<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">The Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh invites you to join us for the last presentations of the semester. All of the lectures (except the Watch Party) will be live streamed on YouTube at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg." target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.</a> <br><br><br><strike><font size="4"><b>Lunch Time Talk - Ken Aizawa</b></font> -<br></strike><br><b>Canceled -<strike> Tuesday, March 31st @ Noon</strike></b><br><br><font size="4"><br><b>Featured Former Fellow – Sherrilyn Roush </b>-<b> </b></font><a href="https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/roush-sherrilyn/" target="_blank">https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/roush-sherrilyn/</a><br><br>Friday, April 3rd @ 12:00pm EST<br><br><b>Online Only - <a href="https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552" target="_blank">https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552</a></b><br><br><b>Title: Should Newton’s Principia be retracted? “Good Science” and the Epistemology of Retraction</b><br><br>Abstract:<br>There is an epidemic of retractions of scientific journal articles; often, though not always, it is for fraud or misconduct. This obviously erodes public trust in our institutions of knowledge production. Inductive reasoning is non-monotonic, and, accordingly, good science is often legitimately overturned. These phenomena have a similar feel, so sharpening the distinction between them is imperative for the survival of trust in science. We can start with the observations that good science isn’t retracted, even when its conclusions are overturned – e.g., Newton’s Principia – and that falsehood of conclusions is neither necessary nor sufficient to justify retraction of a publication. I sketch an epistemic distinction between “good science” that is overturned and publications that should be retracted. Secondly, I provide some guidelines about when counting retractions in the track records of authors, reviewers, journals, publishers, and universities gives us evidence about how much to trust those vehicles in their future publications.<br><br><b>This talk will be available online through Zoom:<a href="https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552" target="_blank"> https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552</a></b><br><br><br><br><font size="4"><b>Lunch Time Talk - Sven Neth </b>- </font><a href="https://www.philosophy.pitt.edu/people/ant-74" target="_blank">https://www.philosophy.pitt.edu/people/ant-74</a><br><br><b>Tuesday, April 7th @ Noon</b><br>Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of Learning. <br><br><b><font color="#000000">Title: Induction and Indifference</font></b><br><br> Abstract: <br>The principle of indifference says that if you don’t know which possibility obtains, you should assign equal credences to all possibilities. There are different ways to make this precise, but even sophisticated versions of the principle of indifference fail to vindicate inductive reasoning. I illustrate this point by discussing Carnap’s work on the foundations of inductive logic and the No Free Lunch theorem from machine learning and draw some philosophical lessons.<br><br><b>This talk will be available online: Zoom:<a href="https://pitt.zoom.us/j/92589572462" target="_blank"> https://pitt.zoom.us/j/92589572462</a></b><br><br><br><br><div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><div style="direction:ltr;font-size:14pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><b>Watch Party</b> - <b>Edouard Machery </b></font><span style="font-size:small;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a href="https://www.hps.pitt.edu/people/edouard-machery" target="_blank">https://www.hps.pitt.edu/people/edouard-machery</a></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14pt"> and </span><b style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14pt">John Doris </b><span style="font-size:small;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a href="https://philosophy.cornell.edu/john-m-doris" target="_blank">https://philosophy.cornell.edu/john-m-doris</a></span></div><div style="direction:ltr;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b><font face="arial, sans-serif">Thursday, April 9 @1:00pm EST</font></b></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Watch Party in The Center, room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of Learning </font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><b><font face="arial, sans-serif">Symposium on Edouard Machery and John Doris’s book manuscript, Reasonable Doubt: Should We Trust Science? </font></b></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif">The Center for Philosophy of Science will be hosting a watch party on Thursday April 9 at 1:00pm to attend the online symposium at the Pacific Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, held online (<a href="https://www.apaonline.org/mpage/2026pacific" id="m_4902377344324577997gmail-OWA1beae7e7-293c-60ac-9221-07e03a765bfe" title="https://www.apaonline.org/mpage/2026pacific" style="margin:0px" target="_blank">https://www.apaonline.org/mpage/2026pacific</a>). All are welcome to attend the event and take part to the Q&A at the end of the online symposium. The event will be streamed at the Center for Philosophy of Science. Cookies and coffee will be provided. </font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Chair: Felipe Romero</font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Commentators: Cailin O’Connor (Irvine), Naomi Oreskes (Harvard), and Michael Strevens (NYU)</font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Authors: Edouard Machery and John Doris</font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><b>In Reasonable Doubt: Should We Trust Science?</b>, Machery and Doris challenge the common and plausible idea that science ought to be trusted. Reviewing the large metascientific literature, they argue that to a surprising degree scientific literatures at the frontier of science and, to some extent, textbook science aren’t trustworthy, and they examine the causes of this untrustworthiness. Often, science turns out to be an unreliable process that typically fails because of human epistemic limitations and the messiness of the world, but sometimes stumble, luckily, onto true and explanatory theories. But if science cannot be trusted, it cannot be ignored either, and Machery and Doris’s discussion leads us to reinvent our epistemic relation to a process as messy and as human as science. </font></div><br><br><b><font size="4">Lunch Time Talk - Simon DeDeo </font>- </b><a href="https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/simon-dedeo.html" target="_blank">https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/simon-dedeo.html</a><br><br>Friday April 10th @ Noon<br>Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of Learning. <br><br>Title: TBA<br><br> Abstract: <br>TBA<br><b>This talk will be available online: Zoom: <a href="https://pitt.zoom.us/j/97095624890" target="_blank">https://pitt.zoom.us/j/97095624890</a></b></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div></div>
</div>
</div></div>