[PhilPhys] Lunch Time Talks - 11/28 Margherita Harris, 11/30 Raphael Scholl, and 12/1 Dan Nicholson

[Center for Phil Sci]

The Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh
invites you to join us for our Lunch Time Talks.  Attend in person, Room
1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of Learning at the University of
Pittsburgh or visit our live stream on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.



*LTT: Margherita Harris
<https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/margherita-harris/>*



Tuesday, November 28th @ 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm EST



*Title: Some Conceptual Problems in the IPCC Uncertainty Framework and
Where to Go from Here*



Abstract:  Studies of climate change are afflicted by deep uncertainty, the
communication of which is made more challenging still by the studies’
immediate policy implications. The world of policy-making has its demands:
uncertain information should be communicated in a simple, consistent and
relevant manner. To address this, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) uncertainty guide provides both a confidence and a likelihood
metric for IPCC authors to characterize uncertainty in their findings.

Unfortunately, as I will try to convince you in the first part of my talk,
the relationship between these two metrics is far from clear and this
ambiguity has worrying implications for how IPCC authors handle
uncertainties and the quality of the information provided in IPCC reports.
The aim of the second part of my talk is to critically reflect on what an
adequate IPCC uncertainty framework could look like. I will begin by
assessing two strikingly different proposals for a new IPCC uncertainty
framework (Winsberg’s (2018) and Bradley et al.’s (2017)). After arguing
that both proposals are conceptually problematic for distinct and yet
related reasons, I will offer my own tentative proposal for a better IPCC
uncertainty framework.





*LTT – Raphael Scholl
<https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/scholl-raphael/>*



Thursday, November 30th @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EST



*Title:  Empirical tests of infectious disease models*



Abstract:  Epidemiologists have been developing mathematical and
computational models to predict the course of epidemics since at least the
1920s. In this talk I will consider how these models were tested
empirically, especially in the decades leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Tests relied either on data from actual epidemics (such as influenza or
ebola) or on synthetic data that were themselves generated by infectious
disease models. The questions under investigation included whether the
models were capable of predicting the rate at which new cases would occur,
the time and case numbers at which the epidemic would peak, and the overall
duration of the epidemic. I will focus on two methodological issues raised
by such empirical tests of infectious disease models. First, which aspects
of infectious disease dynamics were these models intended to represent?
Second, what sort of confirmation did the models receive from tests of
(mere) predictive accuracy? I will situate my results within an
adequacy-for-purpose view of model evaluation.





*LTT  – Dan Nicholson
<https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/daniel-nicholson/>*



Friday, December 1st @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EST



*Title: The New Physics Behind the Old Biology and the Old Physics Behind
the New Biology: A Tale of Two Revolutions (in Three Acts)*



Abstract: In this talk I tell the story of the physics-biology dialectic in
the twentieth century. It is a tale of two revolutions: one that seemed
inevitable but which never came to pass, and another that unfolded
spectacularly but in a manner radically different from the way intended by
those who triggered it. The first of these intellectual revolutions has
been almost completely forgotten, while the second stands today as the most
transformative event of twentieth-century biology. The first is the failed
organicist revolution that throughout the interwar years seemed imminent
and inescapable. The second is the triumphant molecular revolution that
transformed biology in the second half of the twentieth century. Despite
appearing very different, these two historical episodes are intimately
connected, and neither can be fully understood in isolation from the other,
or so I will argue. I tell this tale in three acts, opening with a prelude
that provides a starting point for my analysis, and closing with a coda
that adds a twenty-first century update to my tale. I end by drawing
lessons for the historian, for the philosopher, and for the scientist.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listbox.elte.hu/pipermail/philphys/attachments/20231122/d452a8cc/attachment.html>