[PhilPhys] Corrected - The Center for Philosophy of Science's February Hybrid Talks

[Center for Phil Sci]

The Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh
invites you to join us for our upcoming presentations. All of the lectures
will be live streamed on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.


*Lunch Time Talk - Mark Risjord*  -
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/risjord-mark/


*Tuesday, February 3rd @ 12:00 EST *
Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of
Learning.


*Title: Due Diligence and Epistemic Caution: An Impartial Account of
Inductive RiskAbstract:*
The gap argument from inductive risk asserts that the uncertainty of
induction entails that scientists must decide or choose whether to accept
an inductive conclusion as true, and such decisions ought to take into
account the costs of error.  This chapter argues that the gap argument is
sound only if one makes substantial assumptions about the epistemology of
inductive inference.  These assumptions are tendentious and have been
rejected by many gap-free accounts of induction.  Using the HUD audit study
of racial discrimination in the housing market as a case study, and
combining Norton’s material theory of induction with Longino’s social
epistemology and the epistemic principle of Inquisitive Due Diligence
proposed by Khalifa, Millson, and Risjord, this chapter will sketch a
gap-free account of induction.  This account throws new light onto the
phenomenon of inductive risk, showing how scientific inquiry can (and
should) be epistemically cautious when the stakes are high without giving
up impartiality.

This talk will be available  on Zoom:   https://pitt.zoom.us/j/93939687549



*Lunch Time Talk - Laura Gradowski* -  <http://goog_772357827>
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/gradowski-laura/

*Friday, February 6 @ Noon*

Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of
Learning.
*Title:  Datasets and dead assets: The missing archives of science*

*Abstract:*

According to lore, the Library of Alexandria was created to compile every
manuscript its librarians could get their hands on. Science is not like
that. It is a system of filters that limits what is acceptable and
accessible. Science communicators have increasingly understood it to be
their responsibility to guide science consumers towards trust in prevailing
views by promulgating authoritative datasets that restrict what can be
considered reasonable questions and disagreements. Databases, journals,
conferences, and institutions keep gates narrow. Science aims for
consensus, and pillories anything that isn’t deemed mainstream. But
mainstream science includes many well-known biases, and is also prone to
flawed or dubious practices. For example, recent work suggests data from
clinical trials published in top journals is regularly flawed or faked.
While the call for consensus is variously justified—for instance, on the
basis of concern for public health—these arguments often underestimate the
value of dissenting views and reflect the impact of political polarization.
Yet efforts to create consensus archives continue. This talk presents a
counterpoint. We have much to gain from an Alexandrian approach that
emphasizes inclusion. We could create archives of science that reflect the
full spectrum of views, including unpopular views, views of
nonprofessionals and outsiders. What would such an archive look like? How
would it work? These are the kinds of questions we should be asking. Here I
motivate the Alexandrian approach and offer suggestions about its
implementation.
This talk will available online through the following:
 Zoom:  https://pitt.zoom.us/j/91084235286
<https://pitt.zoom.us/j/91084235286> and  YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.



*Lunch Time Talk - **Kareem Khalifa - *
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/khalifa-kareem/



*Tuesday, February 10 @ Noon*Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th
floor of the Cathedral of Learning.



*Title: Causally Modeling the Value-Free Ideal **Abstract: *

In science-and-values discussions, the value-free ideal (VFI) is sometimes
glossed as the thesis that non-epistemic values’ influences on scientific
reasoning are never legitimate. Although “influence” is a causal notion,
discussions of the VFI have not engaged the vast literature on causal
modeling. In this paper, I propose some useful ways in which causal models
can be used to sharpen this variant of the VFI. Doing so reveals
underappreciated burdens of proof in debates about the VFI.
This talk will be available online:  Zoom:
https://pitt.zoom.us/j/93125716226 <https://pitt.zoom.us/j/93125716226>

*Lunch Time Talk - **David Thorstad - *
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/thorstad-david/

*Friday, February 13 @ Noon*

Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of
Learning.

*Title: Procedurally Rational Framing Effects*

Abstract:

Framing effects are often taken as paradigmatic examples of human
irrationality. The irrationality of framing effects is then used in
debunking arguments against moral and philosophical intuitions. I argue
that many framing effects are procedurally rational in the sense that they
result from rational processes of practical inquiry. I make this argument
through case studies of category-based choice, list-based choice, and
salience-driven decision making. I conclude by showing how the procedural
rationality of framing effects can be used to resist framing-based
debunking arguments against moral and philosophical intuitions.
This talk will be available online:

Zoom: https://pitt.zoom.us/j/96218362482
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg


*Lunch Time Talk - **Marton Gomori *-
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/gomori-marton/



*Tuesday, February 17 @ Noon*Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th
floor of the Cathedral of Learning.

*Title: * *Why do outcomes in a long series of rolls of a symmetric die
follow an approximately uniform distribution?*

 *Abstract: *

The talk outlines a new answer to this question. The answer is based on 1)
the structure of phase space pertaining to a roll of a symmetric die, as
described by classical mechanics, 2) the notion that the die roll is not
biased in favor any outcome, as a causal condition about the process of
selecting a point in phase space, and 3) the Common Cause Principle.
Remarkably, however, our answer nowhere refers to the notion of probability.


This talk will be available online:  Zoom:
<https://pitt.zoom.us/j/93125716226>https://pitt.zoom.us/j/93544926182


*Annual Lecture Series – Rina Bliss*-
https://sociology.rutgers.edu/people/faculty/core-department-faculty/core-department-faculty-member/1021-bliss-catherine
<https://scholars.duke.edu/person/felipe.debrigard>

*Friday, February 20 @ 3:30 EST*
Attend in person in room 1008 in the Cathedral of Learning (10th Floor)

*Title: **What’s Real About Race? Untangling Science, Genetics, and Society*
*Abstract:*
Biologically, race is a fiction—but it is a fiction that has real social
consequences. In *What’s Real About Race?* sociologist Rina Bliss unpacks
how genetic and social research have perpetuated racial categories and
stereotypes. How, Bliss asks, did categories of race emerge and get
embedded in modern-day science? How did scientists begin misusing DNA
collections and genetic research stratified by race? Are there ethical ways
to consider race in scientific research? And the elephant in the room:
what, if anything, is real about race? Bliss offers a new conceptual
framework: race is not a genetic reality, but it is also not merely a
social construct; it is a social reality with a stark impact on our life
chances and health.
Can’t make it in-person?
This talk will available online through the following:
 Zoom:    https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94981603060   and  YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.




*Lunch Time Talk - **Marta Bielinska** - *
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/bielinska-marta/

*Friday, February 27 @ Noon*

Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of
Learning.

*Title: **Is the Best System approach really best for scientific practice?*

*Abstract:*
Do laws of nature govern physical reality? Proponents of the so-called Best
System approach give a negative answer to this question. At the same time,
they do not reject the existence of laws of nature altogether. Instead, on
this view, laws are axioms of a deductive system whose true theorems
describe the physical world with the best balance between simplicity and
strength—hence the name “the Best System”.
How does the Best System relate to scientific practice? Many philosophers
have argued that, in comparison with rival accounts of the laws of nature,
it reflects scientific practice particularly well. Not only does it capture
the fact that science aims to develop theories that are simple yet strong
(for instance, in terms of explanatory power), but it also refrains from
invoking metaphysical categories such as powers or dispositions, which are
not recalled in contemporary scientific discourse.
However, what is missing from the literature on the Best System approach
and scientific practice is the observation that scientific laws—at least in
physics since the modern era—are largely formulated in the language of
equations, such as Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism or Einstein’s
field equations.
In this talk, I argue that the Best System approach runs into a number of
novel problems when applied to laws of physics expressed in the form of
equations, including problems concerning approximations and idealisations,
the role of units, and the lack of perfectly isolated systems. I further
argue that, once such laws are taken into account, traditional objections
to the Best System—such as the problem of immanent inter-system
comparisons—take on a new form.
I conclude with some considerations as to whether, in light of these
arguments, the Best System should be rejected entirely, or whether some of
its core postulates could be preserved and employed in a revised account of
the laws of nature that better reflects scientific practice.
This talk will be available online:

Zoom: https://pitt.zoom.us/j/96670521198
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listbox.elte.hu/pipermail/philphys/attachments/20260202/a16a7a40/attachment-0001.html>