Hoje em dia é muito frequente sublinhar-se o divórcio entre a Filosofia e a Ciência moderna, pós-galilaica. Isso não acontece certamente por acaso, pois a paciência do questionamento filosófico é, no mínimo, antinómico dos procedimentos de cálculo que asseguram o sucesso da "tecnociência". A verdade, no entanto, é que o desenvolvimento das investigações científicas no século xx fizeram aparecer uma problemática filosófica muito concreta e intrínseca a estas mesmas investigações. Antes de mais, o tempo e a temporalidade passaram a ser (...) seriamente tidos em conta. De resto, segundo o artigo, é precisamente a partir da noção de um mundo em "processo" que se torna possível configurar um verdadeiro diálogo entre Filosofia e Ciência. Nessa medida, o autor do presente artigo propõe-se estabelecer um confronto entre os pensamentos de Edmund Husserl e de Alfred North Whitehead, dois filósofos formados na escola da ciência moderna, em ordem a definir os termos do diálogo possível entre a Filosofia e a Ciência. /// In our scientific culture it is rather common to see a divorce between Philosophy and Modern Science. This is, after all, not very surprising, since there is an antinomy between the patient questioning of Philosophy and the efficacious procedure of the calculus that underlines the success of the "technoscience". Nevertheless, the development of the scientific research in the XXth century brought to the fore the philosophic dimension inherent to these investigations. Particularly, time and temporality became crucial aspects of the scientific investigation of reality. Hence the importance of the idea of "process", an idea that, in accordance with the author of the article, allows the possibility of a serious dialogue between Philosophy and Science. Moreover, the article defends that the confrontation between the positions of Edmund Husserl and the ones defended by Alfred North Whitehead, two philosophers schooled in the domains of modern science, can constitute a serious start for this necessary dialogue between Philosophy and Science. (shrink)

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin n’était pas théologien de profession, mais son œuvre a surtout été reçue – et parfois contestée – dans le domaine religieux. Il n’a pas prétendu proposer une réflexion systématique mais renouveler la pensée chrétienne pour la mettre en cohérence avec les connaissances scientifiques. C’est ainsi que la théologie doit devenir une recherche permanente. En dépit de quelques limites, en particulier sur la question du mal, sa pensée peut rester inspirante pour le travail du théologien. Dans le (...) dialogue avec les sciences, c’est une « nouvelle face de Dieu » qui se révèle. (shrink)

Dans cet article sont identifiés les principaux défis que la théorie darwinienne de l'évolution pose à la théologie chrétienne: défi à la théologie naturelle, l'action divine n'étant plus nécessaire pour rendre compte de l'origine des vivants; défi à la théodicée, le prix exorbitant payé par des individus et des espèces au fil de l'évolution rendant difficilement pensables la bienveillance et la toute-puissance de Dieu; défi à l'omniscience divine, puisque le processus évolutif obéit à un mécanisme aléatoire apparemment dépourvu de toute (...) finalité. Les ressources de la théologie contemporaine pour relever ces défis au coeur d'une conversation avec le récit scientifique sont ensuite explorées. (shrink)

Le thème de la nature revient dans la pensée contemporaine sous le signe de la menace. C’est parce que la nature est en péril que l’intérêt se porte à nouveau sur elle. Le souci d’éviter une possible catastrophe écologique doit-il nous faire revenir à une « théologie naturelle » où chaque composante du monde serait invitée à occuper son « lieu » sous la conduite du « Moteur immobile » ? Dans le monde catholique en particulier, cette nostalgie n’est pas (...) rare. Mais si l’on tient à un certain « anthropocentrisme chrétien », tout en restant conscient des risques qu’il comporte, comment redonner à la nature un statut théologique ? C’est ici le propos du présent article.Il commence par reprendre la composante anthropologique de l’héritage chrétien qui contraste avec le cosmocentrisme de la pensée antique. Il s’interroge ensuite sur la nouvelle vision de la nature. L’approche globale s’accompagne d’une perspective évolutive que l’on peut qualifier d’« historique », qui invite à s’interroger sur l’avenir du monde, plus ouvert et donc plus risqué, que dans les visions anciennes. Dans cette « dramatique » de l’histoire naturelle, la théologie peut apporter sa contribution.The subject of nature has come back into contemporary thought under a threatening cloud. It is because nature is endangered that so much interest is being taken in it. Should the concern with avoiding a potential ecological catastrophe make us come back to a “natural theology” in which every component of the world would be requested to occupy its “place” under the guidance of the “Immobile Mover”? This nostalgia is far from rare, especially in the Catholic world. However, if we prize a certain “Christian anthropocentrism,” while remaining quite aware of the risks it involves, how can we give a theological status back to nature? This is the subject of the present article.We thus begin by taking up the anthropological aspect of Christian heritage that stands in contrast to the cosmocentrism of Ancient thought, and then examine this new vision of nature. This global approach is accompanied by a progressive perspective that can be qualified as “historical” and that incites us to investigate the future of the world, which is thus more open and more hazardous than in the worldview of Antiquity. Within the framework of this “drama” of natural history, theology has a contribution to make. (shrink)

L’importance de la raison scientifique dans la pensée moderne doit inciter le théologien à conserver un dialogue avec cette raison. C’est d’autant plus le cas aujourd’hui où, d’une part, les sciences de la nature étendent leur entreprise à la question de l’homme et, d’autre part, elles sont soumises à diverses critiques. La visée de cet article est de montrer qu’au-delà de la légitime prise en compte de ces critiques, un dialogue avec une raison scientifique renouvelée, davantage sensible à l’histoire et (...) à la dimension collective, peut être un apport à la théologie fondamentale. Il procède de la conviction que ce qui se joue dans l’aventure scientifique moderne a à voir avec une théologie chrétienne, sensible à la liberté de la créature humaine. (shrink)

Le cosmos a-t-il un sens? Cette question ne peut être abandonnée aux seuls scientifiques, même s’il importe d’enregistrer leurs avancées dans la formulation de propositions. La vision scientifique de l’univers a mis à mal le modèle hiérarchique traditionnel porté par les religions, en imposant l’idée d’une continuité entre les êtres. Il en résulte un «pessimisme cosmique» où la vie est expliquée à partir de l’inerte et le tout est dénué de finalité. Contre ce réductionnisme, le présent article avance des considérations (...) susceptibles de réenchanter le monde post-darwinien. (shrink)

This article presents the intellectual approach of an important thinker of the contemporary world, Michel de Certeau (1925-1986), to show its coherence. At the first look his work seems confusing: it addresses both the mystical phenomena of the past and the daily life of his contemporaries. His interests are multifaceted: he was at the same time theologian, historian, sociologist, philosopher of history. His work is a permanent research in a world in perpetual transformation. Although his main field of research was (...) history, his first works dealt with theological problems. The interest of M. de Certeau begins by the analysis of mysticism as a phenomenon characteristic of the beginning of modern times. This leads him to take a broader interest in history as a set of events that cannot be reduced to a “system”. The spiritual experience of that period offers a clue to understanding current events. A significant part of M. de Certeau’s works deals with the problem of “modernity” and “everyday life”. There is a will to “think about event”. In the last part of his life, he works on the anthropology of the everyday life of “ordinary” people, in order to show the capacity they have to “invent” their existence by “tinkering” with the materials they receive. The religious dimension permeates all his work, his religious themes embrace both historical and contemporary Christianity. Christianity is for him the “religion of event”. That is why it must always remain open to meeting the other. Throughout his creativity Michel de Certeau shows a great concern for the singularity of every person, spiritual experience, interrelations with others. (shrink)

Il est assez rare qu’un concept philosophique s’échappe de l’arène académique. C’est pourtant le cas du concept de spécisme, qui a fait une entrée remarquée dans la sphère publique au cours de la dernière décennie. Il est désormais au cœur du débat de société sur nos devoirs envers les animaux non humains. Hélas, ce concept et les enjeux qu’il soulève sont souvent mal compris. Nombreux sont les auteurs qui contestent sa légitimité alors qu’ils le maitrisent mal. D’autres l’utilisent plus volontiers (...) sans toutefois mieux le comprendre. Les confusions qui entourent cette notion l’empêche de contribuer à la discussion autant qu’elle le pourrait. Le présent ouvrage entend remédier à cet état de faits en donnant de la notion de spécisme une présentation à la fois assez précise pour rendre justice aux discussions philosophiques dont elle fait l’objet et suffisamment claire pour être accessible à quiconque s’intéresse au statut moral des animaux. Il se divise en deux parties. La première aborde des questions ontologiques : Qu’est-ce exactement que le spécisme ? À quelles conditions existe-t-il ? Ces conditions sont-elles remplies dans les faits ? Quant à la seconde, elle porte sur des questions éthiques : Le spécisme peut-il être justifié ? Faut-il au contraire le condamner au même titre que le racisme et le sexisme ? (shrink)

Cumulative technological culture (CTC) refers to the increase in the efficiency and complexity of tools and techniques in human populations over generations. A fascinating question is to understand the cognitive origins of this phenomenon. Because CTC is definitely a social phenomenon, most accounts have suggested a series of cognitive mechanisms oriented toward the social dimension (e.g., teaching, imitation, theory of mind, and metacognition), thereby minimizing the technical dimension and the potential influence of non-social, cognitive skills. What if we have failed (...) to see the elephant in the room? What if social cognitive mechanisms were only catalyzing factors and not thesufficient and necessaryconditions for the emergence of CTC? In this article, we offer an alternative, unified cognitive approach to this phenomenon by assuming that CTC originates in non-social cognitive skills, namely technical-reasoning skills which enable humans to develop the technical potential necessary to constantly acquire and improve technical information. This leads us to discuss how theory of mind and metacognition, in concert with technical reasoning, can help boost CTC. The cognitive approach developed here opens up promising new avenues for reinterpreting classical issues (e.g., innovation, emulation vs. imitation, social vs. asocial learning, cooperation, teaching, and overimitation) in a field that has so far been largely dominated by other disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, mathematics, anthropology, archeology, economics, and philosophy. (shrink)

Illusionism about phenomenal consciousness is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness does not exist, even though it seems to exist. This thesis is widely judged to be uniquely counterintuitive: the idea that consciousness is an illusion strikes most people as absurd, and seems almost impossible to contemplate in earnest. Defenders of illusionism should be able to explain the apparent absurdity of their own thesis, within their own framework. However, this is no trivial task: arguably, none of the illusionist theories currently on (...) the market is able to do this. I present a new theory of phenomenal introspection and argue that it might deal with the task at hand. (shrink)

Plato’s works have been the object of countless interpretations and recuperations ever since Greek antiquity. In the context of prenazi Germany, the writer Hans F.K. Günther published a work in defence of eugenic theories (aiming to improve man through authoritarian laws), allegedly based on the work of the Athenian philosopher and entitled Platon als Hüter des Lebens (“Plato as Protector of Life”). The present article tries to set forth what is at stake in that propaganda piece, its historical context, as (...) well as the disquieting implications of such an “appropriation” of classical philosophy to purely political ends. (shrink)

Phenomenal consciousness appears to be particularly normatively significant. For this reason, sentience-based conceptions of ethics are widespread. In the field of animal ethics, knowing which animals are sentient appears to be essential to decide the moral status of these animals. I argue that, given that materialism is true of the mind, phenomenal consciousness is probably not particularly normatively significant. We should face up to this probable insignificance of phenomenal consciousness and move towards an ethic without sentience.

Diversity of evidence is widely claimed to be crucial for evidence amalgamation to have distinctive epistemic merits. Bayesian epistemologists capture this idea in the variety-of-evidence thesis: ceteris paribus, the strength of confirmation of a hypothesis by an evidential set increases with the diversity of the evidential elements in that set. Yet, formal exploration of this thesis has shown that it fails to be generally true. This article demonstrates that the thesis fails in even more circumstances than recent results would lead (...) us to expect. Most importantly, it can fail whatever the chance that the evidential sources are unreliable. Our results hold for two types of degrees of variety: reliability independence and testable aspect independence. We conclude that the variety-of-evidence thesis can, at best, be interpreted as an exception-prone rule of thumb. (shrink)

La philosophie bergsonnienne a rendu le monde de ses contemporains moins opaque, les aidant à lui trouver un sens. Si la France cartésienne coïncide avec les partisans de la démocratie parlementaire ancrée à gauche, celle de Bergson recrute ses plus gros bataillons dans la droite nationale, conservatrice, mais également dans une gauche antiparlementaire, révolutionnaire.

Illusionism about consciousness is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness does not exist, but merely seems to exist. Embracing illusionism presents the theoretical advantage that one does not need to explain how consciousness arises from purely physical brains anymore, but only to explain why consciousness seems to exist while it does not. As Keith Frankish puts it, illusionism replaces the “hard problem of consciousness” with the “illusion problem.” However, a satisfying version of illusionism has to explain not only why the illusion (...) of consciousness arises, but also why it arises with its particular strength: Notably, why we are so deeply reluctant to recognize the illusory nature of consciousness. Explaining our strong intuitive resistance to illusionism means solving what I call the “illusion meta-problem,” which I think is a part of the illusion problem. In this paper, I argue that current versions of illusionism are unable to solve the illusion meta-problem. I focus on two of the most promising recent illusionist theories of consciousness, and I show why they fail to explain the peculiar reluctance we encounter whenever we try to accept that consciousness is an illusion. (shrink)

The variety-of-evidence thesis has been criticized by Bovens and Hartmann. This article points to two limitations of their Bayesian model: the conceptualization of unreliable evidential sources as randomizing and the restriction to comparing full independence to full dependence. It is shown that the variety-of-evidence thesis is rehabilitated when unreliable sources are reconceptualized as systematically biased. However, it turns out that allowing for degrees of independence leads to a qualification of the variety-of-evidence thesis: as Bovens and Hartmann claimed, more independence does (...) not always imply stronger confirmation. (shrink)

This article maintains that an important class of scientific generalizations should be reinterpreted: they have typically been understood as ceteris paribus laws, but are, in fact, generics. Four arguments are presented to support this thesis. One argument is that the interpretation in terms of ceteris paribus laws is a historical accident. The other three arguments draw on similarities between these generalizations and archetypal generics: they come with similar inferential commitments, they share a syntactic form, and the existing theories to make (...) sense of them are alike. Once these generalizations are properly understood as generics, the recent cognitive approach to generics can be extended to the study of the relevant sciences. The last section indicates ways in which this extension is fruitful for the two strands of research that we combine: the philosophy of science literature on generalizations and the semantics literature on generics. (shrink)

This article examines two theses formulated by Russo and Williamson in their study of causal inference in the health sciences. The two theses are assessed against evidence from a specific case in the social sciences, i.e., research on the institutional determinants of the aggregate unemployment rate. The first Russo–Williamson Thesis is that a causal claim can only be established when it is jointly supported by difference-making and mechanistic evidence. This thesis is shown not to hold. While researchers in my case (...) study draw extensively on both types of evidence, one causal claim out of the three analyzed is established even though it is exclusively supported by mechanistic evidence. The second Russo–Williamson Thesis is that standard accounts of causality fail to handle the dualist epistemology highlighted in the first Thesis. I argue that a counterfactual-manipulationist account of causality—which is endorsed by many philosophers as well as many social scientists—can perfectly make sense of the typical strategy in my case study to draw on both difference-making and mechanistic evidence; it is just an instance of the common strategy of increasing evidential variety. (shrink)

Diversity of evidence is widely claimed to be crucial for evidence amalgamation to have distinctive epistemic merits. Bayesian epistemologists capture this idea in the variety-of-evidence thesis: ceteris paribus, the strength of confirmation of a hypothesis by an evidential set increases with the diversity of the evidential elements in that set. Yet, formal exploration of this thesis has shown that it fails to be generally true. This article demonstrates that the thesis fails in even more circumstances than recent results would lead (...) us to expect. Most importantly, it can fail whatever the chance that the evidential sources are unreliable. Our results hold for two types of degrees of variety: reliability independence and testable aspect independence. We conclude that the variety-of-evidence thesis can, at best, be interpreted as an exception-prone rule of thumb. (shrink)

Content Description #Includes bibliographical references and index.

This paper analyzes recent attempts to reject reproduction with lineage formation as a necessary condition for evolution by means of natural selection :560–570, 2008; Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42:106–114, 2011; Bourrat in Biol Philos 29:517–538, 2014; Br J Philos Sci 66:883–903, 2015; Charbonneau in Philos Sci 81:727–740, 2014; Doolittle and Inkpen in Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:4006–4014, 2018). Building on the strengths of these attempts and avoiding their pitfalls, it is argued that (...) a robust formulation of evolution by natural selection without reproduction can be established. The main contribution of this paper is a reformulation of Lewontin’s three principles stating that minimal evolution by natural selection occurs when two conditions are met in a population: fitness-related variation and memory. Paradigmatic evolution by natural selection, which can generate adaptations, takes place when an additional condition is present, namely regeneration. (shrink)

Animal ethicists have been debating the morality of speciesism for over forty years. Despite rather persuasive arguments against this form of discrimination, many philosophers continue to assign humans a higher moral status than nonhuman animals. The primary source of evidence for this position is our intuition that humans’ interests matter more than the similar interests of other animals. And it must be acknowledged that this intuition is both powerful and widespread. But should we trust it for all that? The present (...) paper defends a negative answer to that question, based on a debunking argument. The intuitive belief that humans matter more than other animals is unjustified because it results from an epistemically defective process. It is largely shaped by tribalism, our tendency to favor ingroup members as opposed to outgroup members. And this influence is distortive for two reasons. First, tribalism evolved for reasons unrelated to moral truths; hence, it would at best produce true moral beliefs accidentally. Second, tribalism generates a vast quantity of false moral beliefs, starting with racist beliefs. Once this intuition is discarded, little evidence remains that speciesism is morally acceptable. (shrink)

Common sense has it that animals matter considerably less than humans; the welfare and suffering of a cow, a chicken or a fish are important but not as much as the welfare and suffering of a human being. Most animal ethicists reject this “speciesist” view as mere prejudice. In their opinion, there is no difference between humans and other animals that could justify such unequal consideration. In the opposite camp, advocates of speciesism have long tried to identify a difference that (...) would fit the bill, but they have consistently seemed to fail. In light of this, some naturally began to appeal to Moorean arguments: the case against speciesism must be flawed somehow, these philosophers maintain, because speciesism is supported by a strong and widespread intuition. This chapter draws on recent findings in social psychology to criticize this defence of speciesism. It argues that the strong and widespread intuition that humans count more than animals is epistemically defective because it is causally shaped by a pair of irrelevant influences: cognitive dissonance and tribalism. Accordingly, it is no suitable basis for a Moorean argument. (shrink)

The prevalent view in animal ethics is that speciesism is wrong: we should weigh the interests of humans and non-humans equally. Shelly Kagan has recently questioned this claim, defending speciesism against Peter Singer’s seminal argument based on the principle of equal consideration of interests. This critique is most charitably construed as a dilemma. The principle of equal consideration can be interpreted in either of two ways. While it faces counterexamples on the first reading, it makes Singer’s argument question-begging on the (...) second. In response, Singer has grasped the first horn of this dilemma and tried to accommodate Kagan’s apparent counterexamples. In my opinion, this attempt is unpersuasive: the principle of equal consideration is inconsistent with common-sense intuitions on Kagan’s cases. Worse, Singer’s argument begs the question anyway. It therefore faces two serious objections. This is not to say that there is nothing wrong with speciesism, however. In the second half of the paper, I propose another, better argument against speciesism, which I argue is immune to both objections. According to this other argument, speciesism is wrong because it involves discriminating on the basis of a merely biological property. (shrink)

Illusionists about phenomenal consciousness claim that phenomenal consciousness does not exist but merely seems to exist. At the same time, it is quite intuitive for there to be some kind of link between phenomenality and value. For example, some situations seem good or bad in virtue of the conscious experiences they feature. Illusionist views of phenomenal consciousness then face what I call the normative challenge. They have to say where they stand regarding the idea that there is a link between (...) phenomenality and value. If they accept that there is such a link, they might be committed to revisionary normative consequences (and some of them may prove to be uncomfortable). If they deny that there is such link, they might avoid revisionary normative consequences (without being guaranteed against them) but then they have to give reasons to deny that such link obtains, which is not a trivial task. The existence of the normative challenge does not show that illusionism is false, but it shows that illusionism might have important consequences in the normative domain, which have to be clarified. (shrink)

Many people believe that human interests matter much more than the like interests of non-human animals, and this “speciesist belief” plays a crucial role in the philosophical debate over the moral status of animals. In this paper, I develop a debunking argument against it. My contention is that this belief is unjustified because it is largely due to an off-track process: our attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance generated by the “meat paradox”. Most meat-eaters believe that it is wrong to (...) harm animals unnecessarily, yet they routinely and deliberately behave in ways that cause great unnecessary suffering to animals. As recent research suggests, this practical inconsistency puts them in an unpleasant state of dissonance, which they try to escape by resolving the paradox. And they do so in part by adopting the speciesist belief—if animal suffering matters much less than human suffering, then harming animals cannot be so wrong after all. Since this belief-forming process does not track moral truth, I conclude that we are not justified in believing that human interests matter more than the similar interests of non-humans. (shrink)

The article introduces a special issue on “Rethinking Liberal Multiculturalism: Foundations, Practices and Methodologies.” The contributions presented in this special issue were discussed during the conference « Multicultural Citizenship 25 Years Later », held in Paris in November 2021. Their aim is to take stock of the legacy of Kymlicka’s contribution and to highlight new developments in theories of liberal multiculturalism and minority rights. The contributions do not purport to challenge the legitimacy of theories of multiculturalism and minority rights, they (...) rather aim at deepening our understanding of the foundations of liberal multiculturalism and of its practical implementation, sensitive to social scientific dynamics of diverse societies. Without abandoning the general idea that cultural minorities should be granted special minority rights, the essays presented raise new questions about three dimensions central to liberal multiculturalism: its normative foundations, its practical categories of minorities or groups, and its fact-sensitive methodology. Taken together they shed light on the renewed variety of theories of liberal multiculturalism highlighting their complexity and internal disagreements. To introduce these articles, the article first draws a brief historical overview of the debates on multiculturalism since the 1990s (section 1). It then highlights the distinctive aspects of Kymlicka’s contribution (section 2) and identifies recent research trends (section 3). Doing so, it explains how the articles gathered here both expand on those distinctive aspects and explore those new research avenues. The section 4 summarizes the contributions. (shrink)

Nanotechnology is an important platform technology which will add new features like improved biocompatibility, smaller size, and more sophisticated electronics to neuro-implants improving their therapeutic potential. Especially in view of possible advantages for patients, research and development of nanotechnologically improved neuro implants is a moral obligation. However, the development of brain implants by itself touches many ethical, social and legal issues, which also apply in a specific way to devices enabled or improved by nanotechnology. For researchers developing nanotechnology such issues (...) are rather distant from their daily work in the lab, but as soon as they use their materials or devices in medical applications such as therapy of brain diseases they have to be aware of and deal with them. This paper is intended to raise sensitivity for the ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) involved in applying nanotechnology in brain implants or other devices by highlighting the short term problems of testing and clinical trials within the existing regulatory frameworks (A), the short and medium-term questions of risks in the application of the devices (B) and the long-term perspectives related to problems of enhancement (C). To identify and address such issues properly nanotechnologists should involve ethical, legal and social experts and regulatory bodies in their research as early as possible. This will help to remove pressure from regulatory bodies, to settle public concern and to prevent non-acceptable developments for the benefit of the patients. (shrink)