Like Austin’s “performatives,” some models are used not merely to represent but also to change their targets in various ways. This article argues that Austin’s analysis can inform model evaluation: If models are evaluated with respect to their adequacy-for-purpose, and if performativity can in some cases be regarded as a model purpose (a proposition that is defended, using mechanism design as an example), it follows that these models can be evaluated with respect to their “felicity,” that is whether their use has achieved this purpose. Finally, I respond to epistemic and ethical concerns that might block this conclusion.

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.

A common strategy for simplifying complex systems involves partitioning them into subsystems whose behaviors are roughly independent of one another at shorter timescales. Dynamic causal models clarify how doing so reveals a system’s nonequilibrium causal relationships. Here I use these models to elucidate the idealizations and abstractions involved in representing a system at a timescale. The models reveal that key features of causal representations—such as which variables are exogenous—may vary with the timescale at which a system is considered. This has implications for debates regarding which systems can be represented causally.

Climate scientists frequently employ heavily idealized models. How should these models be interpreted? Some philosophers have advanced a possibilist interpretation: climate models stand in for possible scenarios that could occur but do not provide information about how probable those scenarios are. This article argues that possibilism is (1) undermotivated, (2) incompatible with successful practices in the science, and (3) unable to correct for known biases. The upshot is that the models should be interpreted probabilistically in at least some cases.

In Science, Truth, and Democracy, Philip Kitcher challenges the view that science has a single, context-independent, goal, and that the pursuit of this goal is essentially immune from moral critique. He substitutes a context-dependent account of science's goal, and shows that this account subjects science to moral evaluation. I argue that Kitcher's approach must be modified, as his account of science ultimately must be explicated in terms of moral concepts. I attempt, therefore, to give an account of science's goal that is free of direct moral entanglements but still makes this goal context-dependent and leaves the choice of which projects to pursue subject to moral scrutiny.

I explore the evolution of strategies in an Augmented Stag Hunt game that adds a punishing strategy to the ordinary Stag Hunt strategies of cooperating, which aims for optimality, and defecting, which “plays it safe.” Cooperating weakly dominates punishing and defecting is the unique evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). Nevertheless, for a wide class of Augmented Stag Hunts, polymorphic strategies combining punishing and cooperating collectively have greater attracting power for replicator dynamics than that of the ESS. The analysis here lends theoretical support to the altruistic punishment hypothesis in the social sciences.

The first part deals with the problem of the external form of ostensive definition. It is concluded that the definition statement is not complete. The proper form of this statement is not a sentence, but a sentential function, namely a sentential function of the type: “IIx [N(x) = x is in the respect R and in the degree D such as A, B ... and not such as K, L ...]” where “N” stands for the term being defined.

Thus the ostensive definition informs about the criteria of applicability of the defined term in a partial way only, and the rest must be supplied by the addressee for whom the given definition was destined.

In the second part the conditions are analysed on which depends the possibility of solving that problem, and consequently the conditions on which depend the informational value and the efficacy of ostensive definition. The concluding remarks deal with the properties of the terms introduced by the ostensive method.

This paper introduces a new equilibrium concept for normal form games called dependency equilibrium; it is defined, exemplified, and compared with Nash and correlated equilibria in Sections 2–4. Its philosophical motive is to rationalize cooperation in the one shot prisoners’ dilemma. A brief discussion of its meaningfulness in Section 5 concludes the paper.

The science of the 19th and early 20th century permitted the view that all human experience is subject to the deterministic laws of physics. Reality was conformable with these laws, and the laws could be used to designate what is real.

Charlotte Werndl and Roman Frigg discuss the relationship between the Boltzmannian and Gibbsian framework of statistical mechanics, addressing, in particular, the question when equilibrium values calculated in both frameworks agree. This note points out conceptual confusions that could arise from their discussion, concerning, in particular, the authors’ use of “Boltzmann equilibrium.” It also clarifies the status of the Khinchin condition for the equivalence of Boltzmannian and Gibbsian equilibrium predictions and shows that it follows, under the assumptions proposed by Werndl and Frigg, from standard arguments in probability theory.

I analyze the two main theses of Helmholtz's “The Applicability of the Axioms to the Physical World,” in which he argued that the axioms of Euclidean geometry are not, as his neo-Kantian opponents had argued, binding on any experience of the external world. This required two argumentative steps: 1) a new account of the structure of our representations which was consistent both with the experience of our (for him) Euclidean world and with experience of a non-Euclidean one, and 2) a demonstration of why geometric propositions are essentially connected to material and temporal aspects of experience. The effect of Helmholtz's discussion is to throw into relief an intermediate category of metrological objects—objects which are required for the properly theoretical activity of doing physical science (in this sense, a priori requirements for doing science), all while being recognizably contingent aspects of experience.

The controversy which has raged between those who accept Aristotelian Logic and those who reject it, seems to continue. It is, I believe, advisable to consider the arguments on both sides. Modern Logicians for the most part insist that Aristotelian Logic breaks down, i.e. it is not true for all meanings of the terms. On the other hand there are those who insist on the validity of Aristotelian Logic claiming that those values for which it fails are not permissible values. But there is one who stands almost entirely alone in his position—namely Professor H. B. Smith—who maintains that Aristotelian Logic breaks down because and only because its interpretation into Boolean terms has been accomplished by means of a definition that is not forced upon us and which, since it gives up desirable principles, is to be rejected.

Professor Feigl's admirably lucid and concise appraisal of the major considerations which are still significant in the controversy between realism and phenomenalism includes the important reminder that the problem at hand should be viewed as concerning, not the truth or falsity of two conflicting hypotheses, but rather the comparative adequacy of two alternative proposals for the rational reconstruction of scientific knowledge. Feigl advocates the approach of semantic realism in preference to a phenomenalistic type of reconstruction on the grounds that in his critical examination, the latter has been “found wanting,” whereas semantic realism—and only semantic realism—can provide a satisfactory systematic account of the meaning and the experiential foundation of scientific hypotheses. While I fully agree with Feigl's general appraisal of the issues involved, I have doubts as to the superiority of the proposed realistic interpretation, and I should like to state these here in outline.

Kurt Gödel criticizes Rudolf Carnap's conventionalism on the grounds that it relies on an empiricist admissibility condition, which, if applied, runs afoul of his second incompleteness theorem. Thomas Ricketts and Michael Friedman respond to Gödel's critique by denying that Carnap is committed to Gödel's admissibility criterion; in effect, they are denying that Carnap is committed to any empirical constraint in the application of his principle of tolerance. I argue in response that Carnap is indeed committed to an empirical requirement vis-à-vis tolerance, a fact that becomes clear upon closer scrutiny of Carnap's relevant writings.

This is an interesting, well argued, and highly readable book; anyone interested in the central philosophical problems with which it deals will benefit from studying it.

Stalnaker defines inquiry as the process of forming, testing, and revising beliefs. His goal is to lay the groundwork for a theory of inquiry, by elaborating and defending a certain apparatus in terms of which the process of inquiry should be described.

The writer of this paper is not an expert on probability from either the mathematical or the philosophical side, but a theoretical physicist forced by the exigencies of work in his own field to make his peace with the concept of probability. The present contribution is a sequel to remarks on two different types of probability in a recent paper on the relation between statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.

Agreement between “independent” measurements of a theoretically posited quantity is intuitively compelling evidence that a theory is, loosely speaking, on the right track. But exactly what conclusion is warranted by such agreement? I propose a new account of the phenomenon’s epistemic significance within the framework of Bayesian epistemology. I contrast my proposal with the standard Bayesian treatment, which lumps the phenomenon under the heading of “evidential diversity.”

The contentions of this paper are essentially two. One is that truth does not consist of verifiability—and still less of verification—in the sense in which this has been maintained by some pragmatists, operationalists, and positivists. The other is that in a certain other sense of “verifiability”, which will be described, truth is the same thing as verifiability. The paper, it should be understood, attempts only to make clear what is and what is not the relation between truth and verifiability. It does not attempt in addition to carry the analysis of verification itself to the point where it would, by implication, furnish a terminal answer to the question, what is truth. The latter task, because of space limitations, must be reserved for some future occasion.