Parental effects are a major source of phenotypic plasticity and may influence offspring phenotype in concert with environmental demands. Studies of “environmental epigenetics” suggest that (1) DNA methylation states are variable and that both demethylation and remethylation occur in post‐mitotic cells, and (2) that remodeling of DNA methylation can occur in response to environmentally driven intracellular signaling pathways. Studies of mother‐offspring interactions in rodents suggest that parental signals influence the DNA methylation, leading to stable changes in gene expression. If parental (...) effects do indeed enhance the “match” between prevailing environmental demands and offspring phenotype, then the potential for variation in environmental conditions over time would suggest a mechanism that requires active maintenance across generations through parental signaling. We suggest that parental regulation of DNA methylation states is thus an ideal candidate mechanism for parental effects on phenotypic variation. (shrink)

Recently Robert B. Talisse has put forth a socio-epistemic justification of liberal democracy that he believes qualifies as a public justification in that it purportedly can be endorsed by all reasonable individuals. In avoiding narrow restraints on reasonableness, Talisse argues that he has in fact proposed a justification that crosses the boundaries of a wide range of religious, philosophical and moral worldviews and in this way the justification is sufficiently pluralistic to overcome the challenges of reasonable pluralism familiar from Rawls. (...) The fascinating argument that Talisse furthers is that when cognitively functional individuals reflect on some of their most basic epistemic commitments they will come to see that, in virtue of these commitments, they are also committed to endorsing key liberal democratic institutions. We argue that the socio-epistemic justification can be reasonably rejected on its own terms and thus fails as a public justification approach. This point is made by illustrating the significance of deep epistemic disagreements in liberal democracies. (shrink)

The proposition that selective advantages of linguistic skills have contributed to shifts in ontogenetic landmarks of human life histories in early Homo sapiens is weakened by neglecting alternative mechanisms of life history evolution. Moreover, arguments about biological continuity through sweeping comparisons with nonhuman primates do not support various assumptions of this scenario.

The unconscious-thought effect occurs when distraction improves complex decision making. Recent studies suggest that this effect is more likely to occur with low- than high-demanding distraction tasks. We discuss implications of these findings for Newell & Shanks' (N&S's) claim that evidence is lacking for the intervention of unconscious processes in complex decision making.

Should scientific facts and methods have an epistemically privileged status in public reason? In Rawls’s public reason account he asserts what we will label the Scientific Standard Stricture: citizens engaged in public reason must be guided by non-controversial scientific methods, and public reason must be in line with non-controversial scientific conclusions. The Scientific Standard Stricture is meant to fulfill important tasks such as enabling the determinateness and publicity of the public reason framework. However, Rawls leaves us without elucidation with regard (...) to when science is and is not ‘non-controversial’ and more importantly, we are left without a justification for a stricture which excludes certain controversial beliefs and methods of inquiry from the realm of political justification. In this article, we offer what we deem to be the most plausible interpretation of Rawls’s Scientific Standards Stricture. We then use Rawls’s general theoretical framework to examine various potential justifications for privileging these ‘non-controversial’ scientific methods and conclusions. We conclude that no viable justification is available to Rawls. (shrink)

On a souvent résumé la présence importante des avocats dans la vie politique française sous la III e République à travers l’expression de « République des avocats. » De manière plus complexe, il s’agit de montrer comment les avocats sont au cœur, dans les premières décennies de la République, de la construction d’un champ politique marquée par la codification des règles électorales et une certaine démocratisation du personnel politique. Dans les décennies qui suivent, on note une diversification des formes d’investissement (...) du barreau en politique, moins marqué par l’investissement dans le champ politique proprement dit que par l’engagement à travers la défense judiciaire de causes. (shrink)

This article argues that many situations in social life can be analyzed by their requirement for the justification of action. It is in particular in situations of dispute that a need arises to explicate the grounds on which responsibility for errors is distributed and on which new agreement can be reached. Since a plurality of mutually incompatible modes of justification exists, disputes can be understood as disagreements either about whether the accepted rule of justification has not been violated or about (...) which mode of justification to apply at all. The article develops a grammar of such modes of justification, called orders of worth (grandeur), and argues that the human capacity for criticism becomes visible in the daily occurrence of disputes over criteria for justification. At the same time, it is underlined that not all social situations can be interpreted with the help of such a sense of justice, which resides on a notion of equivalence. Regimes of love, of violence or of familiarity are systematically distinct from regimes of justification. (shrink)

In deep disagreements local disagreements are intertwined with more general basic disagreements about the relevant evidence, standards of argument or proper methods of inquiry in that domain. The paper provides a more specific conception of deep disagreement along these lines and argues that while we should generally conciliate in cases of disagreement, this is not so in deep disagreements. The paper offers a general view of disagreement, holding roughly that one should moderate one’s credence towards uncertainty in so far as (...) disagreement with others provides undefeated higher order evidence that one might have made a mistake in one’s appreciation of the first order evidence. When applying this view to deep disagreement we get that in cases of deep disagreement higher order evidence from disagreement is rebutted or undercut by the nature of the disagreement. So, in cases of deep disagreement one should not moderate one’s credence. I finally argue that this gives a better general view of deep disagreement than views appealing to epistemic peers, personal information or independence. (shrink)

In this article we discuss what we call the deliberative division of epistemic labor. We present evidence that the human tendency to engage in motivated reasoning in defense of our beliefs can facilitate the occurrence of divisions of epistemic labor in deliberations among people who disagree. We further present evidence that these divisions of epistemic labor tend to promote beliefs that are better supported by the evidence. We show that promotion of these epistemic benefits stands in tension with what extant (...) theories in epistemology take rationality to require in cases of disagreement. We argue that the epistemic benefits that result from the deliberative division of epistemic labor can provide epistemic reason to maintain confidence in cases of disagreement. We then show that the deliberative division of epistemic labor constitutes a distinct kind of epistemic dependence. (shrink)

We sometimes disagree not only about facts, but also about how best to acquire evidence or justified beliefs within the domain of facts that we disagree about. And sometimes we have no dispute-independent ways of settling what the best ways of acquiring evidence in these domains are. Following Michael Lynch, I call this phenomenon deep disagreement. In the paper, I outline various forms of deep disagreement, following but also in certain respects revising and expanding Lynch’s exposition in (2010, 2012). As (...) is well known, for the externalist about knowledge and epistemic justification deep disagreements may be nothing more than an unfortunate failure of communication. Yet, though he grants this, Lynch argues that deep disagreement points to a sort of practical problem. I agree. In my paper I propose a revised account of the sort of practical problem that deep disagreement may pose. In short, my claim is that deep disagreement may be a problem due to the role that shared factual beliefs may have in common decision-making. I discuss and assess various reactions to the problem of deep disagreement, including the one proposed by Lynch. I argue that none of the solutions discussed in the paper are satisfactory. (shrink)

Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts. While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender‐diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex. On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions (...) species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species. We argue that the biological definition of the sexes remains central to recognising the diversity of life. Humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender are different from non‐human animals and plants in this respect. Denying the concept of biological sex, for whatever cause, ultimately erodes scientific progress and may open the flood gates to “alternative truths.”. (shrink)

This book presents a state-of-the-art multidisciplinary perspective on psychological, physiological and computational approaches to understanding the ...

Nous montrons dans cet article comment les approches dynamiques en logique contemporaine ont retrouvé, quoique sous d ’ autres attendus, une configuration théorique qu ’ on peut attribuer à Aristote au moment de la rédaction des Topiques. Dans cette configuration, la logique et la rhétorique – ou au moins la dialectique – se complètent dans le cadre conceptuel homogène offert par la dialectique, entendue comme une certaine forme relativement codifiée de débat critique. L ’ idée principale est qu ’ aujourd (...) ’ hui, de même qu ’ alors, la dialectique est le cadre dans lequel il est possible de penser le rapport entre la logique et les formes générales de l ’ argumentation d ’ une part, et entre la logique et la théorie de la connaissance scientifique d ’ autre part. (shrink)

In an influential article, Simon C. May forcefully argued that, properly understood, there can never be principled reasons for moral compromise. While there may be pragmatic reasons for compromising that involve, for instance, concern for political expediency or for stability, there are properly speaking no principled reasons to compromise. My aim in the article is to show how principled moral compromise in the context of moral disagreements over policy options is possible. I argue that when we disagree, principled reasons favoring (...) compromises or compromising can assume a more significant part of what makes a position all things considered best, and in this way disagreement can ground moral compromise. (shrink)

Eternal recurrence and the principle of economy in Nietzscheʼs thought. This paper explores the place that the principle of parsimony occupies in Nietzscheʼs thought. I argue that the principle of parsimony is one of the criteria that allow Nietzsche to organize the many different interpretations available to us into a hierarchy. The question is whether Nietzsche can justify the use of this principle without making it a petitio principii. Oddly enough, it seems that eternal recurrence has a role to play (...) in this context. The most important problem Nietzsche has to confront is the problem of circularity. Bringing together Nietzsche’s specific conception of truth with the problem of eternal recurrence allows us to recognize that circularity provides for access to a higher density of the real. (shrink)

Suppose we have a persistent disagreement about a particular set of policy options, not because of an underlying moral disagreement, or a mere conflict of interest, but rather because we disagree about a crucial non-normative factual assumption underlying the justification of the policy choices. The main question in the paper is what political legitimacy requires in such cases, or indeed whether there are defensible answers to that question. The problem of political legitimacy in fact-dependent policy disagreements has received almost no (...) attention in political philosophy, which has focused mostly on value disagreements and proposed theories of legitimate coercive legislation in valuedependent disagreements. The paper presents an argument showing that under certain plausible assumptions regarding legitimacy, there are serious difficulties in identifying legitimate choices in fact-dependent policy disagreements. This may be unsurprising to political philosophers preoccupied with value-based disagreements, perhaps because it has been assumed that legitimacy-related concerns are irrelevant to fact-dependent policy disagreements. The paper argues that this response is premature. If we should care about legitimacy et al.l, then it is by no means clear why we should ignore issues of legitimacy in policy-disputes that depend on factual disagreements. The paper ends by defining a set of possibilities that merit further exploration in search of a theory of legitimacy in fact-dependent policy disagreements. (shrink)

This paper sketches a general account of how to respond in an epistemically rational way to moral disagreement. Roughly, the account states that when two parties, A and B, disagree as to whether p, A says p while B says not-p, this is higher-order evidence that A has made a cognitive error on the first-order level of reasoning in coming to believe that p. If such higher-order evidence is not defeated, then one rationally ought to reduce one’s confidence with respect (...) to the proposition in question. We term this the higher-order evidence account, and present it as a superior to what we might call standard conciliationism, which holds that when agents A and B disagree about p, and are epistemic peers, they should both suspend judgement about p or adjust their confidence towards the mean of A and B’s prior credences in p. Many have suspected that standard conciliationism is implausible and may have skeptical implications. After presenting the HOE account, we put it to work by applying it to a range of cases of moral disagreement, including those that have feature in recent debates assuming standard conciliationism. We show that the HOE account support reasonable, non-skeptical verdicts in a range of cases. Note that this is a paper on moral disagreement, not on the HOE account, thus the account is merely stated here, while defended more fully elsewhere. (shrink)

Laurent Henninger intervenant sur les « révolutions militaires » (notion située au carrefour du débat historique lancé dans les années 1980 par Geoffrey Parker – en polémique avec Jeremy Black – et du débat stratégique américain dans les années 1990) souligne que les avancées dans l’art de la guerre ont été depuis cinq siècles une des composantes majeures de la barbarisation et du totalitarisme. La notion de « révolution militaire » est aujourd’hui contestée par ceux qui y voient un (...) outil interprétatif de trop longue durée et lui préfèrent l’idée de « mutations militaires » (selon laquelle l’accumulation de changements millimétriques sur la longue durée débouche sur des ruptures). Après avoir passé en revue la première révolution militaire – XVe-XVIIe siècles – fondée sur la mise à distance de la cavalerie grâce à l’infanterie nouvelle, à l’artillerie du champ de bataille, Henninger s’interroge sur le critère discriminant pour qualifier les nouvelles guerres de la Renaissance (l’hyperviolence n’en est pas un à ses yeux) et voit dans les armes à feu la vraie rupture car elles influent de façon radicale sur la peur et le courage des combattants et sont source d’une véritable « inhumanité » dans la mesure où leur feu est « imparable ». Il insiste sur l’émergence d’un nouveau type de courage guerrier non archaïque et plus « stoïcien » marqué par l’acceptation de la mort. Dans cette perspective, l’« inhumanisation » technique porterait en elle la possibilité de la barbarisation. L. Henninger développe ensuite cette thèse à partir de l’examen des guerres mécanisées de la période 1860-1950 en s’attardant sur la guerre de Sécession puis sur la Grande Guerre. Il relie aussi la question du totalitarisme à la réflexion sur les « bombardements stratégiques massifs » et les débuts de la dissuasion nucléaire (terme qui ne s’impose que vers 1960). Il conclut en insistant sur le fait que, selon lui, la brutalisation des conflits naît toujours d’un retard de la pensée de la guerre et sur le paradoxe d’une culture occidentale qui produit en même temps barbarie de la guerre et codes qui tentent de l’enrayer. (shrink)

In 1885, the Austrian music critic and scholar Friedrich von Hausegger published his book “Die Musik als Ausdruck” (“Music as Expression”) which may be understood as an answer to Eduard Hanslick’s “Vom Musikalisch-Schönen” (“On the Musically Beautiful”, 1854). Unlike Hanslick, Hausegger takes the body as central to any adequate account of music. Hence Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, in particular his book “The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872), becomes a central reference for Hausegger. His treatise is a (...) detailed and systematic reconstruction of the probable development of musical expression. The new edition is the first to present the complete text of the second edition of 1887 (amended by Hausegger) in modern Latin typeface. (shrink)

Cognitive forms vary considerably as a human being detaches herself from what is closest and most personal and moves to communicate — in the broad sense of taking part in a common matter — across increasing relational distances. The article proposes to deal with the variety of cognitive formats which cannot `commonize' cognition to an equal degree, relating them to a set of regimes of engagement with the world that are identified in terms of the dependency between the human agent (...) and her environment. The good that engagement aims to guarantee orients how reality is grasped and specifies the format of what constitutes relevant information. This analysis offers new insight into the composition of communities as well as persons who have to cope with the plurality of cognitive formats and engagements from the very familiar to the most public. (shrink)

We all agree that democratic decision-making requires a factual input, and most of us assume that when the pertinent facts are not in plain view they should be furnished by well-functioning scientific institutions. But how should liberal democracy respond when apparently sincere, rational and well-informed citizens object to coercive legislation because it is based on what they consider a misguided trust in certain parts of science? Cases are familiar, the most prominent concerning climate science and evolution, but one may also (...) count GMO-skepticism and vaccine-skepticism, and there are plenty of others. The paper defends what I, borrowing an expression from Badiola, call Science as Public Reason, asserting roughly that some policy-relevant factual proposition P is part of public reason if and only if there is consensus about P among scientific experts in the relevant well-functioning scientific institutions. I defend this view against the controversiality objection claiming that scientific findings cannot in this general way pass as public reason as they are sometimes controversial among reasonable citizens. My preferred line of defense is what I call Dogmatism about Science as Public Reason, which roughly amounts to insisting on Science as Public Reason on the ground that it is a philosophically well-motivated view, while conceding that it may not be acceptable to all minimally rational and well-informed individuals. (shrink)

1. Fairness is about the just distribution of society's resources, and in ML, the main resource being distributed is model performance, e.g. the translation quality produced by machine translation...

The aim of the paper is to propose a way in which believing on trust can ground doxastic justification and knowledge. My focus will be the notion of trust that plays the role depicted by such cases as concerned Hardwig (J Philos 82:335–49, 1985; J Philos 88:693–708, 1991) in his early papers, papers that are often referenced in recent debates in social epistemology. My primary aim is not exegetical, but since it sometimes not so clear what Hardwig’s claims are, I (...) offer some remarks of interpretation that might be of interest. The main purpose of the paper, however, is this: following various cues in Hardwig’s writing, I specify certain epistemic properties of agents in social systems, such that, roughly speaking, for agents to know (or be justified in believing) what the ‘system knows’, social relations of epistemic trust between agents in the system are necessary. I will suggest that we can view this social form of epistemic trust as non-inferential dispositions to believe what some individual or other source of information asserts or transmits. When this disposition is discriminating and defeater-sensitive, it can ground knowledge and justification. Or, more cautiously, we should be sympathetic to this view if we are inclined to accept the core insight of process reliabilism. Finally, I will offer some remarks about how epistemic trust and epistemic reasons may relate on this picture. (shrink)

While modern theories of emotion emphasize the role of higher-order cognitive processes such as semantics in human emotion, much research into emotional learning has ignored the potential contribut...

The aim of the paper is to state a version of epistemic expressivism regarding knowledge, and to suggest how this expressivism about knowledge explains the value of knowledge. The paper considers how an account of the value of knowledge based on expressivism about knowledge responds to the Meno Problem, the Swamping Problem, and a variety of other questions that pertains to the value of knowledge, and the role of knowledge in our cognitive ecology.

The paper addresses the possibility of providing a meta-justification of what appears to be crucial epistemic desiderata involved in the method of reflective equilibrium. I argue that although the method of reflective equilibrium appears to be widely in use in moral theorising, the prospects of providing a meta-justification of crucial epistemic desiderata are rather bleak. Nor is the requirement that a meta-justification be provided obviously misguided. In addition, I briefly note some of the implications of these results for our use (...) of the method of reflective equilibrium and for the best interpretation of the method. (shrink)

Since the 1990s, the terms “Lamarckism” and “Lamarckian” have seen a significant resurgence in biological publications. The discovery of new molecular mechanisms have been interpreted as evidence supporting the reality and efficiency of the inheritance of acquired characters, and thus the revival of Lamarckism. The present paper aims at giving a critical evaluation of such interpretations. I argue that two types of arguments allow to draw a clear distinction between the genuine Lamarckian concept of inheritance of acquired characters and transgenerational (...) epigenetic inheritance. The first concerns the explanandum of the processes under consideration: molecular mechanisms of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance are understood as evolved products of natural selection. This means that the kind of inheritance of acquired characters they might be responsible for is an obligatory emergent feature of evolution, whereas traditional Lamarckisms conceived the inheritance of acquired characters as a property inherent in living matter itself. The second argument concerns the explanans of the inheritance of acquired characters: in light of current knowledge, epigenetic mechanisms are not able to drive adaptive evolution by themselves. Emergent Lamarckian phenomena would be possible if and only if individual epigenetic variation allowed the inheritance of acquired characters to be a factor of unlimited change. This implies specific requirements for epigenetic variation, which I explicitly define and expand upon. I then show that given current knowledge, these requirements are not empirically grounded. (shrink)

Nous présentons ici une version modale des dialogues de recherche de conditions (SSD) que nous avons introduits dans [Rahman & Keiff 2004]. La sémantique utilisée correspond à celle des systèmes modaux non normaux.

Nous présentons ici une version modale des dialogues de recherche de conditions (SSD) que nous avons introduits dans [Rahman & Keiff 2004]. La sémantique utilisée correspond à celle des systèmes modaux non normaux.

We show the existence of noncomputable oracles which are low for Demuth randomness, answering a question in [15] (also Problem 5.5.19 in [34]). We fully characterize lowness for Demuth randomness using an appropriate notion of traceability. Central to this characterization is a partial relativization of Demuth randomness, which may be more natural than the fully relativized version. We also show that an oracle is low for weak Demuth randomness if and only if it is computable.

Au début des années 1930, la ville de Metz entreprend un projet de rénovation urbaine qui menace l’existence des maisons de tolérance. La gestion municipale de la prostitution en maisons closes semble bien souvent soumise aux pressions des notables alors que les rapports entre la société locale et la prostitution restent plus ambigus, comme en témoignent les lettres conservées dans les archives administratives qui font état de demandes de maintien de l’activité prostitutionnelle. Si les filles sont réprimées au quotidien, la (...) prostitution s’insère d’autant mieux dans la vie de la cité qu’il existe une communauté d’intérêts avérée avec les autres formes de commerce. Dès lors les véritables enjeux de la réforme locale de la prostitution sont mis en exergue : ils sont de nature économique. (shrink)

Au début des années 1930, la ville de Metz entreprend un projet de rénovation urbaine qui menace l’existence des maisons de tolérance. La gestion municipale de la prostitution en maisons closes semble bien souvent soumise aux pressions des notables alors que les rapports entre la société locale et la prostitution restent plus ambigus, comme en témoignent les lettres conservées dans les archives administratives qui font état de demandes de maintien de l’activité prostitutionnelle. Si les filles sont réprimées au quotidien, la (...) prostitution s’insère d’autant mieux dans la vie de la cité qu’il existe une communauté d’intérêts avérée avec les autres formes de commerce. Dès lors les véritables enjeux de la réforme locale de la prostitution sont mis en exergue : ils sont de nature économique. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Nietzsche-Studien Jahrgang: 44 Heft: 1 Seiten: 176-199.

ArgumentThe Germans occupying Paris arrested Emile Borel and three other members of the Académie des Sciences in October 1941 and released them about five weeks later. Drawing on German and French archives and other sources, we argue that these events illustrate the complexity of the motivations and tactics of the occupiers and the occupied. While Borel and his colleagues were genuine members of the Resistance, and those who arrested them were full participants in a brutal occupation, both sides respected a (...) bargain, of no small importance to the Vichy regime, that allowed the university to pursue its work if its members avoided overt acts of opposition. (shrink)

We give a “direction for use” of the scale relativity theory and apply it to an example of spontaneous multiscale integration including four embedded levels of organization (intracellular, cell, tissue and organism-like levels). We conclude by an update of our analysis of the arctic sea ice melting.

La théorie de la relativité d'échelle développe les conséquences de l'abandon de l'hypothèse de différentiabilité des coordonnées spatio-temporelles. La première est le caractère fractal, c'est-à-dire explicitement dépendant des résolutions, qu'acquiert l'espace-temps. On redéfinit alors les résolutions comme caractérisant l'état d'échelle du référentiel, puis on postule un principe de relativité d'échelle, suivant lequel les lois de la nature doivent être valides quel que soit cet état. Il s'agit ainsi de construire une extension des théories existantes de la relativité, qui s'appliquaient jusqu'à (...) maintenant aux changements d'état de position, d'orientation et de mouvement. Par conséquent, la structure de la théorie suit un cheminement parallèle aux différents niveaux de la théorie relativiste (galiléenne, einsteinienne restreinte puis générale), auxquels s'ajoutent les effets du couplage entre échelle et mouvement. (shrink)