close examination of his major works, public statements, and the epistemic frameworks he deploys, I suggest that Dawkins’ authority operates through what might be termed a “rhetorical empiricism”—a stance that foregrounds science while covertly engaging in metaphysical and conceptual argumentation.
The central irony is that Dawkins embodies a form of philosophy he explicitly rejects: a speculative, systematizing, and normatively charged philosophy of biology
Shape space as a conceptual space
Get PDFThe notion of shape space was introduced in the second half of the 20th Century as a useful analytical tool for tackling problems related to the intrinsic spatial configuration of material systems. In recent years, the geometrical properties of shape spaces have been investigated and exploited to construct a totally relational description of physics (classical, relativistic, and quantum). The main aim of this relational framework - originally championed by Julian Barbour and Bruno Bertotti - is to cast the dynamical description of material systems in dimensionless and scale-invariant terms only. As such, the Barbour-Bertotti approach to dynamics represents the technical implementation of the famous Leibnizian arguments against the reality of space and time as genuine substances. The question then arises about the status of shape space itself in this picture: Is it an actual physical space in which the fundamental relational dynamics unfolds, or is it just a useful mathematical construction? The present paper argues for the latter answer and, in doing so, explores the possibility that shape space is a peculiar case of a conceptual space
The Epistemic Mismatch Problem: Scientific Progress and Knowledge of Approximate Truths
Get PDFMany instances of scientific progress feature the development of theories that are not fully true, but merely approximately true to various extents. Since only fully true propositions can be known, this seems to rule out the view that scientific progress consists in the accumulation of knowledge. According to Bird's Cumulative Knowledge Account of progress, however, what becomes known in such instances is a (fully true) proposition expressing that the theory in question is approximately true to some extent. We present a general challenge for this idea -- the Epistemic Mismatch Problem -- and consider various strategies by which proponents of the Cumulative Knowledge Account might respond to it. We suggest, however, that the only plausible such strategies involve giving up on aspects of the Cumulative Knowledge Account that are central to why it has seemed plausible to begin with
Temporal Perspectives, Probabilities and Openness
Get PDFOne way to interpret the difference between presentism and eternalism is perspectively. This view argues that from a perspective outside of time, we should adopt eternalism, and from a perspective embedded within time, we should be presentist. I will use the perspectival view to make two central claims about the probabilities in statistical mechanics. First, the perspectival view can help us respond to the challenge that these probabilities are merely epistemic, subjective, or anthropocentric. Second, we should treat the future as metaphysically open, due to both probabilities in statistical mechanics and the localised nature of the present
Maxwell's Demon Is Foiled by the Entropy Cost of Measurement, Not Erasure
Get PDFI dispute the conventional claim that the second law of thermodynamics is saved from a "Maxwell's Demon" by the entropy cost of information erasure, and show that instead it is measurement that incurs the entropy cost. Thus Brillouin, who identified measurement as savior of the second law, was essentially correct, and putative refutations of his view, such as Bennett's claim to measure without entropy cost, are seen to fail when the applicable physics is taken into account. I argue that the tradition of attributing the defeat of Maxwell's Demon to erasure rather than to measurement arose from unphysical classical idealizations that do not hold for real gas molecules, as well as a physically ungrounded recasting of physical thermodynamical processes into computational and information-theoretic conceptualizations. I argue that the fundamental principle that saves the second law is the quantum uncertainty principle applying to the need to localize physical states to precise values of observables in order to effect the desired disequilibria aimed at violating the second law. I obtain the specific entropy cost for localizing a molecule in the Szilard engine, which coincides with the quantity attributed to Landauer's principle. I also note that an experiment characterized as upholding an entropy cost of erasure in a "quantum Maxwell's Demon" actually demonstrates an entropy cost of measurement
Chemical causal relations across different levels of description
Get PDFTwo forms of chemical reaction statements are standardly found in the chemical corpus. First, individual reactions statements describe reactions that occur between specific chemical substances, leading to the production of specific substances. Secondly, general reactions statements describe chemical transformations between groups of substances. Both forms of statements track regularities in nature and are thus warranted to be viewed as representing causal relations. However, a convincing analysis in terms of causation also requires spelling out the metaphysical relation between individual and general reactions. This is because their relation prompts concerns regarding causal priority and causal overdetermination. I present these concerns and address them by arguing that we should view individual and general reactions in the context of the determinate/determinable distinction
Social facts, circularity and causal-historical connections in experimental semantics
Get PDFThis paper offers a critical analysis of Ding and Liu’s (2022) contribution to the ongoing debate stemming from Machery et al.’s (2004) experimental investigation of Kripke’s Gödel Case. Machery et al. test referential intuitions on proper names among laypeople from American and Chinese backgrounds and contend that their results challenge Kripke’s refutation of descriptivism. Ding and Liu argue that descriptions in Gödel-style scenarios are ambiguous between a brute-fact and a social-fact interpretation, and Machery et al. overlook the latter. Building upon this ambiguity, Ding and Liu conduct several studies, maintaining that the results reveal that Machery et al. misclassify some descriptivist answers as causal-historical. If that is the case, the challenge that experimental philosophy poses to Kripke’s refutation of descriptivism is even more substantial than Machery et al. claim. In this paper, I argue that, even granting some specific points that Ding and Liu endorse, their main experiment (Study 3) fails to provide the intended evidence. Despite the authors’ attempted rejoinders, the social-fact interpretation of the description in the Gödel Case is either circular or implicitly presupposes a referential role for the name’s causal-historical chain. Hence, in contrast to Ding and Liu’s interpretation, from their premises, they can only conclude that their main experiment’s results do not bolster Machery et al.’s (2004) challenge against Kripke’s refutation of descriptivism, but rather diminish it
Philosophy of Psychology and Psychiatry
Get PDFThis chapter examines the history of philosophy of psychology and philosophy of psychiatry as subfields of philosophy of science that emerged in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. The chapter also surveys related literatures that developed in psychology and psychiatry. Philosophy of psychology (or philosophy of cognitive science) has been a well-established subfield of philosophy of mind since the 1990s and 2000s. This field of philosophy of psychology is narrowly focused on issues in cognitive psychology and cognitive science. Compared to the thriving subfield of philosophy of cognitive science, there has been a lack of corresponding interest among philosophers of science in broader methodological questions about different paradigms and fields of study in psychology. These broader methodological questions about psychology have been addressed in the field of theoretical psychology, which is a subfield of psychology that materialized in the 1980s and 1990s. Philosophy of psychiatry emerged as a subfield of philosophy of science in the mid-2000s. Compared to philosophy of psychology, the philosophy of psychiatry literature in philosophy of science engaged with issues examined in an older and more interdisciplinary tradition of philosophy of psychiatry that developed after the 1960s. The participation of philosophers of science in the literature on theoretical psychology, by contrast, has been limited
The Simplicity of Physical Laws
Get PDFPhysical laws are strikingly simple, yet there is no a priori reason for them to be so. I propose that nomic realists—Humeans and non-Humeans—should recognize simplicity as a fundamental epistemic guide for discovering and evaluating candidate physical laws. This proposal helps resolve several longstanding problems of nomic realism and simplicity. A key consequence is that the presumed epistemic advantage of Humeanism over non-Humeanism dissolves, undermining a prominent epistemological argument for Humeanism. Moreover, simplicity is shown to be more connected to lawhood than to mere truth