The antireductionist arguments of many philosophers (e.g., Baker, Fodor and Davidson) are motivated by a worry that successful reduction would eliminate rather than conserve the mental. This worry derives from a misunderstanding of the empiricist account of reduction, which, although it does not underwrite “cognitive suicide”, should be rejected for its positivist baggage. Philosophy of psychology needs more detailed attention to issues in natural science which serve as analogies for reduction of the mental. I consider a range of central cases, including water and H2O, genes and DNA, and common sense and scientific solidity. The last case is illuminated by Eddington's Two Tables paradox, a resolution which suggests the plasticity of the mental under reduction. If reduction of the mental is like any of these cases, it is neither empiricist nor eliminative.

I suppose it is generally agreed that the task of science is to render intelligible, or in some way account for, the objects and events of our experience. Usually we say that the job of science is to explain. While this is a satisfactory formulation for most purposes, it hides a difficulty. What is meant by “explanation”? The many interpretations of this word divide scientists and philosophers of science into sharply differentiated schools. For some “explanation” means answering the question, Why?; for others it means merely describing. For some it means finding causes; for others it means finding effects or abandoning entirely the search for causes and effects. For some it means employing quantitative methods only; for others it means supplementing or replacing quantitative methods by qualitative. For some it means interpreting or understanding; for others it means merely adjusting oneself in a practical way.

It is my purpose to examine this law in those cases in which it is generally held to be untrue. I inquire what can be meant, in each case of a statement p considered, by denying the law, that is, by saying ‘Neither p nor —p‘. After separating the possible meanings of this declared indeterminacy, I go on to inquire, taking each possibility in turn, whether the law does in fact fail.

In Grünbaum (1989, 374, 390), I objected to Narlikar's (1977, 136–137) designation “event of ‘creation’” for a supposed first cosmic instant t = 0, which he imports into the big bang cosmology of the general theory of relativity (GTR). Narlikar (1992, 361–362) does reject a theological construal of the “creation”. But, endeavoring to justify his secular creationism, he now points out that, in the GTR, the usual derivation of matter-energy conservation from Hilbert's stationary action principle cannot be extended to include the putative first instant t = 0. Narlikar reasons that this “breakdown” in the derivation of energy conservation at t = 0 qualifies the putative initial event as the “creation event”. I argue that this inference is multiply fallacious.

The object of this paper is twofold: to show that resistance to scientific change on the part of scientists need signal neither irrationality nor the presence of extra-scientific influences; and to show how such resistance can be accommodated within a theory of rational choice. After considerations have been outlined suggesting that scientists cannot rationally resist new scientific theories unless theory choice is subjectivistic (section I), evidence is adduced favoring the contrary view (section II). In section III, a non-subjectivistic, non-relativistic conception of rational choice is proposed which recognizes the possibility of scientists' rationally resisting new scientific developments. Finally, in section IV, some minor misunderstandings concerning resistance are discussed.

In his epistemological system Mead begins with that which the chief philosophers rejected, the novel or exceptional, and makes it central. It is central in a respect which should be carefully explained. The novel or emergent is that with reference to which a present is defined, and a present is the seat of reality. In saying this Mead does not mean that “the past” (more precisely, “a past” and “a future”) and “the future” are meaningless terms. Nor does he reduce them to a present. Rather he holds that neither the past (of the realist or the materialist) nor the future (of the finalist) exists. In fact, they are meaningful only in relation to a present and the various pasts and futures referred to in our statement of causal conditions and predictions belong to a present, which is their seat. Mead escapes the metaphysical problem as to whether the past or the future has some sort of being even now. Certainly in so far as he has a metaphysics at all it derives from his epistemology which is primary and represents a pioneering attempt to develop a theory of knowledge answering to experimental science. Consciously or unconsciously most contemporary scientists are still under the influence of bygone epistemological and metaphysical doctrines in their explicit statements of what constitutes reality and knowing. Yet in so far as they are successful in practice obviously they are free from the blind alleys and dead ends which these older theories lead to logically. However no one, not even the philosopher, has been able to formulate a consistent set of epistemological principles from which experimental scientific procedure follows logically. One thing, Mead contends, has been wholly neglected. It is the emergent.

In this paper I attempt to show that an argument offered by Bergmann and Hausman against positional qualities and for bare particulars as individuators is unsound. I proceed by giving two ontological assays of an ordinary thing and showing that the entity that individuates on one assay—a bare particular—does not provide deeper ontological ground of individuation than the entity that individuates on the other assay—a positional quality. Since the argument for particulars is based on the premise that only particulars can ground individuation as deeply as is required, it follows that Bergmann and Hausman have not proved particulars are necessary and that positional qualities are insufficient for individuation.

The problem of the “proper” relation of philosophy and science has been the source of many disputes in our intellectual history. Recently some philosophers and scientists have insisted that technical philosophy is neglecting the results of the social sciences to the detriment of philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to consider the attempts made by contemporary philosophers to utilize material from the behavioral sciences (for a few recent examples, see 2, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 29, 38, 41, 50), to review certain of the arguments in favor of the utilization of such material, and to consider the criticisms of that approach.

Constructive empiricists claim to offer a reconstruction of the aim and practice of science without adopting all the metaphysical commitments of scientific realism. Deflationists about truth boast of the ability to offer a full account of the nature of truth without adopting the metaphysical commitments accompanying substantive accounts. Though the two views would form an attractive package, I argue that the pairing is not possible: constructive empiricism requires a substantive account of truth. I articulate what sort of account of truth and empirical adequacy the constructive empiricist must offer and then show why deflationists cannot uphold such an account.

A model of a Markov process is presented in which observing the present state of a system is asymmetrically related to inferring the system's future and inferring its past. A likelihood inference about the system's past state, based on observing its present state, is justified no matter what the parameter values in the model happen to be. In contrast, a probability inference of the system's future state, based on observing its present state, requires further information about the parameter values.

Despite the skepticism of many mathematicians and logicians as to the possibility of any test which will show conclusively the consistency or independence of the members of a postulate set, several methods have nevertheless been devised and employed, e.g., the empirical methods of Russell and Huntington, the internal method of Hilbert, and the reflective method of Royce. However, with the possible exception of Hilbert's method (which is still available only in the form of fragments and suggestions), these techniques require us to forsake the purely formal or abstract mode of analysis, and instead to rely in some sense on “concrete representations” or “interpretations” or “modes of action” which are said to “satisfy” the postulates in question. In short, they are all interpretational methods—and here is the crux of the problem. “Is it possible,” queries Weiss, “that the only way we can determine whether a set is consistent is by seeing all the postulates actually exemplified in some object? If so, we must arbitrarily assume that the object is self-consistent, so that the proof of consistency must ultimately rest on a dogma. As independence rests on consistency there are therefore no satisfactory proofs as yet of either independence or consistency.” The question “is thus answered,” according to Young, “only by reference to a concrete representation of the abstract ideas involved, and it is such concrete representations that we wished especially to avoid. At the present time, however, no absolute test for consistency is known.” Moreover, “suppose,” says the late Dr. Eaton, “that the system has no interpretation: how can the consistency (and) independence … of the postulates be shown? There should be some analytic way—purely in the realm of the abstract, without interpretation—of establishing these properties of a set of postulates. This is an important problem that awaits solution.”

Some writers have urged that evolutionary theory produces generalizations that hold only ceteris paribus, that is, provided “everything else is equal.” Others have claimed that all laws in the special sciences, or even all laws in science generally, hold only ceteris paribus. However, if we lack a way to determine when everything else really is equal, hedging generalizations with the phrase “ceteris paribus” renders those generalizations vacuous. In what follows, I propose a solution to this problem for the case of causal equations from classical population genetics. My proviso is generated on the basis of a couple of conceptual maneuvers, “tricks,” which should be usable elsewhere too.

In his (1984) John Beatty correctly identifies the issue of the role of chance in evolution as one of the liveliest disputes in evolutionary biology. He argues, on the basis of a carefully articulated example, that “Even on a proper construal of ‘natural selection’, it is difficult to distinguish between the ‘improbable results of natural selection’ and evolution by random drift”. His other remarks indicate that he is thinking of conceptual as well as practical indistinguishability. In this discussion I take issue with one of the consequences Beatty draws from his example. I argue that the example at most shows that the effects of drift and selection are sometimes difficult to separate in practice, but that the stronger conceptual claim is not warranted. The deeper problems raised by the example are seen to demand causal, rather then conceptual, analysis.

The logical pattern underlying twentieth century science is strikingly uniform from physics through biology and psychology to social science. Our purpose will be to analyze and illustrate this pattern, to trace its development, especially from the Middle Ages to the present time, and to suggest some possible consequences for the future.

We address Turkheimer’s argument that genome-wide association studies of behaviors and psychiatric traits will fail to produce coherent explanations. We distinguish two major sources of potential incoherence (heterogeneity and complexity), showing how they independently threaten coherence and considering how they are being and might better be addressed with protein and other databases and network tools.

A phenomenon resulting from a computationally irreducible (or computationally incompressible) process is supposedly unpredictable except via simulation. This notion of unpredictability has been deployed to formulate recent accounts of computational emergence. Via a technical analysis, I show that computational irreducibility can establish the impossibility of prediction only with respect to maximum standards of precision. By articulating the graded nature of prediction, I show that unpredictability to maximum standards is not equivalent to being unpredictable in general. I conclude that computational irreducibility fails to fulfill its assigned philosophical roles in theories of computational emergence.

This paper critically examines Jerry Fodor's latest attacks on evolutionary psychology. Contra Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, Fodor argues (i) there is no reason to think that human cognition is a Darwinian adaptation in the first place, and (ii) there is no valid inference from adaptationism about the mind to massive modularity. However, Fodor maintains (iii) that there is a valid inference in the converse direction, from modularity to adaptationism, but (iv) that the language module is an exception to the validity of this inference. I explore Fodor's arguments for each of these claims, and the interrelations between them. I argue that Fodor is incorrect on point (i), correct on point (ii), partially correct on point (iii), and incorrect on point (iv). Overall, his critique fails to show that adopting a broadly Darwinian approach to cognition is intellectually indefensible.

Those who wish to defend the role of aesthetic values in science face a dilemma: aesthetic language is either used metaphorically for what are ultimately epistemic features, or it is used literally, but the importance of such values for science is unclear. This article introduces a new account that gets around this problem by considering an overlooked source of aesthetic value in science: the relation between form and content. A fit between the content of a thought experiment and the way in which that content is formulated can have important epistemic payoffs by contributing to scientific understanding.

Microaggressions are, roughly, acts or states of affairs that express prejudice or neglect toward members of oppressed groups in relatively subtle ways. There is an apparent consensus among both proponents and critics of the microaggression concept that microaggressions are “subjective.” We examine what subjectivity amounts to in this context and argue against this consensus. We distinguish between microaggressions as an explanatory posit and microaggressions as a hermeneutical tool, arguing that in either case there is no reason at present to regard microaggressions as subjective and that microaggressions in the hermeneutical sense should be regarded as objective.