This article tackles the objection that revealed preferences cannot causally explain. I mount a causal explanatory defense by drawing out three conditions under which such preferences can explain well, using an example of a successful explanation employing behavioral preferences. When behavioral preferences are multiple realizable, they can causally explain behavior well. Behavioral preferences also explain when agential preferences cannot be analytically separated from the environment that produces the relevant behavior (Condition 2) and when the environment is a significant causal factor (Condition 3). Thus, there are not causal explanatory grounds to completely bar revealed preference explanations from social science.

The modern Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics describes an emergent multiverse. The goal of this paper is to provide a perspicuous characterisation of how the multiverse emerges making use of a recent account of (weak) ontological emergence. This will be cashed out with a case study that identifies decoherence as the mechanism for emergence. The greater metaphysical clarity enables the rebuttal of critiques due to Baker (2007) and Dawid and Thébault (2015) that cast the emergent multiverse ontology as incoherent; responses are also offered to challenges to the Everettian approach from Maudlin (2010) and Monton (2013).

Sexes are normally taken to be fundamental categories in biology—many sexually reproducing organisms fall under the categories of female/male. Much research aims at explaining differences between sexes. Sexual selection forms a central framework for explaining “typical” distributions of traits among sexes and explicating circumstances leading to “reversal.” I claim that sexual selection models need not make use of sexes and that sexes lack explanatory significance in such models. I offer a framework of reproductive dimorphism and argue that it is better than that of sexes because it (1) is more compatible with explanations of sexual selection and (2) allows for their greater applicability.

Confirmation bias has been widely studied for its role in failures of reasoning. Individuals exhibiting confirmation bias fail to engage with information that contradicts their current beliefs, and, as a result, can fail to abandon inaccurate beliefs. But although most investigations of confirmation bias focus on individual learning, human knowledge is typically developed within a social structure. We use network models to show that moderate confirmation bias often improves group learning. However, a downside is that a stronger form of confirmation bias can hurt the knowledge-producing capacity of the community.

Standard narratives about physical teleology say its death was a fait accompli of the Scientific Revolution, but the principle of least action (PLA) has been taken to instantiate teleology’s survival into Enlightenment physics. Other scholars claim this PLA-based teleological metaphysics fell to general philosophical attacks on final causes. None of these narratives fully captures the philosophical interest of its demise. It illustrates a metaphysics being refuted because it could not be coherently modeled in mathematics, hence directly through mathematization and not by philosophical argument or empirical test.

What is the nature of deception? What does it take for an organism to deceive another one? In this article we address these questions by appealing to the concept of mimicry. More precisely, we argue that a fruitful perspective regards deception as an instance of mimicry rather than the reverse. Conceiving of deception as an instance of mimicry has a number of interesting consequences: It draws connections between different areas of research, vindicates a functional approach to deception by providing a satisfactory answer to some recent objections, and suggests some worries for game-theoretic approaches to deception.

Psychology is a discipline that has a high number of failed replications, which has been characterized as a “crisis” on the assumption that failed replications are indicative of untrustworthy research. This article uses Chang’s concept of epistemic iteration to show how a research program can advance epistemic goals despite many failed replications. It illustrates this by analyzing an ongoing large-scale replication attempt of Southgate et al.’s work exploring infants’ understanding of false beliefs. It concludes that epistemic iteration offers a way of understanding the value of replications—both failed and successful—that contradicts the narrative centered around distrust.

Many philosophers sympathetic with Humeanism about laws have thought that the fundamental laws will include not only the traditional dynamical equations, but also two additional principles: the Past Hypothesis (PH) and the Statistical Postulate (SP). PH says that the universe began in a particular very-low-entropy macrostate M(0), and SP posits a uniform probability distribution over the microstates compatible with M(0). This view is arguably vindicated by the orthodox Humean Best System Account (BSA). However, I argue that recent developments of the BSA render the Past Hypothesis otiose. In particular, Pragmatic Humeanism does not support the idea that PH is a law.

Basal cognition investigates cognition working upward from nonneuronal organisms. Because basal cognition is committed to empirically testable hypotheses, a methodological challenge arises: how can experiments avoid using zoocentric assumptions that ignore the ecological contexts that might elicit cognitively driven behavior in nonneuronal organisms? To meet this challenge, I articulate the principle of dynamic holism (PDH), a methodological principle for guiding research on nonneuronal cognition. I describe PDH’s relation to holistic research programs in human-focused cognitive science and psychology then present an argument from analogy based on holistic developmental biology. Last, I examine two experiments exemplifying the need for PDH.

Traditionally, the debate about health and disease is characterized as an opposition between naturalism and normativism. However, recent contributions show that theories of health and disease need not be purely naturalistic or normative but may be located somewhere in between. The first purpose of this article is to further advance this line of nuancing. The second purpose is to argue in favor of a specific position, which the added nuances reveal. I call this position subjectively salient naturalism. If one is interested in scientific concepts of health and disease, subjectively salient naturalism is a more plausible position than naturalism.

Historians have shown that philosophical discussions about the implications of relativity significantly shaped the development of European philosophy of science in the 1920s. Yet little is known about American debates from this period. This article maps the first responses to Einstein’s theory in three U.S. philosophy journals and situates these papers within the local intellectual landscape. I argue that these discussions (1) stimulated the development of a distinctly American branch of philosophy of science and (2) paved the way for the logical empiricists who emigrated to the United States in the years before World War II.

We provide five rearticulations of the thesis that the structure of spacetime is conventional, rather than empirically determined, based upon variation of the structures that are empirically underdetermined and modal contexts in which this underdetermination occurs. Three of the five formulations of conventionalism will be found to fail. Two are found to open up new interesting problems for researchers in the foundations of general relativity. In all five cases, our analysis explores the interplay between geometric identities, symmetry, conformal structure, and the dynamical content of physical theories with the conventionalism dialectic deployed as a tool of explication, clarification, and exploration.

Grant Ramsey and Michael Deem argue that appreciating the role that empathy plays in posttransgression guilt leads to a more promising account of the emotion’s evolutionary origins. But because their proposal fails to adequately distinguish guilt from shame, we cannot say which of the two emotions we are actually getting an evolutionary account of. Moreover, a closer look at the details suggests both that empathy may be more relevant for our understanding of shame’s evolutionary origins than guilt’s and that guilt is unlikely to be an adaptation.