[PhilPhys] Fwd: The Center for Philosophy of Science's End of the Semester Hybrid Talks

[Center for Phil Sci]

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 will be live streamed on YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.


*Featured Former Fellow – Sherrilyn Roush *-
https://www.centerphilsci.pitt.edu/fellows/roush-sherrilyn/

Friday, April 3rd @ 12:00pm EST

*Online Only  - https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552
<https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552>*

*Title: Should Newton’s Principia be retracted? “Good Science” and the
Epistemology of Retraction*

Abstract:
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.

*This talk will be available online through  Zoom:
https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552 <https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94358264552>*



*Lunch Time Talk -  Sven Neth *-
https://www.philosophy.pitt.edu/people/ant-74

*Tuesday, April 7th @ Noon*
Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of
Learning.

*Title:   Induction and Indifference*

 Abstract:
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.

*This talk will be available online:  Zoom:
https://pitt.zoom.us/j/92589572462 <https://pitt.zoom.us/j/92589572462>*



*Lunch Time Talk -  Simon DeDeo - *
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/simon-dedeo.html
Carnegie Mellon University & the Santa Fe Institute
https://proofsandreasons.io

*Friday April 10th @ Noon*
Join us in person in room 1117 on the 11th floor of the Cathedral of
Learning.

*Title: * * Alien Proofs*

* Abstract: *
It is now possible to write verifiably-correct proofs of sophisticated
mathematical theorems in computer programming languages such as Lean.
Coupled with recent developments in Generative Artificial Intelligence,
this means we are now able to explore, for the first time, the space of
mathematical proofs in ways that go beyond human intuition, capacity, and
patience, and to answer, in new ways and through empirical study, questions
that were previously the realm of science fiction and philosophical
speculation: how do humans carve the space of mathematics? What regions do
we leave unexplored and what lies beyond our ken? How do our cognitive
limitations constrain us or, conversely, lead us to explanatory and fertile
ground? I will present the first results from the Proofs and Reasons
Project, a multidisciplinary collaboration between philosophers, cognitive
scientists, mathematicians, and computer scientists. I will present the
first statistical studies of artificially-generated proofs, constructed
with, and without, human guidance; our first results on so-called
"ablation" studies that demonstrate the existence of what we refer to as
generative constraints; and the first results that probe the often
misaligned preferences of humans and machines in cyborg proofs. These
results challenge basic orthodoxies in the philosophy of mathematics, and
provide new problems for philosophers of science, mathematics, and AI.

Joint work with Zephyr Fan, Bálint Gyevnár, and Eamon Duede, supported by
Grant 63750 from the John Templeton Foundation.

This talk will be available online:  Zoom:
https://pitt.zoom.us/j/97095624890
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listbox.elte.hu/pipermail/philphys/attachments/20260401/53b5d984/attachment-0001.html>