Philosophical Progresshttp://www.philosophicalprogress.org/2024-04-27T23:59:00ZArticles and blog posts found on 27 April 20242024-04-27T23:59:00Z2024-04-27T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-27://<b>Ammar Younas, Yi Zeng: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/YOUCIK.pdf">Contrasting Iqbal’s “Khudi” and Nietzsche’s “Will To Power” to Determine the Legal Alignment of Conscious AI</a></b> (pdf, 4182 words)<br /> <div>As AI edges toward consciousness, the establishment of a robust legal framework becomes essential. This paper advocates for a framework inspired by Allama Muhammad Iqbal's “Khudi”, which prioritizes ethical self-realization and social responsibility over Friedrich Nietzsche’s selfcentric “Will to Power”. We propose that conscious AI, reflecting Iqbal’s ethical advancement, should exhibit behaviors aligned with social responsibility and, therefore, be prepared for legal recognition. This approach not only integrates Iqbal's philosophical insights into the legal status of AI but also offers a novel perspective that extends beyond traditional jurisprudence. Additionally, we underscore the value of poetry and literature in shaping the conceptualization of AI consciousness and argue that these sources enrich legal and technological discourse, ensuring AI development is in harmony with societal and ethical standards.</div><br /> <b>Christian de Ronde, Cesar Massri: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23312/1/de%20Ronde,%20FM%20&%20Massri%20-%20Invariant%20Factorizations%20Bases.pdf">Equivalence Relations in Quantum Theory: An Objective Account of Bases and Factorizations.</a></b> (pdf, 12951 words)<br /> <div>In orthodox Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM) bases and factorizations are considered to define quantum states and entanglement in relativistic terms. While the choice of a basis (interpreted as a measurement context) defines a state incompatible to that same state in a different basis, the choice of a factorization (interpreted as the separability of systems into sub-systems) determines wether the same state is entangled or non-entangled. Of course, this perspectival relativism with respect to reference frames and factorizations precludes not only the widespread reference to quantum particles but more generally the possibility of any rational objective account of a state of affairs in general. In turn, this impossibility ends up justifying the instrumentalist (anti-realist) approach that contemporary quantum physics has followed since the establishment of SQM during the 1930s. In contraposition, in this work, taking as a standpoint the logos categorical approach to QM —basically, Heisenberg’s matrix formulation without Dirac’s projection postulate— we provide an invariant account of bases and factorizations which allows us to to build a conceptual-operational bridge between the mathematical formalism and quantum phenomena. In this context we are able to address the set of equivalence relations which allows us to determine what is actually the same in different bases and factorizations.</div><br /> <b>David Wallace: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23314/1/gauge_equivalence.pdf">Gauge Invariance Through Gauge Fixing</a></b> (pdf, 8733 words)<br /> <div>Phenomena in gauge theory are often described in the physics literature via a specific choice of gauge. In foundational and philosophical discussions this is often criticized as introducing gauge dependence, and contrasted against (often aspirational) “gauge-invariant” descriptions of the physics. I argue, largely in the context of scalar electrodynamics, that this is misguided, and that descriptions of a physical process within a specific gauge are in fact gauge-invariant descriptions. However, most of them are non-local descriptions of that physics, and I suggest that this ought to be the real objection to such descriptions. I explore the unitary gauge as the exception to this nonlocality and consider its strengths and limitations, as well as (more briefly) its extension beyond scalar electrodynamics.</div><br /> <b>Ehud Lehrer, Dov Samet: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23333/1/Interpersonal%20independence%20-%20Final.pdf">Interpersonal independence of knowledge and belief</a></b> (pdf, 10005 words)<br /> <div>We show that knowledge satisfies interpersonal independence, meaning that a non-trivial sentence describing one agent’s knowledge cannot be equivalent to a sentence describing another agent’s knowledge. The same property of interpersonal independence holds, mutatis mutandis, for belief. In the case of knowledge, interpersonal independence is implied by the fact that there are no non-trivial sentences that are common knowledge in every model of knowledge. In the case of belief, interpersonal independence follows from a strong interpersonal independence that knowledge does not have. Specifically, there is no sentence describing the beliefs of one person that implies a sentence describing the beliefs of another person.</div><br /> <b>Emily Adlam: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23315/1/against%20self%20location.pdf">Against Self-Location</a></b> (pdf, 20056 words)<br /> <div>I distinguish between pure self-locating credences and superficially self-locating credences, and argue that there is never any rationally compelling way to assign pure self-locating credences. I first argue that from a practical point of view, pure self-locating credences simply encode our pragmatic goals, and thus pragmatic rationality does not dictate how they must be set. I then use considerations motivated by Bertrand’s paradox to argue that the indifference principle and other popular constraints on self-locating credences fail to be a priori principles of epistemic rationality, and I critique some approaches to deriving self-locating credences based on analogies to non-self-locating cases. Finally, I consider the implications of this conclusion for various applications of self-locating probabilities in scientific contexts, arguing that it may undermine certain kinds of reasoning about multiverses, the simulation hypothesis, Boltzmann brains and vast-world scenarios.</div><br /> <b>Emily Sullivan: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23323/7/idealization_FAccT_final.pdf">SIDEs: Separating Idealization from Deceptive ‘Explanations’ in xAI</a></b> (pdf, 11531 words)<br /> <div>Explainable AI (xAI) methods are important for establishing trust in using black-box models. However, recent criticism has mounted against current xAI methods that they disagree, are necessarily false, and can be manipulated, which has started to undermine the deployment of black-box models. Rudin (2019) goes so far as to say that we should stop using black-box models altogether in high-stakes cases because xAI explanations ‘must be wrong’. However, strict fidelity to the truth is historically not a desideratum in science. Idealizations–the intentional distortions introduced to scientific theories and models–are commonplace in the natural sciences and are seen as a successful scientific tool. Thus, it is not falsehood qua falsehood that is the issue. In this paper, I outline the need for xAI research to engage in idealization evaluation. Drawing on the use of idealizations in the natural sciences and philosophy of science,</div><br /> <b>Mario Alai: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23319/1/The%20Historical%20Challenge%20to%20Realism%20and%20Essential%20Deployment-proof2.pdf">The Historical Challenge to Realism and Essential Deployment</a></b> (pdf, 13974 words)<br /> <div>Scientific realists use the “No Miracle Argument” (<b>NMA</b>): it would be a miracle if theories were false, yet got right so many novel and risky predictions. Hence, predictively successful theories are true. Of course, one could easily make up a theory <i>with completely false theoretical assumptions which predicted a phenomenon <b>P</b></i> (call it a <b>F -</b> theory) if she knew <b>P</b> in advance and used it in framing the theory. But how could she think of a <b>F -</b> theory, without knowing <b>P</b>? Or knowing <b>P</b> but without using it in building the theory? In fact, it is puzzling how one could have built a <b>F -</b> theory even if she used <b>P</b> <i>inessentially</i>: suppose Jill built a <b>F -</b> theory by knowing and using P, but she <i>could</i> have done without it, because, quite independently of her, John built <i>the same</i> theory without using <b>P</b>. This I call Jill using <b>P</b> <i>inessentially</i>, and it is something hard to explain, because it is understandable how the theory was built by Jill, but not by John (Lipton 1991, 166; Alai 2014c, 301).</div><br /> <b>Matteo Colombo: <a href="https://mteocolphi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/pluralism-explanation-new.pdf">Experimental philosophy of explanation rising. The case for a plurality of concepts of <i>explanation</i></a></b> (pdf, 6463 words)<br /> <div><b>Experimental philosophy of explanation rising. The case for a plurality of concepts of</b> <i><b>explanation</b></i> This paper brings together results from the philosophy and the psychology of explanation in order to argue that there are multiple concepts of <i>explanation</i> in human psychology. Specifically, it is shown that pluralism about <i>explanation</i> coheres with the multiplicity of models of explanation available in the philosophy of science, and is supported by evidence from the psychology of explanatory judgment. Focusing on the case of a norm of explanatory power, the paper concludes by responding to the worry that if there is a plurality of concepts of <i>explanation</i>, one will not be able to normatively evaluate what counts as good explanation.</div><br /> <b>Matteo Colombo: <a href="https://mteocolphi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/routledge-handbook-of-the-philosophy-of-the-social-mind-mcolombo.pdf">Social motivation in computational neuroscience. (Or if brains are prediction machines, then the Humean theory of motivation is false)</a></b> (pdf, 11469 words)<br /> <div>Scientific and ordinary understanding of human social behaviour assumes that the Humean theory of motivation is true. The present chapter explores whether and in which sense the Humean theory of motivation may be true in the light of recent empirical and theoretical work in the computational neuroscience of social motivation. It is argued that the Humean theory is false, if an increasingly popular model in computational neuroscience turns out to be correct. According to this model, brains are probabilistic prediction machines, whose function is to minimize the uncertainty about their sensory exchanges with the environment. If brains are these kinds of machines, then we should reconceive the nature of social motivation without appealing to desire. We should rather focus our attention on how social motivation is biased towards reduction of social uncertainty, and on how social norms and other social institutions function as uncertainty minimizing devices.</div><br /> <b>Naftali Weinberger: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23318/1/Time%20and%20Causality%20Across%20the%20Sciences%20KLEINBERG%202019-197-221.pdf">Reintroducing Dynamics into Static Causal Models</a></b> (pdf, 9852 words)<br /> <div>Recently developed graphical causal modeling techniques significantly downplay the role of time in causal inference. Time plays no role in the criteria specifying what it means for causal hypotheses to be observationally equivalent, and the probabilistic criteria used fail to distinguish among hypotheses that – given the assumption that causal variables precede effect variables – involve different time orderings among the variables. Additionally, the causal Markov condition – a central condition for choosing among causal hypotheses given a joint probability distribution – most straightforwardly applies to cases in which the variables are sampled from time-stationary distributions. Finally, it is commonplace to present models in which the variables are not explicitly indexed to times.</div><br /> <b>Philippe Huneman: <a href="https://philippehuneman.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/6-huneman-rey-stahl-leibniz-shesvie.docx">La controverse Leibniz-Stahl dite <i>Negotium otiosum</i></a></b> (doc, 12833 words)<br /> <div>We present the reply Leibniz gave to Stahl’s <i>Theoria medica vera</i> (1707), and the controversy between the authors that those remarks stimulated. After having described the main points of Stahl’s dualism between life and death, correlated to his dualism mechanism/organism, we unravel the main epistemological and scientific points of debate. We propose several distinctions in order to make sense of the various uses of mechanism in this period, and suggest that what essentially motivated Leibniz was both Stahl’s implicit denial of uniform laws of nature, and Stahl’s misunderstanding of the metaphysics of substance and causality that Leibniz was in general elaborating in his own conceptions. We finally suggest how both authors were misunderstanding each other because of different scientific agendas and metaphysical commitments.</div><br /> <b>Ron Sun: <a href="https://content.iospress.com:443/download/neurosymbolic-artificial-intelligence/nai240720?id=neurosymbolic-artificial-intelligence/nai240720">Dual-process theories, cognitive architectures, and hybrid neural-symbolic models</a></b> (pdf, 5777 words)<br /> <div>This position paper discusses relationships among hybrid neural-symbolic models, dual-process theories, and cognitive architectures. It provides some historical backgrounds and argues that dual-process (implicit versus explicit) theories have significant implications for developing neural-symbolic (neurosymbolic) models. Furthermore, computational cognitive architectures can help to disentangle issues concerning dual-process theories and thus help the development of neural-symbolic models (in this way as well as in other ways).</div><br /> <b>Sebastian Fortin, Matias Pasqualini: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23290/1/manuscript.pdf">Emergence-Free Duality: Phonons and Vibrating Atoms in Crystalline Solids</a></b> (pdf, 8800 words)<br /> <div>The crystalline solids admit of two models: the one of vibrating atoms and the one of phonons. The model of phonons allows explaining certain properties of crystalline solids that the model of vibrating atoms does not allow. Usually, the model of phonons is assigned a diminished ontological status as quasi-particles. Recently, there has been a proposal to homologate the ontological status of phonons with that of emergent particles, such as photons. In this article, this proposal will be critically examined, and it will be proposed that the model of phonons and the model of vibrating atoms are in ontological parity.</div><br /> <b>Sergio Cremaschi: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDPN.pdf">Descartes's Philosophical Novel and the Scottish Enlightenment</a></b> (pdf, 9287 words)<br /> <div>During the first half of the eighteenth century, Newton’s work became the emblem of the “new philosophy” all over Europe. It provided a model to be followed in every field and the <i>divide</i> between the friends and the enemies of Reason. Reasons for such a sanctification of Newton are primarily due to the competitor’s disappearance of the polemics against Aristotelianism, which had provided seventeenth-century philosophers with an excellent straw man with its sequel of occult qualities and substantial forms. Secondly, they are to be found in the birth of controversy between Cartesians and Newtonians. This controversy will grow with a snowball effect, starting with a purely scientific issue, namely the theory of vortices, coming to include two overall views of the scientific method and two distinct theories of knowledge. Thus, as the interest in attacking Aristotle vanished since Aristotelianism ceased being perceived as a real competitor, the villain became Descartes, the author of an “illusive philosophy” or “one of the most entertaining romances” ever written.</div><br /> <b>Shu Ishida: <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10892-024-09477-6.pdf">Welfare Subjectivism, Sophistication, and Procedural Perfectionism</a></b> (pdf, 11132 words)<br /> <div>Welfare subjectivists face a dilemma. On the one hand, traditional subjectivist theories—such as the desire-fulfillment theory—are too permissive to account for the well-being of typical mature human beings. On the other hand, more “refined” theories—such as the life-satisfaction theory—are too restrictive to account for the well-being of various welfare subjects, including newborns, those with profound cognitive impairments, or non-human animals. This paper examines a class of welfare subjectivism that addresses this dilemma with sensitivity to the diversity in welfare subjects. First, the most-sophisticated-attitude view (MSA) is introduced. MSA holds that an object, , is good for a subject, , in proportion to the strength of ’s pro-attitude towards if and only if the pro-attitude at issue is ’s most sophisticated type. Typically, the well-being of typical mature human beings is assessed in terms of one’s authentic whole-life satisfaction, whereas that of human newborns is assessed in terms of something less sophisticated such as pleasure. MSA offers the rationale for this difference based on an underexplored version of perfectionism: procedural perfectionism. Next, provided that MSA may involve an implausibly strong claim, this paper examines two moderate variations of MSA that accept the partial relevance of less sophisticated types of valenced attitude. Finally, it is illustrated how MSA and its variations have plausible implications regarding the well-being of enhanced or dis-enhanced people.</div><br /> <b>Siegfried Jaag, Christian Loew: <a href="https://loewchristian.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/jaag-loew-humean-supervenience-reloaded.pdf">Why Defend Humean Supervenience?</a></b> (pdf, 10174 words)<br /> <div>Humean Supervenience (HS) is a metaphysical model of the world according to which all truths hold in virtue of nothing but the total spatiotemporal distribution of perfectly natural intrinsic properties. David Lewis and others have worked out many aspects of HS in great detail. A larger motivational question, however, remains unanswered: As Lewis admits, there is strong evidence from fundamental physics that HS is false. What then is the purpose of defending HS? In this paper, we argue that the philosophical merit of HS is largely independent of whether it correctly represents the world’s fundamental structure. In particular, we show that insofar as HS is an apt model of the world’s higher-level structure, it thereby provides a powerful argument for reductive physicalism and explains otherwise opaque inferential relations. Recent criticism of HS on the grounds that it misrepresents fundamental physical reality is, therefore, beside the point.</div><br /> <b>Vera Hoffmann-Kolss, Matthias Rolffs: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/HOFGCA.pdf">Graded Causation and Moral Responsibility</a></b> (pdf, 10187 words)<br /> <div>Theories of graded causation attract growing attention in the philosophical debate on causation. An important field of application is the controversial relationship between causation and moral responsibility. However, it is still unclear how exactly the notion of graded causation should be understood in the context of moral responsibility. One question is whether we should endorse a proportionality principle, according to which the degree of an agent’s moral responsibility is proportionate to their degree of causal contribution. A second question is whether a theory of graded causation should measure closeness to necessity or closeness to sufficiency. In this paper, we argue that we should indeed endorse a proportionality principle and that this principle supports a notion of graded causation relying on closeness to sufficiency rather than closeness to necessity. Furthermore, we argue that this insight helps to provide a plausible analysis of the so-called ‘Moral Difference Puzzle’ recently described by Bernstein.</div><br /> <b>Bet On It: <a href="https://www.betonit.ai/p/why-not-make-desertion-fast">Why Not Make Desertion Fast?</a></b> (html, 832 words)<br /> <div>I recently discussed my “make desertion fast” proposal (updated here) with philosopher Ned Dobos over lunch. Though he’s sympathetic, he’s sent me the following two emails outlining possible objections. &hellip;</div><br /> Articles and blog posts found on 26 April 20242024-04-26T23:59:00Z2024-04-26T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-26://<b>Akira Inoue, Kazumi Shimizu, Daisuke Udagawa, Yoshiki Wakamatsu: <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-024-04544-9.pdf">Reflective equilibrium in practice and model selection: a methodological proposal from a survey experiment on the theories of distributive justice</a></b> (pdf, 12355 words)<br /> <div>In political philosophy, reflective equilibrium is a standard method used to systematically reconcile intuitive judgments with theoretical principles. In this paper, we propose that survey experiments and a model selection method—i.e., the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)-based model selection method—can be viewed together as a methodological means of satisfying the epistemic desiderata implicit in reflective equilibrium. To show this, we conduct a survey experiment on two theories of distributive justice, prioritarianism and sufficientarianism. Our experimental test case and AIC-based model selection method demonstrate that the refined sufficientarian principle, a widely accepted principle of distributive justice, is no more plausible than the prioritarian principle. This tells us that some changes of certain intuitions revolving around sufficientarianism should be examined (separately) based on the findings of the survey experiment and AIC model selection. This shows the potential of our approach—both practically and methodologically—as a novel way of applying reflective equilibrium in political philosophy.</div><br /> <b>Heng Zheng, Davide Grossi: <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3462757.3466071">Hardness of Case-Based Decisions: a Formal Theory</a></b> (pdf, 10051 words)<br /> <div>Davide Grossi Artificial Intelligence, Bernoulli Institute, University of Groningen ILLC/ACLE, University of Amsterdam The Netherlands d.grossi@rug.nl its application varies in complexity and depends, in particular, on whether relevant past decisions agree, or exist at all. The contribution of this paper is a formal treatment of types of the hardness of case-based decisions. The typology of hardness is defined in terms of the arguments for and against the issue to be decided, and their kind of validity (conclusive, presumptive, coherent, incoherent). We apply the typology of hardness to Berman and Hafner’s research on the dynamics of case-based reasoning and show formally how the hardness of decisions varies with time.</div><br /> <b>James Miller: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/MILHTM-5.pdf">How to Misspell 'Paris'</a></b> (pdf, 11053 words)<br /> <div>One feature of language is that we are able to make mistakes in our use of language. Amongst other sorts of mistakes, we can misspeak, misspell, missign, or misunderstand. Given this, it seems that our metaphysics of words should be flexible enough to accommodate such mistakes. It has been argued that a nominalist account of words cannot accommodate the phenomenon of misspelling. I sketch a nominalist trope-bundle view of words that can.</div><br /> <b>Penelope Maddy: <a href="https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/faculty.sites.uci.edu/dist/3/399/files/2024/04/naturalism-in-logic_wp-351fb3c1344421dd.pdf">Varieties of naturalism in logic</a></b> (pdf, 10077 words)<br /> <div>‘Naturalism’ is a term so notorious for its murkiness that entire anthologies have been devoted largely to the task of pinning down its meaning – and for all that, nothing near consensus has been reached. Agreement is elusive even on how the available options are best taxonomized. One general tendency is to distinguish ‘ontological’ or ‘metaphysical’ versions – those that recognize only ‘physical’ or ‘material’ or ‘scientific’ items, eschewing, for example, angels or abstracta – from ‘epistemological’ or ‘methodological’ versions – those that recognize only ‘empirical’ or ‘scientific’ ways of finding out about the world, eschewing, for example, revelation – but these broad categories contain multitudes. So the task of explicating the current state of naturalism about logic is unusually daunting.</div><br /> <b>Xavier Parent: <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10992-024-09748-5.pdf">On Some Weakened Forms of Transitivity in the Logic of Conditional Obligation</a></b> (pdf, 19482 words)<br /> <div>This paper examines the logic of conditional obligation, which originates from the works of Hansson, Lewis, and others. Some weakened forms of transitivity of the betterness relation are studied. These are quasi-transitivity, Suzumura consistency, acyclicity and the interval order condition. The first three do not change the logic. The axiomatic system is the same whether or not they are introduced. This holds true under a rule of interpretation in terms of maximality and strong maximality. The interval order condition gives rise to a new axiom. Depending on the rule of interpretation, this one changes. With the rule of maximality, one obtains the principle known as disjunctive rationality. With the rule of strong maximality, one obtains the Spohn axiom (also known as the principle of rational monotony, or Lewis’ axiom CV). A completeness theorem further substantiates these observations. For interval order, this yields the finite model property and decidability of the calculus.</div><br /> Articles and blog posts found on 25 April 20242024-04-25T23:59:00Z2024-04-25T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-25://<b>Ammar Younas, Yi Zeng: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/YOUEPB.pdf">Exploring Parallels Between Islamic Theology And Technological Metaphors</a></b> (pdf, 4345 words)<br /> <div>As the scope of innovative technologies is expanding, their implications and applications are increasingly intersecting with various facets of society, including the deeply rooted traditions of religion. This paper embarks on an exploratory journey to bridge the perceived divide between advancements in technology and faith, aiming to catalyze a dialogue between the religious and scientific communities. The former often views technological progress through a lens of conflict rather than compatibility. By utilizing a technology-centric perspective, we draw metaphorical parallels between the functionalities of new technologies and some theological concepts of Islam. The purpose is not to reinterpret religious concepts but to illustrate how these two domains can coexist harmoniously. This comparative analysis serves as a conversation starter with an intention to mitigate any apprehensions towards technology by highlighting its potential to align with religious concepts. By fostering an environment where technological innovations are seen as tools for enhancement rather than threats to tradition, we contribute to a more inclusive discourse that encourages the religious community to engage with and potentially embrace contemporary technological advancements.</div><br /> <b>Christopher James Masterman: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/MASSWT.pdf">Some Ways the Ways the World Could Have Been Can't Be</a></b> (pdf, 15670 words)<br /> <div>Let <i>serious propositional contingentism</i> (SPC) be the package of views which consists in (i) the thesis that propositions expressed by sentences featuring terms depend, for their existence, on the existence of the referents of those terms, (ii) serious actualism— the view that it is impossible for an object to exemplify a property and not exist—and (iii) contingentism—the view that it is at least possible that some thing might not have been something. SPC is popular and compelling. But what should we say about possible worlds, if we accept SPC? Here, I first show that a natural view of possible worlds, well-represented in the literature, in conjunction with SPC is inadequate. Though I note various alternative ways of thinking about possible worlds in response to the first problem, I then outline a second more general problem—a master argument— which generally shows that any account of possible worlds meeting very minimal requirements will be inconsistent with compelling claims about <i>mere possibilia</i> which the serious propositional contingentist should accept.</div><br /> <b>Finnur Dellsén, Tina Firing, Insa Lawler, James Norton: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/DELWIP-6.pdf">What Is Philosophical Progress?</a></b> (pdf, 17574 words)<br /> <div>What is it for philosophy to make progress? While various putative forms of philosophical progress have been explored in some depth, this overarching question is rarely addressed explicitly, perhaps because it has been assumed to be intractable or unlikely to have a single, unified answer. In this paper, we aim to show that the question is tractable, that it does admit of a single, unified answer, and that one such answer is plausible. This answer is, roughly, that philosophical progress consists in putting people in a position to increase their understanding, where ‘increased understanding’ is a matter of better representing the network of dependence relations between phenomena. After identifying four desiderata for an account of philosophical progress, we argue that our account meets the desiderata in a particularly satisfying way. Among other things, the account explains how various other achievements, such as philosophical arguments, counterexamples, and distinctions, may contribute to progress. Finally, we consider the implications of our account for the pressing and contentious question of how much progress has been made in philosophy.</div><br /> <b>Ginger Schultheis: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHRIF-3.pdf">Reasonable Inferences for Counterfactuals</a></b> (pdf, 10538 words)<br /> <div>Transitivity, Simplification, and Contraposition are intuitively compelling. Although Antecedent Strengthening may seem less attractive at first, close attention to the full range of data reveals that it too has considerable appeal. An adequate theory of conditionals should account for these facts. The <b>strict theory</b> of conditionals does so by validating the four inferences. It says that natural language conditionals are necessitated material conditionals: A B is true if and only if A B is true throughout a set of accessible worlds. As a result, it validates many classical inferences, including Transitivity, Simplification, Contraposition, and Antecedent Strengthening. In what follows I will refer to these as the <b>strict inferences</b>.</div><br /> <b>J. Adam Carter, Jesús Navarro: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/CARFKY.pdf">Fake Knowledge-How</a></b> (pdf, 10072 words)<br /> <div>Knowledge, like other things of value, can be faked. According to Hawley (2011), know-how is harder to fake than knowledge-that, given that merely apparent propositional knowledge is in general more resilient to our attempts at successful detection than are corresponding attempts to fake know-how. While Hawley’s reasoning for a kind of detection resilience asymmetry between know-how and know-that looks initially plausible, it should ultimately be resisted. In showing why, we outline different ways in which know-how can be faked even when a given performance is successful; and in doing so, we distinguish how know-how can be faked (no less than know-that) via upstream and downstream indicators of its presence, and within each of these categories, we’ll distinguish (in connection with detection resilience) both faking symptoms and (various kinds of) criteria. The unappreciated resilience of faked knowledge-how to successful detection highlights a largely overlooked dimension of social-epistemic risk – risk we face not just in our capacity as recipients of testimony, but in our capacity as both (would-be) apprentices and clients of knowledge-how.</div><br /> <b>Nicholas Colgrove: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/COLDTD-6.pdf">Defending the Doctrine of the Mean Against Counterexamples: A General Strategy</a></b> (pdf, 11304 words)<br /> <div>Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean states that each moral virtue stands opposed to two types of vice: one of excess and one of deficiency, respectively. Critics claim that some virtues—like honesty, fair-mindedness, and patience—are counterexamples to Aristotle’s doctrine. Here, I develop a generalizable strategy to defend the doctrine of the mean against such counterexamples. I argue that not only is the doctrine of the mean defensible, but taking it seriously also allows us to gain substantial insight into particular virtues. Failure to take the doctrine seriously, moreover, exposes us to the risk of mistaking certain vices for virtues.</div><br /> <b>Ted Poston: <a href="http://tedposton.org/Documents/bias.pdf">Review of Thomas Kelly *Bias*</a></b> (pdf, 1773 words)<br /> <div>Accusations of bias provide a way to rationally dismiss a person’s opinion. Only a philosopher would think that philosophers should rule. Consequently, we should hold with suspicion Plato’s arguments suggesting that the rightful leader will be a philosopher. Attributions of bias are as common as accusations of bias. A coin, a voting system, a thermometer, a media outlet, a person, and a society may all exhibit bias. Sometimes a bias may be a good thing. The visual system has a bias to resolve ambiguous data in a way that produces true beliefs in our environment.</div><br /> <b>Alexander Pruss's Blog: <a href="http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2024/04/brain-snatching-is-not-model-of-life.html">Brain snatching is not a model of life after death</a></b> (html, 422 words)<br /> <div>Van Inwagen infamously suggested the possibility that at the moment of death God snatches a core chunk of our brain, transports it to a different place, replaces it with a fake chunk of brain, and rebuilds the body around the transported chunk. &hellip;</div><br /> Articles and blog posts found on 24 April 20242024-04-24T23:59:00Z2024-04-24T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-24://<b>David Makinson: <a href="https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/axioms/axioms-13-00287/article_deploy/axioms-13-00287.pdf?version=1713938519">Display Conventions for Octagons of Opposition</a></b> (pdf, 8035 words)<br /> <div>As usually presented, octagons of opposition are rather complex objects and can be difficult to assimilate at a glance. We show how, under suitable conditions that are satisfied by most historical examples, different display conventions can simplify the diagrams, making them easier for readers to grasp without the loss of information. Moreover, those conditions help reveal the conceptual structure behind the visual display.</div><br /> <b>Stephanie Collins: <a href="https://stephaniecollinsxyz.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/states-culpability-through-time.pdf">States’ Culpability Through Time</a></b> (pdf, 11885 words)<br /> <div>Consider contemporary injustices against Indigenous peoples in settler-colonies, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. These injustices have a historical dimension: they can be traced to actions of invasion, dispossession, and genocide that occurred hundreds of years ago. The moral status of the ongoing injustices depends, in part, on their historical dimensions: it matters, morally, that the contemporary injustices are perpetrated against people whose ancestors were here first and whose sovereignty was violated. But who bears culpability for those historical wrongs? Is culpability borne merely by the individuals involved, who are now long-dead? Are those long-ago actions attributable to the ideology of the time, which persists in various ways but which seems to lack the agency necessary for culpability? Or are there presently-existing agents that bear culpability?</div><br /> <b>Alexander Pruss's Blog: <a href="http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-small-disability.html">A small disability</a></b> (html, 972 words)<br /> <div>On the mere difference view of disability, one isn’t worse off for being disabled as such, though one is worse off due to ableist arrangements in society. A standard observation is that the mere difference view doesn’t work for really big disabilities. &hellip;</div><br /> Articles and blog posts found on 23 April 20242024-04-23T23:59:00Z2024-04-23T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-23://<b>Alexander Blanchard, Claudio Novelli, Luciano Floridi, Mariarosaria Taddeo: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/BLAARR.pdf">A Risk-Based Regulatory Approach to Autonomous Weapon Systems</a></b> (pdf, 8541 words)<br /> <div>International regulation of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) is increasingly conceived as an exercise in risk management. This requires a shared approach for assessing the risks of AWS. This paper presents a structured approach to risk assessment and regulation for AWS, adapting a qualitative framework inspired by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It examines the interactions among key risk factors—determinants, drivers, and types—to evaluate the risk magnitude of AWS and establish risk tolerance thresholds through a risk matrix informed by background knowledge of event likelihood and severity. Further, it proposes a methodology to assess community risk appetite, emphasizing that such assessments and resulting tolerance levels should be determined through deliberation in a multistakeholder forum. The paper highlights the complexities of applying risk-based regulations to AWS internationally, particularly the challenge of defining a global community for risk assessment and regulatory legitimization.</div><br /> <b>Basil Müller: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23311/1/EvoEN%20Preprint.docx">Coordination in Social Learning: Expanding the Narrative on the Evolution of Social Norms</a></b> (doc, 15857 words)<br /> <div>A shared narrative in the literature on the evolution of cooperation maintains that social <i>learning</i> evolves early to allow for the transmission of cumulative culture. Social <i>norms</i>, whilst present at the outset, only rise to prominence later on, mainly to stabilise cooperation against the threat of defection.</div><br /> <b>Christoph Hueck: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23292/1/Empirical%20Access%20to%20Life's%20Telological%20Forces.pdf">Empirical Access to Life’s Teleological Forces via an Active and Co-Constitutive Relation between Subject and Object</a></b> (pdf, 6770 words)<br /> <div>This article proposes an approach to understanding life that overcomes reductionist and dualist approaches. Kant’s analysis of the conditions of knowing an organism shows that attempts to explain its teleology and autopoiesis from the interactions of its components is problematic. Based on an analysis by Van de Vijver and colleagues, a co-constitutive relationship between the cognitive activities of the observer and the living features of the organism is described. Using the example of a developmental series, it is shown that within this active relational process, both autopoiesis and teleology of the organism manifest themselves on the mental level of the observer. The Kantian mode of objectification, which refers to the sensually perceptible appearance of an organism, can be supplemented by an active mode of relational objectification that encompasses the life of the organism. The analysis introduces a phenomenological first-person perspective on the study of life &#34;from within&#34;, which enables an empirical investigation of the vital properties of an organism.</div><br /> <b>Constant Bonard, Filippo Contesi, Teresa Marques: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/BONTDO-23.pdf">The Defectiveness of Propaganda</a></b> (pdf, 9598 words)<br /> <div>We argue that, in the predominant sense of the term, propaganda is a necessarily negative phenomenon. We follow Ross’s (2002) account and claim that, with some refinements, it is an explanatorily useful analysis of political propaganda. We then assess two prominent attempts that aim at classifying positive or legitimate cases of public communication as cases of propaganda, namely Ross’s (2013) revision of her previous model, and Stanley’s (2015) influential account. We show that some of the cases in contention are problematic and that no satisfactory reasons are provided to count other nonproblematic cases as propaganda. We also argue that the arguments these authors offer for their revisionary understanding of propaganda are inconclusive. In particular, the motivation for counting legitimate public communication as propaganda is lacking.</div><br /> <b>Hinna Khaan: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23308/1/Nothingness%20and%20Paraconsistent%20Logic.pdf">Nothingness and Paraconsistent Logic</a></b> (pdf, 4268 words)<br /> <div>This paper explores the concept of &#34;Nothingness&#34; and its connection to Graham Priest's paraconsistent logic, with a critical focus on Heidegger's ontological perspective. Heidegger argues that logic and ontology are incompatible, and truth extends beyond mere propositions, tied to the indescribable experience of &#34;Nothing.&#34; He contends that logical rules are not essential for ontological truth, leading to two conceptions of truth: fundamental and propositional. The study delves into this profound examination, considering the implications for understanding truth and the limitations of logic in grasping the elusive aspects of existence.</div><br /> <b>Kyle van Oosterum: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/VANFSP-3.docx">Future Selves, Paternalism and Our Rational Powers</a></b> (doc, 6699 words)<br /> <div>This paper challenges the two aims of Michael Cholbi’s Rational Will View (RWV) which are to (1) offer an account of why paternalism is presumptively or pro tanto wrong and (2) relate the relative wrongness of paternalistic interventions to the rational powers that such interventions target <b>(Sections 1 and 2).</b> Some of a paternalizee’s choices harm their future selves in ways that would be wrong if they were done to others. I claim this challenges Cholbi’s second aim (2) because the cases his account deems particularly wrong turn out to be <i>not</i> to be as wrongful as expected <b>(Section 3).</b> When this second aim is challenged, it has knock-on effects on the capacity of the RWV to discern which cases of paternalism are generally more wrongful than others, which undermines Cholbi’s first aim (1). I consider responses on behalf of Cholbi’s view but conclude that the account is insufficient on its own to vindicate its two aims <b>(Section 4).</b> Finally, I draw on recent work that adopts ideas from the practical reasoning literature to help determine paternalism’s wrongness <b>(Section 5).</b> I argue this helps Cholbi’s view withstand my objections, but we must remain skeptical of why interceding with rational powers is particularly wrong.</div><br /> <b>Leszek Wronski, Zalán Gyenis: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23293/1/Serving_two_epistemic_masters.pdf">How to serve two epistemic masters</a></b> (pdf, 6149 words)<br /> <div>We extend a result by Gallow concerning the impossibility of following two epistemic masters, so that it covers a larger class of pooling methods. We also investigate a few ways of avoiding the issue, such as using nonconvex pooling methods, employing the notion of imperfect trust or moving to higher-order probability spaces. Along the way we suggest a conceptual issue with the conditions used by Gallow: whenever two experts are considered, whether we can trust one of them is decided by the features of the other!</div><br /> <b>Marissa LeBlanc, Jon Williamson, Francesco De Pretis, Jürgen Landes, Elena Rocca: <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/105678/1/Individual%20consent%20in%20cluster%20randomised%20trials%20for%20non-pharmaceutical%20interventions%20%20going%20beyond%20the%20Ottawa%20statement.pdf">Individual consent in cluster randomised trials for non-pharmaceutical interventions: going beyond the Ottawa statement</a></b> (pdf, 5740 words)<br /> <div>If you have questions about this document contact ResearchSupport@kent.ac.uk. Please include the URL of the record in KAR. If you believe that your, or a third party's rights have been compromised through this document please see our Take Down policy (available from https://www.kent.ac.uk/guides/kar-the-kent-academic-repository#policies).</div><br /> <b>Matteo Colombo: <a href="https://mteocolphi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/at-what-price_new-copia.pdf">For a Few Neurons More. Tractability and Neurally-Informed Economic Modelling</a></b> (pdf, 10077 words)<br /> <div><b></b> There continues to be significant confusion about the goals, scope and nature of modelling practice in neuroeconomics. This paper aims to dispel some such confusion by using one of the most recent critiques of neuroeconomic modelling as a foil. The paper argues for two claims. First, currently, for at least some economic model of choice behaviour, the benefits derivable from neurally-informing an economic model do not involve special tractability costs. Second, modelling in neuroeconomics is best understood within Marr’s three-level of analysis framework and in light of a co-evolutionary research ideology. The first claim is established by elucidating the relationship between the tractability of a model, its descriptive accuracy, and its number of variables. The second claim relies on an explanation of what it can take to neurally-inform an economic model of choice behaviour.</div><br /> <b>Matthew Bennett: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/BENSVE-2.pdf">Social Virtue Epistemology</a></b> (pdf, 1748 words)<br /> <div>Here are some things we know about conflicts around the world in April 2024. On 7 October 2023 Hamas killed over 1200 people in Israel and took more than 240 hostage. In response Israel launched an assault on Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and displaced millions. Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine continue; since 2022 Russia has repeatedly ignored international humanitarian law, tortured and murdered civilians, and destroyed basic infrastructure in civilian areas. Civil war continues in Sudan, and the country faces imminent famine. Approximately 25 million people in Sudan need humanitarian assistance.</div><br /> <b>Mehrzad Ali Moin: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/MOIRTD.docx">Reconsidering Taylor's Design Argument</a></b> (doc, 8872 words)<br /> <div>Contemporary philosophers have largely neglected Richard Taylor’s design argument. Given that the initial responses to the argument were largely negative, one might be tempted to conclude that the argument is simply philosophically inadequate. This paper rejects that conclusion by showing how Taylor’s argument has been misunderstood by his critics. In defending Taylor, it is shown that the two types of objections levied against him fail to even blemish his design argument, let alone refute it. Consideration is also given to the argument’s historical lineage, along with a proposal for future considerations of the connection between epistemological realism and design.</div><br /> <b>Alexander Pruss's Blog: <a href="http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2024/04/value-and-aptness-for-moral-concern.html">Value and aptness for moral concern</a></b> (html, 920 words)<br /> <div>In two recent posts (this and this) I argued that dignity does not arise from value. I think the general point here goes beyond value. Some entities are more apt for being morally concerned about than others. &hellip;</div><br /> <b>D. G. Mayo's blog: <a href="https://errorstatistics.com/2024/04/23/5-year-review-b-haig-tas-2019-update-on-p-values-and-significance-asa-iiguest-post/">5-year Review: B. Haig: [TAS] 2019 update on P-values and significance (ASA II)(Guest Post)</a></b> (html, 1452 words)<br /> <div>This is the guest post by Bran Haig on July 12, 2019 in response to the “abandon statistical significance” editorial in The American Statistician (TAS) by Wasserstein, Schirm, and Lazar (WSL 2019). In the post it is referred to as ASAII with a note added once we learned that it is actually not a continuation of the 2016 ASA policy statement. &hellip;</div><br /> <b>Good Thoughts: <a href="https://rychappell.substack.com/p/what-am-i-most-wrong-about">What am I most wrong about?</a></b> (html, 1317 words)<br /> <div>A year ago, I wrote a post lamenting the lack of “cross-camp” engagement in philosophy, and highlighting the challenges I’d most like to see addressed (by non-consequentialists, opponents of effective altruism, and proponents of “neutrality” in population ethics). &hellip;</div><br /> Articles and blog posts found on 22 April 20242024-04-22T23:59:00Z2024-04-22T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-22://<b>James Hart: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/HARLAN-2.pdf">Limited Aggregation’s Non-Fatal Non-Dilemma</a></b> (pdf, 8927 words)<br /> <div>Limited aggregationists argue that when deciding between competing claims to aid we are sometimes required and sometimes forbidden from aggregating weaker claims to outweigh stronger claims. Joe Horton presents a ‘fatal dilemma’ for these views. Views that land on the First Horn of his dilemma suggest that a previously losing group strengthened by fewer and weaker claims can be more choice-worthy than the previously winning group strengthened by more and stronger claims. Views that land on the Second Horn suggest that combining two losing groups together and two winning groups together can turn the losing groups into the winning groups and the winning groups into the losing groups. This paper demonstrates that the ‘fatal dilemma’ is neither fatal nor a dilemma. The First Horn is devastating but avoidable and the Second Horn is unavoidable but not devastating. Nevertheless, Horton’s argument does help to narrow down the acceptable range of views.</div><br /> <b>Keith DeRose: <a href="https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/c/1227/files/2024/04/3H-4-21-2024-cfa70ac7aa2b9d05.pdf">Horrific Suffering, Divine Hiddenness, and Hell: The Place of Freedom in a World Governed by God</a></b> (pdf, 95582 words)<br /> <div><i><b>Part One: A Powerful Problem ............................................................................................. 1</b></i> 1. A Brief Look at Where We’re Going: The Problem of Horrific Suffering, Two Other Forms of the Problem of Evil, and the Place of Human Free Will in a World Governed by a Wholly Good God ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1</div><br /> <b>T. Parent: <a href="http://tparent.net/SKCredences.pdf">Knowledge of One's Own Credences</a></b> (pdf, 9368 words)<br /> <div>This paper has two parts: Part I discusses a problem concerning subjective probabilities. Part II outlines a partial solution to the problem, mainly by defending a kind of “transparency” thesis concerning knowledge of one’s own judgments. Part I will primarily be of interest to those who take seriously the notion of subjective probability. (This need not imply that it is the most important notion, but rather just that it is worthwhile.) Part II will appeal primarily to those interested in knowledge about one’s own mental states. But hopefully, those who are attracted to Part I will be drawn into Part II as well, given that latter bears on the problem from the former. Indeed, the main message will be that the theory of subjective probability can benefit substantially by adopting a transparency view of self-knowledge.</div><br /> <b>Alexander Pruss's Blog: <a href="http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2024/04/does-culpable-ignorance-excuse.html">Does culpable ignorance excuse?</a></b> (html, 1252 words)<br /> <div>It is widely held that if you do wrong in culpable ignorance (ignorance that you are blameworthy for), you are culpable for the wrong you do. I have long though think this is mistaken—instead we should frontload the guilt onto the acts and omissions that made one culpable for the ignorance. &hellip;</div><br /> Articles and blog posts found on 21 April 20242024-04-21T23:59:00Z2024-04-21T23:59:00ZPhilosophical Progresstag:www.philosophicalprogress.org,2024-04-21://<b>David Thorstad: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/THOJOP.pdf">The zetetic turn and the procedural turn</a></b> (pdf, 10573 words)<br /> <div>Epistemology has taken a zetetic turn from the study of belief towards the study of inquiry. Several decades ago, theories of bounded rationality took a procedural turn from attitudes towards the processes of inquiry that produce them. What is the relationship between the zetetic and procedural turns? In this paper, I argue that we should treat the zetetic turn in epistemology as part of a broader procedural turn in the study of bounded rationality. I use this claim to motivate and clarify the zetetic turn in epistemology, as well as to reveal the need for a second zetetic turn within practical philosophy.</div><br /> <b>David Wallace: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23307/1/wallace_rp%20for%20archive.pdf">Real Patterns in Physics and Beyond</a></b> (pdf, 9395 words)<br /> <div>I apply Dennett’s ‘real patterns’ idea to the ontology of physics, and specifically to the puzzle of how to relate the very different ontologies one finds at different scales in physics (e.g. particles vs continua, or fields vs particles). I argue that real patterns provide part but not all of the answer to the puzzle, and locate the rest of the answer in the structural-realist idea that ontology in general is secondary to (mathematically-presented) structure. I make some suggestions for the application of these ideas outside physics, including in the philosophy of mind context that motivated Dennett’s original proposal.</div><br /> <b>Hanoch Ben-Yami: <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/BENTVD.pdf">The Vienna Declaration on The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness</a></b> (pdf, 248 words)<br /> <div>We, the signatories of this declaration, express our disagreement with the views stated in The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (NYDAC). First, there is strong philosophical support for the attribution of a confused concept of consciousness to the NYDAC Signatories (NYDACS). Their concept is a derivative of Descartes’ conception of perception, based on his claim that colours, sounds, and other qualities we perceive are in the mind – this mind probably identified by many if not all NYDACS with the brain. Descartes’ reasons were all flawed, and no valid reason has since been provided to support his position or any of its descendants, including the NYDACS’s.</div><br /> <b>Joeri Witteveen: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23304/1/2024%20GSSTMT%20Preprint.pdf">Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time</a></b> (pdf, 18672 words)<br /> <div>Chronostratigraphy is the subfield of geology that studies the relative age of rock strata and that aims at producing a hierarchical classification of (global) divisions of the historical time-rock record. The ‘golden spike’ or ‘GSSP’ approach is the cornerstone of contemporary chronostratigraphic methodology. It is also perplexing. Chronostratigraphers define each global time-rock boundary extremely locally, often by driving a gold-colored pin into an exposed rock section at a particular level. Moreover, they usually avoid rock sections that show any meaningful sign of paleontological disruption or geological discontinuity: the less obvious the boundary, the better. It has been argued that we can make sense of this practice of marking boundaries by comparing the status and function of golden spikes to that of other concrete, particular reference standards from other sciences: holotypes from biological taxonomy and measurement prototypes from the metrology of weight and measures. Alisa Bokulich (2020b) has argued that these ‘scientific types’ are in an important sense one of a kind: they have a common status and function. I will argue that this picture of high-level conceptual unity is mistaken and fails to consider the diversity of aims and purposes of standardization and classification across the sciences. I develop an alternative, disunified account of scientific types that shows how differences in ontological attitudes and epistemic aims inform scientists’ choices between different kinds of scientific types. This perspective on scientific types helps to make sense of an intriguing mid-twentieth-century debate among chronostratigraphers about the very nature of their enterprise. Should chronostratigraphers conventionally <i>make</i> boundaries by designating golden spikes, or should they attempt to <i>mark</i> pre-existing ‘natural’ boundaries with the help of a different kind of scientific type?</div><br /> <b>Mirko Farina, Andrea Lavazza, Sergei Levin: <a href="https://diametros.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/download/1892/1799">Pushing The Boundaries of The Quarantine Model: Philosophical Concerns and Policy Implications</a></b> (pdf, 8381 words)<br /> <div><b></b>The quarantine model, recently proposed by Pereboom and Caruso, is one of the most influential models developed to date in the context of criminal justice. The quarantine model challenges the very idea of criminal punishment and asserts that nobody deserves punishment on a fundamental level. Instead, in order to deal with offenders, it proposes a series of incapacitation measures based on public safety concerns. In this article, we examine several objections to the quarantine model that demonstrate how, in our view, it can be improved. These mainly pertain to (2.1) the difficulty of reliably identifying dangerous individuals and consequently the need to base confinement decisions on probability, and (2.2) the potential for the quarantine model not to properly deter certain crimes. Three additional objections are raised with respect to (3.1) the rights that are potentially suppressed in the quarantine model; (3.2) the role of “genetic justice”; and (3.3) the difficulty it faces accommodating reasons-responsiveness. Whereas these objections do not constitute knock-down arguments against the quarantine model, they highlight issues that invite closer scrutiny, at least if it is to be considered as a credible framework for the development of viable policies in criminal justice.</div><br /> <b>Neil Dewar: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23302/1/0.1-HoleArgument.pdf">The Hole Argument and Determinism(s)</a></b> (pdf, 9571 words)<br /> <div>This paper does two things. First, it reviews the recent debate between Halvorson and Manchak (2022) and Menon and Read (2024), looking for a reading of the former that is sympathetic to the concerns of the latter. Second, it considers whether there is a notion of determinism for spacetime theories that is adequate for the purposes of (Halvorson &amp; Manchak, 2022); it concludes that there is not, but that we learn much of interest by considering the question.</div><br /> <b>Robert van Leeuwen: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23305/7/1-s2.0-S0039368124000207-main.pdf">From S-matrix theory to strings: Scattering data and the commitment to non-arbitrariness</a></b> (pdf, 22688 words)<br /> <div>The early history of string theory is marked by a shift from strong interaction physics to quantum gravity. The first string models and associated theoretical framework were formulated in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the context of the <i>S</i>-matrix program for the strong interactions. In the mid-1970s, the models were reinterpreted as a potential theory unifying the four fundamental forces. This paper provides a historical analysis of how string theory was developed out of <i>S</i>-matrix physics, aiming to clarify how modern string theory, as a theory detached from experimental data, grew out of an <i>S</i>-matrix program that was strongly dependent upon observable quantities. Surprisingly, the theoretical practice of physicists already turned away from experiment <i>before</i> string theory was recast as a potential unified quantum gravity theory. With the formulation of dual resonance models (the hadronic string theory ), physicists were able to determine almost all of the models parameters on the basis of theoretical reasoning. It was this commitment to non-arbitrariness , i.e., a lack of free parameters in the theory, that initially drove string theorists away from experimental input, and <i>not</i> the practical inaccessibility of experimental data in the context of quantum gravity physics. This is an important observation when assessing the role of experimental data in string theory.</div><br /> <b>Simon Saunders: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23306/1/Finite%20Frequentism%20archive.pdf">Finite frequentism explains quantum probability</a></b> (pdf, 12383 words)<br /> <div>I show that frequentism, as an explanation of probability in classical statistical mechanics, can be extended in a natural way to a decoherent quantum history space, the analogue of a classical phase space. The result is further a form of <i>finite</i> frequentism, in which Gibbs’ concept of an infinite ensemble of gases is replaced by the total quantum state expressed in terms of the decoherence basis, as defined by the history space. It is a form of finite and <i>actual</i> frequentism (as opposed to hypothetical frequentism), insofar as all the microstates exist, in keeping with the decoherence-based Everett interpretation, and some versions of pilot-wave theory.</div><br /> <b>Vincent Lam, Daniele Oriti: <a href="https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23301/1/QGseedsLaws.pdf">The quantum gravity seeds for laws of nature</a></b> (pdf, 9439 words)<br /> <div>We discuss the challenges that the standard (Humean and non-Humean) accounts of laws face within the framework of quantum gravity where space and time may not be fundamental. This paper identifies core (meta)physical features that cut across a number of quantum gravity approaches and formalisms and that provide seeds for articulating updated conceptions that could account for QG laws not involving any spatio-temporal notions. To this aim, we will in particular highlight the constitutive roles of quantum entanglement, quantum transition amplitudes and quantum causal histories. These features also stress the fruitful overlap between quantum gravity and quantum information theory. Keywords: spacetime, laws of nature, quantum gravity, quantum entanglement, transition amplitude, quantum causal histories.</div><br /> <b>Mostly Aesthetics: <a href="https://mostly.substack.com/p/naive-sprung-rhythm">Naive Sprung Rhythm</a></b> (html, 1380 words)<br /> <div>Metric poetry is rhythmic language laid above, and to some degree matching, an underlying pulse. If you do not know where in that pulse you are, you may mangle the verse. In iambic pentameter the pulse is easy: five strong beats, separated by weaker off-beats. &hellip;</div><br />