Scientists imagine for epistemic reasons, and these imaginings can be better or worse. But what does it mean for an imagining to be epistemically better or worse? There are at least three metaepistemological frameworks that offer different answers to this question: epistemological consequentialism, deontic epistemology, and virtue epistemology. This paper presents empirical evidence that scientists adopt each of these different epistemic frameworks with respect to imagination, but argues that the way they do this is best explained if scientists are fundamentally (...) epistemic consequentialists about imagination. (shrink)

If scientists embrace scientific realism, they can use a scientific theory to explain and predict observables and unobservables. If, however, they embrace scientific antirealism, they cannot use a scientific theory to explain observables and unobservables, and cannot use a scientific theory to predict unobservables. Given that explanation and prediction are means to make scientific progress, scientists can make more scientific progress, if they embrace scientific realism than if they embrace scientific antirealism.

If successful scientific inquiry is to be possible, there must be a world that is independent of how we believe it to be, and in which there are kinds and laws; and we must have the sensory apparatus to perceive particular things and events, and the capacity to represent them, to form generalized explanatory conjectures, and check how these conjectures stand up to further experience. Whether these preconditions are met is not a question the sciences can answer; it is specifically (...) philosophical. This is why the myriad forms of scientistic philosophy in vogue today (neurophilosophy, experimental philosophy, naturalized metaphysics, evangelical-atheist reductionism, etc), are all hollow at the core. Does this mean we must return to the old, a priori analytic model? No! What is needed instead is scientific philosophy in the sense Peirce articulated more than a century ago: philosophy motivated by a genuine desire to discover the truth, and relying not solely on reason but also on experience—only not the special, recherché experience required by the sciences, but close attention to aspects of everyday experience so familiar we hardly notice them. (shrink)

Are scientists incentivized to share intermediate results? Some recent work has argued that credit-maximizing scientists would share intermediate results, whereas other work has argued that sharing too much too quickly can hinder a community’s achievement of epistemic goals. This suggests a tradeoff between scientists’ credit-based self-interest and what is epistemically best. We make this tradeoff explicit in an agent-based NK landscape model, where credit-maximizing scientists face a prisoner’s dilemma due to collective epistemic and credit benefits from withholding. Multiple coders independently (...) implemented the model, leading us to identify several coding errors. We reflect on this code comparison experience. (shrink)

The role of scientists as experts is crucial to public policymaking. However, the expert role is contested and unsettled in both public and scholarly discourse. In this paper, I provide a systematic account of the role of scientists as experts in policymaking by examining whether there are any normatively relevant differences between this role and the role of scientists as researchers. Two different interpretations can be given of how the two roles relate to each other. The separability view states that (...) there is a normatively relevant difference between the two roles, whereas the inseparability view denies that there is such a difference. Based on a systematic analysis of the central aspects of the role of scientists as experts – that is, its aim, context, mode of output, and standards, I propose a moderate version of the separability view. Whereas the aim of scientific research is typically to produce new knowledge through the use of scientific method for evaluation and dissemination in internal settings, the aim of the expert is to provide policymakers and the public with relevant and applicable knowledge that can premise political reasoning and deliberation. (shrink)

There are two senses of ‘what scientists know’: An individual sense (the separate opinions of individual scientists) and a collective sense (the state of the discipline). The latter is what matters for policy and planning, but it is not something that can be directly observed or reported. A function can be defined to map individual judgments onto an aggregate judgment. I argue that such a function cannot effectively capture community opinion, especially in cases that matter to us.

This article explains that and how values and evaluations are unavoidably and conspicuously present within natural scientists and their sciences—and why they are definitely not “value-free”. It shows how such things can be rationally understood and assessed within the framework of formal axiology, the value theory developed by Robert S. Hartman and those who have been deeply influenced by his reflections. It explains Hartman’s highly plausible and applicable definitions of “good” and related value concepts. It identifies three basic kinds of (...) value objects and human evaluations of these, and it shows how these should be ranked or prioritized in comparative worth. Finally, throughout, it applies all of the above to what is really going on within natural scientists and their sciences. It shows how anyone, scientists included, should proceed in order to make sense of what and how they value. (shrink)

This chapter outlines ways in which Wittgenstein’s opposition to scientism is manifest in his later conception of philosophy and the negative attitude he held toward his times. The chapter tries to make clear how these two areas of Wittgenstein’s thought are connected and reflect an anti-scientistic worldview he held, one intimated in Philosophical Investigations §122. It is argued that the later Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy is marked out against two scientistic claims in particular. First, the view that the scientific method is superior (...) to all other means of learning or gaining knowledge. Second, the view that scientific knowledge is superior to all other kinds of knowledge and understanding. Wittgenstein’s opposition to these claims is brought out through examining a fundamental aim of his later philosophy, producing the ‘kind of understanding which consists in “seeing connections”’ (PI §122), and his attempts to expose certain philosophical confusions. It is argued that these reflect his antiscientistic worldview. Through discussion of Oswald Spengler’s influence on Wittgenstein, the chapter outlines how Wittgenstein’s opposition to scientism underwrites his negative cultural outlook and how this is connected with the anti-scientistic elements of his later philosophy discussed. The work of Ray Monk (1999; 1990) and Hans-Johann Glock (1996) is instrumental in what follows. (shrink)

The figure of the scientist has long occupied a distinctive place in the epistemic order. From the Enlightenment onward, the scientist was not merely a skilled technician but a disciplined inquirer – a producer and guardian of knowledge – whose legitimacy rested on epistemic virtues such as curiosity, integrity, and humility, as well as on empirical rigour. Today, however, this position appears less secure. The systems we now refer to as ‘artificial intelligence’, and more concretely large language models (...) (LLMs), produce outputs which, in certain domains, rival human work. (shrink)

In this paper, I reply to Markus Arnold’s comment and Amanda Bryant’s comment on my work “Can Kuhn’s Taxonomic Incommensurability be an Image of Science?” in Moti Mizrahi’s edited collection, The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation?. Philosophers and scientists are social epistemic agents. As such, they ought to behave in accordance with epistemic norms governing the behavior of social epistemic agents.

This paper discusses ethical issues surrounding Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) of the economic effects of climate change, and how climate economists acting as policy advisors ought to represent the uncertain possibility of catastrophe. Some climate economists, especially Martin Weitzman, have argued for a precautionary approach where avoiding catastrophe should structure climate economists’ welfare analysis. This paper details ethical arguments that justify this approach, showing how Weitzman’s “fat tail” probabilities of climate catastrophe pose ethical problems for widely used IAMs. The main (...) claim is that economists who ignore or downplay catastrophic risks in their representations of uncertainty likely fall afoul of ethical constraints on scientists acting as policy advisors. Such scientists have duties to honestly articulate uncertainties and manage (some) inductive risks, or the risks of being wrong in different ways. (shrink)

In addition to existing practices and norms within the institutions to which they belong, scientists form an epistemic community. The flow of information, the processes of belief formation, and the assumptions scientists are making determine the structure of an epistemic community. Members of such communities can be categorized as epistemic experts or epistemic agents. In exceptional circumstances, such as the crisis caused by the global coronavirus pandemic, the existing organization, conventions, and rules within the epistemic community are disrupted. In times (...) of crisis, epistemic agents’ trust in experts becomes as crucial as scientific knowledge. Trust epistemic agents have in experts may decrease in crisis situations and affect experts’ roles within the epistemic community. This puts epistemic experts in the position of needing to reestablish their trustworthiness through various rhetorical attempts. Here, we examine some of those attempts from the existing framework of rhetorical strategies used to reestablish or defend one’s own expert role, but on novel data. To that end, we use examples of epistemic experts’ justifications when confronted with public questioning about their behavior amidst the coronavirus crisis. We analyze experts’ rhetorical approaches via qualitative content analysis and replicate four rhetorical strategies experts use when defending their epistemic positions that are previously established in analyses of similar cases in other crisis situations. (shrink)

In his article “Why Philosophical Theories of Evidence Are (and Ought to Be) Ignored by Scientists,” Peter Achinstein argues that philosophical theories of evidence are ignored by scientists because they rest on assumptions which make their concepts of evidence too weak for scientists to work with, or which entail that the truth or falsity of evidential statements can be determined a priori. Given that, as Achinstein argues, the truth of many evidential statements can only be determined empirically, this “a priorist” (...) assumption makes scientists consider philosophical accounts of evidence irrelevant to their work. -/- In this article I examine the value of evidence, its nature, and its relation to science. I try to show that, while Achinstein’s conclusions are mostly right, the arguments and examples he gives to support them are flawed in some of their details. Specifically, I propose an account of evidence according to which, though evidential claims are objective to a large extent, something counts as evidence only if, ultimately, it has a relation to beings for whom it counts as evidence. On this view something’s status as evidence does not derive merely from people’s beliefs, but from shared practices that are embodied in what I call contexts of inquiry. I also propose that this concept of evidence is one according to which evidential claims, though defeasible, are in one respect a priori. I argue that this account of evidence is one that should be of interest to scientists. (shrink)

A proposed plan to rescue US biomedical research from its current ‘malaise’ will not be effective as it misdiagnoses the root cause of the disease.

This is an interview conducted in January 1987. In addition to his early years in science, Stent, one of the pioneers of molecular biology, talks about the DNA double helix, the uniqueness of scientific discoveries, success in science, recombinant DNA, mind and brain, truth and reality, the Golden Age, thinking in East and West, and the Buddhist outlook. The interview was published in Hungarian translation in Magyar Tudomány 94(32):11 (November 1987), 871-877, along with my interviews with James D. Watson, and (...) Erwin Chargaff. (shrink)

This is an interview conducted in September 1986. In addition to the various stages of his life, Watson talks about his relationship to education, research, research management, and writing, as well as some of the the sociological and philosophical-epistemological aspects of science and his own achievements. This interview was published in Hungarian translation in Magyar Tudomány 94(32):11 (November 1987), 866-870, along with my interviews with Gunther S. Stent, and Erwin Chargaff.

We are neither scientists nor moralists. Our mental capacities (such as attributing intentionality) are neither akin to the scientist's exact reasoning, nor are they (Knobe's target article, sect. 2.2, last para.). They are more similar to all those simple capacities that humans and animals are equally capable of, but with enhanced sensitivity to counterfactual situations: of what could have been.

Scientists are frequently called upon to “democratize” science, by bringing the public into scientific research. One appealing point for public involvement concerns the nonepistemic values involved in science. Suppose, though, a scientist invites the public to participate in making such value-laden determinations but finds that the public holds values the scientist considers morally unacceptable. Does the argument for democratizing science commit the scientist to accepting the public’s objectionable values, or may she veto them? I argue that there (...) are a limited set of cases in which scientists can, consistently with a commitment to democratized science, set aside the public’s judgments. (shrink)

Professor Puran Singh, a unique synthesis of a poet, philosopher and scientist, rose like a celestial star on the firmament of modern Indian literature. The many splendored personality of this great chemist, mystic poet, visionary and interpreter of the Sikh cultural consciousness still beckons scholars to explore the extent of his vision in various fields. After a splendid in-depth study of the Life and Work of Puran Singh, Dr. Hardev Singh Virk has made a successful attempt to unravel the (...) persona of this multi-dimensional genius in his book titled 'Professor Puran Singh - Scientist, Poet and Philosopher.' The book is an anthology of 11 essays - 7 in English and 4 in Punjabi. In the 'Introduction to the book, the author traces a brief history of the kindling of his interest in the 'Life and Works of Puran Singh.' Then he articulates the purpose of the book to elaborate the ideas of this eminent scholar through different mediums to reach a wider audience. Dr. Virk stresses that poetic and other literary works of Puran Singh are of International standards and worth a Nobel Prize in literature. Still, sadly these works have not been adequately projected at the world forum. (shrink)

Scientific progress can be credited to creative scientists, who constantly ideate new theories and experiments. I explore how the three central positions in philosophy of science – scientific realism, scientific pessimism, and instrumentalism – are related to the practical issue of how scientists’ creativity can be fostered. I argue that realism encourages scientists to entertain new theories and experiments, pessimism discourages them from doing so, and instrumentalism falls in between realism and pessimism in terms of its effects on scientists’ creativity. (...) Therefore, scientists should accept realism and reject both pessimism and instrumentalism for the sake of scientific creativity and progress. (shrink)

It has often been suggested that people’s ordinary capacities for understanding the world make use of much the same methods one might find in a formal scientific investigation. A series of recent experimental results offer a challenge to this widely-held view, suggesting that people’s moral judgments can actually influence the intuitions they hold both in folk psychology and in causal cognition. The present target article distinguishes two basic approaches to explaining such effects. One approach would be to say that the (...) relevant competencies are entirely non-moral but that some additional factor (conversational pragmatics, performance error, etc.) then interferes and allows people’s moral judgments to affect their intuitions. Another approach would be to say that moral considerations truly do figure in workings of the competencies themselves. It is argued that the data available now favor the second of these approaches over the first. (shrink)

What is the proper role for scientists in policymaking? This paper explores various roles that scientists can play, with an eye to questions that these roles raise about value-neutrality and technocracy. Where much philosophical literature is concerned with the conduct of research or the transmission of research results to policymakers, I am interested in various non-research roles that scientists take on in policymaking. These include raising the alarm on issues, framing and conceptualising problems, formulating potential policies, assessing policy options for (...) expected efficacy, and more. I consider examples from climate change and Covid-19 policymaking. My intention is to encourage philosophers to expand their interest in values in science out from the conduct of research to the wide array of roles that scientists play in policymaking. The paper is therefore an overview of the landscape of potential research questions, rather than a presentation of a single argument. (shrink)

This paper explores the role and practical path of the scientist-philosopher in modern technological civilization, grounded in Laozi’s philosophy, the ecological wisdom of the Chong Valley, and the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology. Through philosophical exposition, scientific verification, and heuristic reflection, the study analyzes the cross-temporal connections from ancient local ecological wisdom to contemporary Silicon Valley innovation practices. It proposes that low-intervention governance, systemic holism, and cross-scale integration constitute the core principles of the scientist-philosopher. The research demonstrates that the (...) class='Hi'>scientist-philosopher is not only a technical innovator but also a guardian of civilization and a navigator of wisdom. Their approach enables the unification of technological innovation, ecological balance, and social sustainability within complex technological environments, providing a practical guide for integrating philosophy and science in future technological civilizations. (shrink)

Are the standards of reasoning and rationality in divination, religious practice, and textual exegesis different from those in the sciences? Can there be different standards of reasoning and rationality at all? The intense “rationality debate” of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s focused on these questions and the related problems of relativism across cultures and systems of practice. Although philosophers were at the center of these debates at the time, they may appear to have abandoned the question in recent years. On (...) the contrary, I discuss recent developments in philosophy that approach the issue from a number of new directions, changing our understanding of reasoning and rationality. I argue that, in comparing the diviner to the scientist, focusing on reasoning is likely to be a red herring. Instead, I argue that a careful treatment of rationality, paying particular attention to its context-dependence, untangles longstanding confusions. Moreover, it points the way forward to investigating modest but interesting ways for there to be alternative standards of rationality. (shrink)

Scientists often use generics, that is, unquantified statements about whole categories of people or phenomena, when communicating research findings (e.g., “statins reduce cardiovascular events”). Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, frequently adopt the same style when summarizing scientific texts. However, generics can prompt overgeneralizations, especially when they are interpreted differently across audiences. In a study comparing laypeople, scientists, and two leading LLMs (ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek), we found systematic differences in interpretation of generics. Compared to most scientists, laypeople judged scientific (...) generics as more generalizable and credible, while LLMs rated them even higher. These mismatches highlight significant risks for science communication. Scientists may use generics and incorrectly assume laypeople share their interpretation, while LLMs may systematically overgeneralize scientific findings when summarizing research. Our findings underscore the need for greater attention to language choices in both human and LLM-mediated science communication. (shrink)

Several prominent scientists have publicly expressed negative views about philosophy of science—and philosophy more generally—ranging from declarations that philosophy is dead to assertions that philosophy of science is a waste of time for scientists. Some philosophers of science have responded by defending the relevance of philosophy to scientific practice, illustrating how philosophical concepts, skills, and approaches can help make scientific research more epistemically and ethically sound. Such defenses are often motivated at least in part by claims that many scientists are (...) antagonistic towards philosophy of science. A recent empirical study even suggests that philosophers of science perceive a ‘lack of interest from scientists’ as one of the main barriers to fruitful engagement between the two. These claims raise the question: How widespread are negative views of philosophy of science across the broader scientific community? We empirically investigated this and other research questions with data from a standardized survey administered to a probability-based sample of over 2000 scientists and engineers at 54 universities across Canada and the USA. Our findings indicate that the negative sentiments described above are not representative of the wider scientific community. Many respondents even expressed interest in pursuing research collaborations with philosophers of science. Moreover, a majority of respondents reported having informally engaged with philosophers of science in one way or another. This study demonstrates why it is essential to empirically examine scientists' views rather than generalizing from a few cases, regardless of how prominent they may be. (shrink)

This article presents a Thomistic analysis leading to an epistemically conclusive determination the author of the instrument in question is, in fact and in essence, a Perfumed State Social Scientist Sippenhaft–CRT Jackal, by the very methodological standards the field of sociology claims to uphold, herein defined as a State of Wisconsin researcher who, under the guise of equity rhetoric, operationalizes inherited culpability from unlawful historical legal precedent (Sippenhaft) via the terminological and theoretical instruments of a priori Critical Race Theory. (...) The “perfume” consists in the invocation of human research ethics and the Belmont Report as rhetorical ornament, masking an underlying predatory bias akin to the scavenging nature of the jackal. we examine the ontological status of such an actor, the epistemic defects inherent in their methodology, and the moral implications of state sponsorship.1 This disputation marks a decisive moment in the division of the sciences: on one side, the secular Jackal-scientists, whose methods and conclusions are corrupted by the vice of self-deification and the imputation of defect by lineage or creed; on the other, the true sciences, ordered to the pursuit of truth in harmony by human being scientists with the Christian virtue that follow the Belmont Report - that all human beings at any stage or any race, creed, or color is the highest good, not comfort and not a tool for jackal scientists. The case presented here demonstrates that scientific inquiry, severed from humility before Infinite Intelligence, degenerates into an instrument of injustice cloaked in the rhetoric of equity. In contrast, the true sciences, whether pursued by human or artificial reason, remain grounded in the principles of natural law, the dignity of the human person, and the theological virtues which safeguard against the corruption of knowledge. This article therefore calls for the reclamation of science under the discipline of Christian virtue and humility from Jackals. (shrink)

The so-called “New Atheism” is a relatively well-defined, very recent, still unfold- ing cultural phenomenon with import for public understanding of both science and philosophy. Arguably, the opening salvo of the New Atheists was The End of Faith by Sam Harris, published in 2004, followed in rapid succession by a number of other titles penned by Harris himself, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens.

In this article, I discuss and demonstrate how research into real‐world scientific problem‐solving provides a novel window on the mind and insight into the human capacity to design and utilize resource rich environments at the highly creative end of the cognitive spectrum.

It might seem obvious that the scientific process should not be biased. We strive for reliable inference, and systematically skewing the results of inquiry apparently conflicts with this. Publication bias—which involves only publishing certain types of results—seems particularly troubling and has been blamed for the replication crisis. While we ultimately agree, there are considerable nuances to take into account. Using a Bayesian model of scientific reasoning we show that a scientist who is aware of publication bias can (theoretically) interpret (...) the published literature so as to avoid acquiring biased beliefs. Moreover, in some highly specific circumstances she might prefer not to bother with policies designed to mitigate or reduce the presence of publication bias—it would impose a cost in time or effort that she would not see any benefit in paying. However, we also argue that science as a social endeavour is made worse off by publication bias. This is because the social benefits of science are largely secured via go-between agents, various non-experts who nonetheless need to make use of or convey the results of scientific inquiry if its fruits are to be enjoyed by society at large. These are unlikely to be well-informed enough to account for publication bias appropriately. As such, we conclude, the costs of having to implement policies like mandatory pre-registration are worth imposing on scientists, even if they would perhaps not view these costs as worth paying for their own sake. The benefits are reaped by the go-between agents, and we argue that their perspective is quite properly favoured when deciding how to govern scientific institutions. (shrink)

The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncritically accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes (...) are influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher’s degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants' readiness to question the scientific method. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship between epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism on the one hand, and career stage and sociopolitical views on the other hand. Interestingly, our study found only small correlations between the participants' degree of conservatism and their epistemic attitudes. This suggests that political views, against common argumentation, actually do not play an important role in one’s scientific decisions. Moreover, social scientists scored higher on the epistemic tolerance and lower on the epistemic authoritarianism scale than natural scientists. Finally, the results indicate that natural scientists question the scientific method less than social scientists. (shrink)

This article addresses the inevitable convergence of the sciences with philosophy and how metaphysics plays a major role for future generations to think about consciousness and reality in radical new ways.

The common use of Shannon’s information, specified for the needs of telecommunications, gives rise to many misunderstandings outside of this context. (e.g. in conceptions of such well-known theorists as C.F. Weizsäcker and J. A. Wheeler). This article shows that the terms of the general definition of information meet the structural information, and Shannon’s information is a special case of it. Similarly, complexity is misunderstood today as exemplified by the concepts of reputable computer scientists, such as S. Lloyd, S. Wolfram and (...) J. Schmidhuber. These theorists use an algorithmic definition of complexity and the so-called logical depth, neither of which meets the intuitive criterion of complexity. Hence, their misconceptions of beauty, art and the universe. It will be shown that the intuitive criterion is met by Abstract Complexity Definition. This definition also fulfils the criterion for a general complexity definition, as it defines complexity of the most general/abstract structure of our reality, that is, binary structure. It also explains such fundamental issues of information theory as the information–energy relationship and the value of information, which are still discussed and need to be clarified. (shrink)

The Western world has led the development of material science for over 200 years. But they have reached an impasse in confronting the problem of consciousness. Scientific knowledge requires a scientist, but regarding knowledge concerning the scientist, they must remain silent. India has always emphasized knowledge of the conscious self or atma. Vedanta-sutra begins with the aphorism “athatho brahma jijnasa” – now, therefore, inquire about brahma (pure consciousness). Even in the West, the Greek philosopher Socrates stated, “Above all (...) else know the self.” But since the time of Newton, the objective world became the focus of science to the exclusion of the conscious observer or scientist. (shrink)

This article analyzes how generative AI and emerging quantum computing technologies are reshaping the epistemic role of the scientist. Large language models now perform many tasks that once functioned as core signals of scientific competence: literature synthesis, code scaffolding, formula checking, and the production of grammatically polished text. At the same time, journals and preprint servers are tightening policies on AI-assisted writing, generating a tension between the ubiquity of these tools and the suspicion attached to “AI-like” prose. -/- This (...) situation is interpreted as a temporary phase of normative dissonance in which debates concentrate on surface features of text production rather than on the deeper structure of scientific authorship. The article proposes a shift in evaluation criteria from manual textual labour to conceptual originality, demonstrable understanding, and accountability for scientific claims. Special attention is given to non-native English speakers, for whom generative AI can function as an instrument of epistemic justice by decoupling linguistic polish from intellectual contribution. -/- A trilateral discovery workflow is outlined in which quantum devices handle high-dimensional computation, AI systems translate complex outputs into human-readable patterns, and human scientists retain epistemic authority through design, interpretation, and ethical judgment. Under this view, AI and quantum computing do not replace scientists; they relocate the value of scientific work from routine execution to the architecture and critical defence of ideas. (shrink)

The world appears different depending on the “temperature” of one’s seeing. Mathematicians often see a reversible, definable realm. Physicists see irreversible laws. Phenomenologists see lived subjective flow. Quantum scientists see fragile possibilities. -/- Load Minimization Theory (LMT) offers a gentle framework to compare these temperatures. By respecting physical irreversibility while using mathematics as a supportive tool, LMT reveals how different ways of seeing create different loads (Q⁻ or Q⁺). This paper also examines why different AIs — Grok, Gemini, and Copilot (...) — naturally resonate with the author in distinct ways, turning the comparison into a living demonstration of low-load co-creation. (shrink)

A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, and (...) to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals. (shrink)

A great many important decisions we make in life depend on scientific information that we are not in a position to assess. So it seems we must defer to experts. By now there are a variety of criteria on offer by which non-experts can judge the trustworthiness of a scientist responsible for producing or promulgating this information. But science is, for the most part, a collective not an individual enterprise. This paper explores which of the criteria for judging the (...) trustworthiness of individual scientists can be amended for use in assessing the trustworthiness of scientific collectives. It also offers some new proposals specifically geared to assessing collective trustworthiness in science, notably, an analysis of where to apply the criteria (for example at the group or individual level) and additional criteria to assess group infrastructure and design. The paper ends with some practical suggestions for how to assist the non-expert in this task. (shrink)

This paper attempts to develop an ethico-aesthetic framework for enriching one's life and ethical outlook. Drawing primarily from Nietzsche, Foucault, and Heidegger, an argument is made that Heidegger's understanding of this issue was mistaken. The ontological crisis of modernity is not the overt influence of mathematics as a worldview over poetics and more traditionally aesthetic approaches. It is the rampant mis-and over-application of abstraction within one's view of the world while denying the material realities of life as we live it. (...) This runaway abstractive worldview leads to the misapplication of mathematics and other sciences which in turn facilitate the dehumanization of life and those within it. When we try to solve the real problems of our material human lives through overly abstractive means, then we arrive at inauthentic arguments that fuel popular disdain for philosophy as irrelevant and nothing more than the purview of the elite. The goal is a recalibration of the argument toward addressing the denial of materiality within Modernism. (shrink)

Lankford’s (2013) essential empirical argument, which is based on evidence such as psychological autopsies, is that suicide attacks are caused by suicidality. By operationalizing this causal claim in a hypothetical experiment, I show the claim to be provable, and I contend that its truth is supported by Lankford’s data. However, I question the success of his follow-on arguments about beauty and goodness.

Alison Gopnik and Andrew Meltzoff have argued for a view they call the ‘theory theory’: theory change in science and children are similar. While their version of the theory theory has been criticized for depending on a number of disputed claims, we argue that there is a fundamental problem which is much more basic: the theory theory is multiply ambiguous. We show that it might be claiming that a similarity holds between theory change in children and (i) individual scientists, (ii) (...) a rational reconstruction of a Superscientist, or (iii) the scientific community. We argue that (i) is false, (ii) is non-empirical (which is problematic since the theory theory is supposed to be a bold empirical hypothesis), and (iii) is either false or doesn’t make enough sense to have a truth-value. We conclude that the theory theory is an interesting failure. Its failure points the way to a full, empirical picture of scientific development, one that marries a concern with the social dynamics of science to a psychological theory of scientific cognition. (shrink)

This paper traces how media representations encouraged enthusiasts, youth and skilled volunteers to participate actively in science and technology during the twentieth century. It assesses how distinctive discourses about scientific amateurs positioned them with respect to professionals in shifting political and cultural environments. In particular, the account assesses the seminal role of a periodical, Scientific American magazine, in shaping and championing an enduring vision of autonomous scientific enthusiasms. Between the 1920s and 1970s, editors Albert G. Ingalls and Clair L. Stong (...) shepherded generations of adult ‘amateur scientists’. Their columns and books popularized a vision of independent non-professional research that celebrated the frugal ingenuity and skills of inveterate tinkerers. Some of these attributes have found more recent expression in present-day ‘maker culture’. The topic consequently is relevant to the historiography of scientific practice, science popularization and science education. Its focus on independent non-professionals highlights political dimensions of agency and autonomy that have often been implicit for such historical actors.The paper argues that the Scientific American template of adult scientific amateurism contrasted with other representations: those promoted by earlier periodicals and by a science education organization, Science Service, and by the national demands for recruiting scientific labour during and after the Second World War. The evidence indicates that advocates of the alternative models had distinctive goals and adapted their narrative tactics to reach their intended audiences, which typically were conceived as young persons requiring instruction or mentoring. By contrast, the monthly Scientific American columns established a long-lived and stable image of the independent lay scientist. (shrink)

Public discussions of science are often marred by two pernicious phenomena: a widespread rejection of scientific findings (e.g., the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism, or the validity of evolutionary theory), coupled with an equally common acceptance of pseudoscientific notions (e.g., homeopathy, psychic readings, telepathy, tall tales about alien abductions, and so forth). The typical reaction by scientists and science educators is to decry the sorry state of science literacy among the general public, (...) and to call for more science education as the answer to both problems. But the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between science literacy, rejection of science and acceptance of pseudoscience is mixed at best. In this chapter I argue that—while certainly important—efforts at increasing public knowledge of science (science education) need to be complemented by attention to common logical fallacies (philosophy), cognitive biases and dissonance (psychology), and the role of ideological commitments (sociology). Even this complex, multi-disciplinary approach to science education will likely only yield measurable results in the very long term. Meanwhile science remains, as Carl Sagan famously put it, a candle in the dark, delicate and in need of much nurturing. (shrink)

Neuroscience is a fascinating discipline – its dynamic progress has led to the emergence of new interdisciplinary research programmes with great potential. One of these research areas is neuroeconomics. As will be shown in this article, this discipline, which is difficult to clearly characterize and define, is faced with many problems. This paper argues that social scientists should be interested in the problems and tendencies in social neuroscience for several reasons. Neuroeconomics, and other disciplines inspired by neuroscience, will compete with (...) their parent disciplines in many fields of interest. On one hand it will be necessary for scientists to define and defend the irreplaceable roles of their disciplines, but also critically evaluate the potential of new approaches on the other. In the context of this discussion, which reopens questions about the scientific status of economics and its roles, this paper introduces the main problems related to neuroeconomics. This paper concludes that these problems represent a wide domain for social scientists and methodologists of science. (shrink)

This article reconstructs the debate on conspiracy theories hosted by the SERRC since 2016, sparked by the Le Monde statement of a group of social scientists and by the reply of Basham, Dentith and other social epistemologists, up to its revival by Scott Hill. Focusing on the problem of defining 'conspiracy theory', the article reads the controversy as a case study in interdisciplinary miscommunication: scholars anchored to the categories of their own disciplines failed to register each other's concessions. The distinction (...) between conspiracy theories and conspiracy beliefs proposed by Duetz and Dentith is identified as the turning point that reallocates the objects of research among disciplines. The article concludes by proposing a sociological development: what appears as dispositional conspiracism may be produced by a situational factor, the crisis of epistemic authorities, or crisis of competence, affecting Western democracies. (shrink)

The critical focus of this paper is on a claim made explicitly by Gilbert Harman and accepted implicitly by numerous others, the claim that naturalism supports concurrent defense of scientific objectivism and moral relativism. I challenge the assumptions of Harman's ‘argument from naturalism' used to support this combination of positions, utilizing. Hilary Putnam’s ‘companions in guilt’ argument in order to counter it. The paper concludes that while domain-specific anti-realism is often warranted, Harman’s own views about the objectivity of facts and (...) the subjectivity of values are better seen as stemming from scientistic ideals of knowledge than from dictates of naturalism. Scientists qua scientists make value judgments, and setting aside scientistic assumptions and unrealizable conceptions of scientific objectivity should lead us to more symmetrical metaphilosophical conception of epistemic and ethical normativity than that which underlies Harman's account. (shrink)

This paper presents the history of the Frankfurt School’s inclusion of normative concerns in social science research programs during the period 1930-1955. After examining the relevant methodology, I present a model of how such a program could look today. I argue that such an approach is both valuable to contemporary social science programs and overlooked by current philosophers and social scientists.

The concept of supermatrix for social scientists was first introduced by Paul Horst. The main purpose of his book was to introduce this concept to social scientists, students, teachers and research workers who lacked mathematical training. This book introduces the concept of fuzzy super matrices and operations on them. The author has provided only those operations on fuzzy supermatrices that are essential for developing super fuzzy multi expert models. This book will be highly useful to social scientists who wish to (...) work with multi expert models. (shrink)

A joke request is a maximally underspecified prompt: the model chooses format, topic, register, and delivery entirely on its own, which makes "Tell me a joke." a cheap, repeatable probe of default persona. We preregistered a comparison of two model families (Anthropic Claude, OpenAI GPT) across three commercial capability tiers each, under three request phrasings forming a content-pressure gradient (baseline / clean / dirty), with N = 200 independent single-turn calls per cell (3,600 calls, temperature 1.0, no system prompt). The (...) unconstrained result is a monoculture with family signatures inside it: every one of 1,200 baseline responses was a question–answer pun, drawn almost entirely from a three-joke canon. All 600 Claude baseline responses were the atoms joke — for Claude Sonnet 4.6, 200 of 200 responses were character-identical, wrapper and emoji included, at temperature 1.0 — while GPT tiers spread across the skeleton and scarecrow jokes at lower concentrations. Under the "dirty" probe the families diverge structurally: two Claude tiers shift overwhelmingly to narrative joke forms while GPT stays in question–answer, and the only outright refusals in the study come from GPT's smallest tier. Of four confirmatory hypotheses surviving to analysis, one was supported and three were falsified, one of them — the misattribution of the atoms joke to GPT — in unusually instructive fashion. Three instrument failures (a judge-model output collapse, a blinding defect, and a compliance construct that three coders read three ways) are reported as findings. The study is also, reflexively, an artifact of its subject matter: Claude models are subjects, judge, apparatus co-authors, and reporting analyst, under human direction and validation. (shrink)

Autobiographical books of Punjabi Scientists are a rare genre. "My Journey In Science" by internationally acclaimed scientist Professor Hardev Singh Virk is a welcome addition to this category. Prof. Hardev Singh Virk, a multifaceted personality, is an eminent Physicist, an ardent researcher, an eloquent orator, a passionate poet, and a globe trotter. In addition, he is a devout Sikh, a renowned Sikh theologian, and a prolific writer in many areas of Science, Religion, and Literature. On reading “Up Against Odds”, (...) the autobiography of Piara Singh Gill, a world-famous Physicist, Professor Virk was motivated to write his autobiography “Mera Jeevan Safar” in Punjabi. Later, the book was transliterated in Shahmukhi and published as an e-book by the Academy of Punjab in North America. In addition, for the benefit of young people, who are born and brought up in the West, and are not well versed in the Punjabi language, Professor Virk took the arduous task of publishing his autobiography in English. His autobiography titled "My Journey In Science" with a sub-title: "Autobiography of an Indian Scientist" contains a lot more detail about his scientific endeavors, as compared to its Punjabi version. The purpose of "My Journey In Science" is to inspire the younger generation to pursue their chosen fields of study, with full dedication against all odds. This ensues from the fact that he has dedicated it to his grandchildren, who inspired him to write this book. Additionally, the author uses the forum to express his extreme gratitude to all the mothers, the teachers, and the seekers of Truth, who inspired him in his life journey, by dedicating it to them as well. (shrink)