Philosophy of Science seminars

Research and management of biological invasions involve value judgments as well as empirical findings. This seminar examines where those values enter scientific concepts, management questions and decisions about public investment. It considers how researchers and practitioners can make those commitments explicit, justify their choices and discuss invasive-species policy transparently.

Recent high-profile scientific achievements by machine learning (ML) and especially deep learning (DL) systems have reinvigorated interest in ML for automated scientific discovery (eg, Wang et al. 2023). Much of this work is motivated by the thought that DL methods might facilitate the efficient discovery of phenomena, hypotheses, or even models or theories more efficiently than traditional, theory-driven approaches to discovery. This talk considers some of the more specific obstacles to automated, DL-driven discovery in frontier science, focusing on gravitational-wave astrophysics (GWA) as a representative case study. In the first part of the talk, we argue that despite these efforts, prospects for DL-driven discovery in GWA remain uncertain. In the second part, we advocate a shift in focus towards the ways DL can be used to augment or enhance existing discovery methods, and the epistemic virtues and vices associated with these uses. We argue that the primary epistemic virtue of many such uses is to decrease opportunity costs associated with investigating puzzling or anomalous signals, and that the right framework for evaluating these uses comes from philosophical work on pursuitworthiness.

Matthew Cobb uses the history of heredity to question the idea that scientific revolutions are instantly recognisable. The lecture follows changing ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s experiments and their rediscovery, evidence for DNA’s genetic role, the double helix and genetic engineering. Even major discoveries did not immediately settle contemporary debates: protein-based accounts of inheritance persisted after 1953, and evidence for DNA’s role in multicellular organisms developed later. These examples show how retrospective accounts can compress gradual changes into apparently decisive moments.

In this presentation, we will discuss adaptations of historical examples of mathematical research to bring out some of the intuitive judgments that accompany the working practice of mathematicians when reasoning by analogy. The main epistemological claim that we will aim to illustrate is that a central part of mathematical training consists in developing a quasi-perceptual capacity to distinguish superficial from deep analogies. We think of this capacity as an instance of Hadamard’s (1954) discriminating faculty of the mathematical mind, whereby one is led to distinguish between mere “hookings” (77) and “relay-results” (80): on the one hand, suggestions or ‘hints’, useful to raise questions but not to back up conjectures; on the other, more significant discoveries, which can be used as an evidentiary source in further mathematical inquiry. In the second part of the presentation, we will present some recent applications of this epistemological framework to mathematics education projects for middle and high schools in Italy.

In this talk I will introduce the central notions of the theory of autonomy, as it is being currently developed in biology and cognitive science. The theory of autonomy puts forward the capacity of self-determination of organisms as whole systems, and constitutes thereby an alternative to more reductionist and mechanistic approaches. I will discuss how the theory of autonomy provides a justification for the scientific use of notions as function, norm, agency and teleology, whose epistemological legitimacy is highly debated. I will conclude by describing the difficult challenges that poses the transition from biological to cognitive autonomy.

Abstract: There is no doubt that the study of brain damaged individuals has contributed greatly to our understanding of the mind/brain. Within this broad approach, cognitive neuropsychology accentuates the cognitive dimension: it investigates the structure and organization of perceptual, motor, cognitive, and language systems – prerequisites for understanding the functional organization of the brain – through the analysis of their dysfunction following brain damage. Significant insights have come specifically from this paradigm. But progress has been slow and enthusiasm for this approach has waned somewhat in recent years, and the use of existing findings to constrain new theories has also waned. What explains the current diminished status of cognitive neuropsychology? One reason may be failure to calibrate expectations about the effective contribution of different subfields of the study of the mind/brain as these are determined by their natural peculiarities – such factors as the types of available observations and their complexity, opportunity of access to such observations, the possibility of controlled experimentation, and the like. Here, I also explore the merits and limitations of cognitive neuropsychology, with particular focus on the role of intellectual, pragmatic, and societal factors that determine scientific practice within the broader domains of cognitive science/neuroscience. I conclude on an optimistic note about the continuing unique importance of cognitive neuropsychology: although limited to the study of experiments of nature, it offers a privileged window into significant aspects of the mind/brain that are not easily accessible through other approaches. Biography: Alfonso Caramazza's research has focussed extensively on how words and their meanings are represented in the brain. His early pioneering studies helped to reformulate our thinking about Broca's aphasia (not limited to production) and formalised the logic of patient-based neuropsychology. More recently he has been instrumental in reconsidering popular claims about embodied cognition.