In July 1647 Valeriano Magni published in Warsaw a description of his experiment proving the existence of vacuum. His treatise called “Demonstratio ocularis, loci sine locato, corporis successive moti in vacuo, luminis nulli corpori inhaerentis” provoked a huge polemic, not only with the opponents of the void but also concerning the authorship of the experiment. The article deals with the circumstances of Magni’s experiment and the polemics with both scholars attacking Magni from the point of Aristotelianism (...) and French scientists who admitted the existence of the void but accused Magni of plagiarism, for experiments with vacuums had been performed by Torricelli and Pascal first. The attention is paid to the philosophical background of Magni’s experiments. (shrink)

The paper deals with the relation between abduction and inference to the best explanation. A heuristic and a normative interpretation of IBE are distinguished. Besides, two different normative interpretations —those vindicated by I. Niiniluoto and S. Psillos— are discussed. I conclude that, in principle, Aliseda’s theory of abduction fits better with a heuristic account of IBE.

We reflect upon quantification in biology in two ways. First, from a sensory scientific perspective, we address theories and methods for studying sensation, perception, and cognition. Sensory science concerns action of the human senses, which are not passive receivers but operate in an active and fundamental way for human beings in various social and environmental contexts. In the past one could only handle one-to-one relationships within a univariate framework. Today we have tools to capture complexity closer to real world situations. (...) Thus, the second perspective is rooted in multivariate thinking and modeling tools. Relying mainly on soft modeling-exploratory methods, such as partial least squares regression, we claim that quantification in sensory biology in the future should be met with a dialectic view that simultaneously exploits the two perspectives. (shrink)

Epidemiological models have played a central role in the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when urgent decisions were required and available evidence was sparse. They have been used to predict the evolution of the disease and to inform policy-making. In this paper, we address two kinds of epidemiological models widely used in the pandemic, namely, compartmental models and agent-based models. After describing their essentials—some real examples are invoked—we discuss their main strengths and weaknesses. Then, on the basis of this analysis, we make (...) a comparison between their respective merits concerning three different goals: prediction, explanation, and intervention. We argue that there are general considerations which could favour any of those sorts of models for obtaining the aforementioned goals. We conclude, however, that preference for particular models must be grounded case-by-case since additional contextual factors, as the peculiarities of the target population and the aims and expectations of policy-makers, cannot be overlooked. (shrink)

The present paper suggests how, from a scientific perspective, the senses establish a link between mind and matter. Ongoing research in sensory science and data analysis is related to the ongoing debate about a non-reductive theory of consciousness based on psychophysical principles. Sensory science is interdisciplinary and deals with the human perception of objects by the senses of sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing etc. Perception as information pro- cessing is here understood in terms of interactions between external physical stimuli and (...) internal mental states resulting in behavioral responses. To deal with the complex and dynamic transformation between external physical energies and internal psychological experiences multivariate methods of data analysis are shown to be useful Examples will be given from food science where cognition and emotion, activated by sense perception are vital for the survival health and well-being of humans. These approaches may contribute to bridging the explanatory gap between the subjectively experienced and the objectively observed world. Future challenges towards deeper interdisciplinary discourses addressing mind-matter research in real-world situations are at stake. (shrink)

Bayesianism and Inference to the best explanation are two different models of inference. Recently there has been some debate about the possibility of “bayesianizing” IBE. Firstly I explore several alternatives to include explanatory considerations in Bayes’s Theorem. Then I distinguish two different interpretations of prior probabilities: “IBE-Bayesianism” and “frequentist-Bayesianism”. After detailing the content of the latter, I propose a rule for assessing the priors. I also argue that Freq-Bay: endorses a role for explanatory value in the assessment of scientific hypotheses; (...) avoids a purely subjectivist reading of prior probabilities; and fits better than IBE-Bayesianism with two basic facts about science, i.e., the prominent role played by empirical testing and the existence of many scientific theories in the past that failed to fulfil their promises and were subsequently abandoned. (shrink)

The paper deals with the relation between abduction and inference to the best explanation (IBE). A heuristic and a normative interpretation of IBE are distinguished. Besides, two different normative interpretations —those vindicated by I. Niiniluoto and S. Psillos— are discussed. I conclude that, in principle, Aliseda's theory of abduction fits better with a heuristic account of IBE.

There are different Bayesian measures to calculate the degree of confirmation of a hypothesis H in respect of a particular piece of evidence E. Zalabardo (Analysis 69:630–635, 2009) is a recent attempt to defend the likelihood-ratio measure (LR) against the probability-ratio measure (PR). The main disagreement between LR and PR concerns their sensitivity to prior probabilities. Zalabardo invokes intuitive plausibility as the appropriate criterion for choosing between them. Furthermore, he claims that it favours the ordering of pairs evidence/hypothesis generated by (...) LR. We will argue, however, that the intuitive non-numerical example provided by Zalabardo does not show that prior probabilities do not affect the degree of confirmation. On account of this, we conclude that there is no compelling reason to endorse LR qua measure of degree of confirmation. On the other side, we should not forget some technicalities which still benefit PR. (shrink)

Aliseda’s Abductive Reasoning is focused on the logical problem of abduction. My paper, in contrast, deals with the epistemic problems raised by this sort of inference. I analyze the relation between abduction and inference to the best explanation (IBE). Firstly a heuristic and a normative interpretation of IBE are distinguished. The epistemic problem is particularly pressing for the latter interpretation, since it is devoid of content without specific epistemic criteria for separating acceptable explanations from those which are not. Then I (...) discuss two different normative interpretations of IBE. I. Niiniliuoto favours a “probabilistic-confirmational” translation of explanatory merit while S. Psillos thinks that the insight of IBE is lost in a pure probabilistic format. My conclusion is that Aliseda’s theory of abduction fits better with a heuristic account of IBE. (shrink)

According to the “no-miracles argument” (NMA), truth is the best explanation of the predictive-instrumental success of scientific theories. A standard objection against NMA is that it is viciously circular. In Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth Stathis Psillos has claimed that the circularity objection can be met when NMA is supplemented with a reliabilist approach to justification. I will try to show, however, that scientific realists cannot take much comfort from this policy: if reliabilism makes no qualifications about the domain (...) where inference to the best explanation is reliable, scientific realists flagrantly beg the question. A qualified version of reliabilism, on the other side, does not entitle us to infer the realist conclusion. I conclude, then, that Psillos’s proposal does not make any significant progress for scientific realism. (shrink)

(2009). On the Epistemic Authority of Experience. International Journal of Philosophical Studies: Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 307-314. doi: 10.1080/09672550902796822.

El Positivismo Lógico a menudo ha sido presentado como una corriente filosófica monolítica obviando las profundas disensiones que hubo en su seno. El presente artículo pretende corregir esta visión. Los dos primeros apartados de este artículo describen la constitución del movimiento y los elementos supuestamente nucleares de la concepción filosófica positivista. El tercer apartado discute las discrepancias sobre el papel de la filosofía entre los autores más representativos del movimiento. Para concluir se sugiere que la vigencia del legado positivista reside (...) no tanto en alguna tesis filosófica en particular, sino más bien en su compromiso metafilosófico con valores como la precisión y la claridad. (shrink)

Van Fraassen's argument from the "bad lot" challenges realist interpretations of inference to the best explanation. In this paper I begin by discussing the replies suggested by S. Psillos and P. Lipton. I do not find them convincing. However, I think that van Fraassen's argument is flawed. First of all, it is a non sequitur. Secondly, I think that the real target for the scientific realist is the underlying assumption that epistemic justification results from a comparative assessment among rival explanations. (...) I argue that justification for believing an explanation does not depend on comparison, but on the extent that criteria of explanatory goodness are fulfilled. Therefore, in addition to offering more or less intuitive IBE-tailored arguments, realists fond of IBE should have to analyze the implicit standards of explanatory goodness. In the last section I distinguish between contextual and transcontextual criteria concerning explanatory goodness. Concerning the latter, I focus on consilience, simplicity, analogy and conservatism. \\\ Un argumento empleado por van Fraassen contra las interpretaciones realistas de la inferencia a la mejor explicación es el argumento "del mal lote". El articulo comienza discutiendo las réplicas de S. Psillos y P. Lipton. Aunque ninguna me parece convincente, pienso que el argumento de van Fraassen no resiste un examen cuidadoso. En primer lugar, la conclusión antirrealista que él extrae es un non sequitur. Además, el argumento parte de un supuesto muy cuestionable, a saber, que la justificación de una explicacion es resultado de una comparacion con sus rivales. En mi opinion, la justificación no depende de esto, sino del grado en que la explicacion satisface ciertos criterios de bondad explicativa, independientemente de que haya o no comparación. En consecuencia, la socorrida estrategia de defender el realismo cientifico basándose en la IBE pasa necesariamente por un análisis de los criterios implicitos de bondad explicativa. Mi propuesta es distinguir entre criterios contextuales y transcontextuales. En los últimos incluyo: la diversidad de la evidencia explicada, la simplicidad, la analogia y el conservadurismo. (shrink)

Una estrategia recientemente utilizada por los defensores del realismo científico ha sido derivar implicaciones ontológicas del contexto manipulativo- experimental. El artículo pretende comparar y valorar dos enfoques diferentes del argumento de la manipulabilidad -I. Hackin y R. Harré-, cuya idea básica es que, de cara a establecer la existencia de una entidad, manipularla puede ser tan importante como observarla. Por último, a fin de evitar los aspectos más cuestionables de ambos enfoques, propongo entender la eficacia manipulativa como obtención de información (...) fiable. (shrink)

This paper deals with the proposal of a person‐affecting version of the principle of Procreative Beneficence. Such a principle has been stated by Savulescu & Kahane in an impersonal form and balanced with a person‐affecting principle of harm to address the moral problem of the selection of future children. The paper aims to show some differences between Person‐affecting Procreative Beneficence and Savulescu & Kahane’s hybrid position, and to distinguish the former from other pro‐selection perspectives. Moreover, it explores the extension of (...) such a principle beyond selection to other issues of reproductive ethics. (shrink)

To say that the liturgy is a question of faith means that your object is transcendent and has to do with God and with one unique feature, ie, the very act of celebrating an act of faith. The liturgy is not only motivated by faith, but it is their faith in words, which is a very peculiar dimension.

La estética se introdujo en España con ocasión de la constitución del sistema de instrucción pública y vinculada a la enseñanza de la retórica y la poética. En 1814, los liberales propusieron reunir la retórica y la poética en una única disciplina que ofreciese los principios de la literatura. Estos principios se venían elaborando para las bellas letras y las bellas artes desde el siglo XVIII y de ellos surgiría la estética como ciencia del gusto y de lo bello. La (...) estética entró a formar parte de la asignatura de _Literatura _en 1846 bajo la influencia de la filosofía ecléctica francesa y, en particular, de la teoría estética de Victor Cousin. Esto propició la producción de los primeros textos sobre estética en España, orientados a la enseñanza de la literatura. (shrink)

This study proposes and tests a model that integrates ethical leadership, internal social capital, and firm performance in small- and medium-sized family firms at different generational stages. Using the upper echelons theory and the social capital perspective of familiness, this study shows that ethical leadership can explain the effectiveness of certain behaviors in relation to family firm performance. Moreover, social capital helps spread a leader's business ethics to firm members, thus improving the family firm's performance. Our results show that founders' (...) personalities and identities determine high internal social capital, which decreases over generations. The study also shows that internal social capital is a communicative element crucial to ethical leadership, facilitating the absorption of the culture and values of the family in the firm. This powerful resource should be promoted and supported by coherent behavior over time by senior leaders. (shrink)

El artículo analiza dos enfoques coherentistas de la justificación (K. Lehrer y L. BonJour). Ambas versiones se consideran insatisfactorias. En primer lugar, sobrecargan el aparato introspectivo del sujeto epistémico, lo cual impide dar cuenta de nuestras intuiciones preanalíticas sobre sujetos "limitados" (niños o animales). Por otro lado, no consiguen establecer un vículo convincente entre justificación - entendida como coherencia- y verdad - entendida como correspondencia.

Una forma común de entender el realismo científico en las últimas décadas ha sido plantearlo como una inferencia explicativa: RC es la mejor explicación del éxito predictivo-instrumental de la ciencia. Algunos de sus partidarios mantienen, además, que es una hipótesis empíricamente contrastable. Intentaré argumentar que, entendido así, RC no es empíricamente contrastable. En primer lugar, aunque el éxito predictivo-instrumental ininterrumpido de una teoría T es una consecuencia observacional de la verdad de T, este hecho no hecho no constituye una evidencia (...) empírica diferente del propio explanandum. En segundo lugar, elaborar un registro histórico del éxito -no sólo empírico, sino teórico- obtenido mediante la postulación de entidades por consideraciones explicativas, confirmaría como mucho, y eso suponiendo que fuera posible, una coincidencia entre una metodología determinada y unos resultados, pero no daría cuenta del vinculo explicativo entre éxito predictivo instrumental por un lado, y verdad y existencia, por otro. Por consiguiente, RC no es una hipótesis empírica en un sentido genuino; a fortiori, tampoco es una hipótesis científica. Esta conclusión, no obstante, no cierra el camino a un realismo científico de carácter local. (shrink)