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.

We focus on a neglected aspect of scientific theory choice: how the selection of theories affects epistemic values. Building on Kuhn, we provide a general characterization of the feedback-loop dynamic between theories and values in theory choice as analogous to the relationship between organisms and the environment in niche construction. We argue that understanding theory choice as niche construction can explain how certain values acquire more weight and a specific application over time, and how resistance to scientific change can, therefore, arise. We illustrate our picture by looking at the Mendelian–biometrician controversy.

The problem of quantity is the problem of identifying what about the physical world explains why it can be so well represented with mathematical entities. I introduce “quantitative primitivism,” the dominant position in the literature, which offers only a partial solution to the problem of quantity. I argue that a reductive account of quantitativeness provides a full solution to the problem and describe two reductive accounts in the literature. I discuss some of the unique metaphysical consequences of reductive accounts of quantity, including a novel dissolution to the long-standing absolutist–comparativist debate.

Teleparallel gravity, an empirically equivalent counterpart to general relativity, represents the influence of gravity using torsional forces. It raises questions about theory interpretation and underdetermination. To better understand the torsional forces of teleparallel gravity, we consider a context in which forces are better understood: classical spacetimes. We propose a method of incorporating torsion into the classical spacetime context that yields a classical theory of gravity with a closed temporal metric and spacetime torsion. We then prove a result analogous to the Trautman degeometrization theorem: that every model of Newton–Cartan theory gives rise, non-uniquely, to a model of this theory.

The goal of this article is to analyze the role of convention in interpreting physical theories—in particular, how the distinction between the conventional and the nonconventional interacts with judgments of equivalence. We will begin with a discussion of what, if anything, distinguishes those statements of a theory that might be dubbed “conventions.” This will lead us to consider the conventions that are not themselves part of a theory’s content but are rather applied to the theory in interpreting it. Finally, we will consider the idea that what conventions to adopt might, itself, be regarded as a matter of convention.

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.

The original architects of the representational theory of measurement interpreted their formalism operationally and explicitly acknowledged that some aspects of their representations are conventional. We argue that the conventional elements of the representations afforded by the theory require careful scrutiny as one moves toward a more metaphysically robust interpretation by showing that there is a sense in which the very number system one uses to represent a physical quantity such as mass or length is conventional. This result undermines inferences which impute structure from the numerical representational structure to the quantity it is used to represent.

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.

We consider some of the epistemic benefits of exploring “theory space” in the context of modifications of general relativity with intended applications in cosmology. We show how studying modifications of general relativity can help in assessing the robustness of empirical inferences, particularly in inaccessible regimes. We also discuss challenges to sharply distinguishing apparently distinct directions in theory space.

This article addresses problems with a defensive turn in discussions of science and Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing. Philosophers and practitioners of science have focused recent discussions on coarse-grained questions of demarcation, epistemic parity, and identity—asking questions such as “Is Indigenous knowledge science?” Using representative examples from Aotearoa New Zealand, we expose rampant ambiguities in these arguments, and show that this combative framing can overlook what is at stake. We provide a framework for analyzing these problems and suggest better ways forward.

This paper articulates a conceptual framework for examining philosophical issues such as the role of values in science at an organizational level. It distinguishes between three dimensions of organizations – organizational aims, organizational structure, and organizational culture – and it examines how these dimensions relate to values in research and development, with a focus on machine learning systems for predictive policing. This framework can be fruitful in identifying interesting and understudied philosophical problems – including those involving inter-organizational divisions of labor – that might otherwise be difficult to conceptualize.

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).

I characterize a role for “environments” as ecological scaffolding of organism development in the evolution of novelty. I interpret Rainey’s bacterial experimental system for empirically modeling evolutionary transition to multicellularity as an ecological-developmental problem in terms of a formal model of Kauffman’s concept of evolution into the “adjacent possible.” I propose a scenario to interpret scaffolds dynamically, treating them as organisms modeled in the same way as the developing systems they scaffold, rather than as fixed constraint boundary conditions. The scenario suggests avenues for mathematically modeling scaffolding dynamics.

The founder of conservation biology, Michael Soulé, set out a vision for conservation biology that was explicitly value-laden, analogous to cancer-biology. In so doing, he drew on the writings of Aldo Leopold, known among philosophers primarily for his land ethic. Employing and extending the work of Anderson (2004) and Clough (2020), I argue that the Leopoldian views that Soulé was drawing on were the product of the coevolution of descriptive and evaluative beliefs over the course of Leopold’s life, grounded in his experiences, resulting in tested and reliable—albeit defeasible—values underlying conservation biology.

Epistemic stances are collections of attitudes, values, aims, and policies relevant to assessing evidence, eventuating in belief or agnosticism regarding the output of scientific investigations. If, in some cases, conflicting stances promoting scientific realism and antirealism, respectively, are rationally permissible, this would seem to undermine the possibility of resolving certain debates between realists and antirealists. In this article I reply to two concerns about this conception of stances, to the effect that: (1) a stance underlying realism is, in fact, rationally obligatory for realists, given certain natural assumptions; and (2) this sort of permissivism would validate pseudoscience and science denialism.

I argue that machine learning (ML) models used in science function as highly idealized toy models. If we treat ML models as a type of highly idealized toy model, then we can deploy standard representational and epistemic strategies from the toy model literature to explain why ML models can still provide epistemic success despite their lack of similarity to their targets.

I examine three arguments that purport to show that connectionist, associationist architectures cannot achieve key features of human thought. Hume anticipated each of these three arguments and provided a unified strategy for responding to each, the “externalist gambit.” On this account, external natural language provides the necessary structure for associationist systems to achieve those features of thought that their opponents take them to lack. The externalist gambit provides a promising avenue for today’s defenders of connectionism about the human mind.

This paper recapitulates earlier work in which I argued for the disunity of science, the plurality of partly incommensurable ways in which the world can be conceptualised for scientific purposes. It then aims to show how this plurality is intelligible, even to be expected, from the perspective of a process philosophy that sees the world as largely disorganised, but as allowing the emergence of pockets of stability, most notably the stability provided by biological organisms. It incidentally aims to demonstrate the importance to one another of science and metaphysics.

Benchmark tests are employed when testing for racial discrimination by police. Neil and Winship (2019) emphasize that such tests are threatened by Simpson’s paradox, but they avoid analyzing the paradox causally. They consequently cannot elucidate the link between statistical quantities and discrimination hypotheses. Simpson’s paradox reveals that the statistics given by benchmark tests are not invariant to conditioning on additional variables. On this basis, I argue that benchmark statistics should not by themselves be taken to provide any evidence regarding discrimination, absent additional assumptions. Causal models can represent these assumptions.

Transdisciplinary research knits together knowledge from diverse epistemic communities in addressing social-environmental challenges, such as biodiversity loss, climate crises, food insecurity, and public health. This article reflects on the roles of philosophy of science in transdisciplinary research while focusing on Indigenous and other subjugated forms of knowledge. We offer a critical assessment of demarcationist approaches in philosophy of science and outline a constructive alternative of transdisciplinary philosophy of science. While a focus on demarcation obscures the complex relations between epistemic communities, transdisciplinary philosophy of science provides resources for meeting epistemic and political challenges of collaborative knowledge production.