BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260605T013853Z
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20210430T153000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20210430T170000
SUMMARY:Eliminative Reasoning and its Limits
UID:20260606T214433Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm
TZID:America/Toronto
LOCATION:London\, Canada
DESCRIPTION:<p>Time: 3:30 pm &ndash\; 5 pm</p>\n<p>Title: Eliminative Reasoning and its Limits</p>\n<p>Abstract: Eliminative reasoning is an appealing way to establish a theory: observations rule out all the competitors\, leaving one theory standing.&nbsp\; This only works\, however\, if we have taken all the alternatives into account. There have been long-standing debates in philosophy regarding the upshot and limitations of eliminative arguments. In this talk\, I will defend the virtues and clarify the limitations of eliminative reasoning\, based on seeing how it has been used in gravitational physics.&nbsp\; I will consider one case study of eliminative reasoning in detail\, namely efforts to show that general relativity (GR) provides the best theory of gravity in different regimes.&nbsp\; Physicists have constructed parametrized spaces meant to represent a wide range of possible theories\, sharing some core set of common features that are similar to GR.&nbsp\; I draw three main points from this case study.&nbsp\; First\, the construction of a broad space of parametrized alternatives partially counters the &ldquo\;problem of unconceived alternatives&rdquo\; (due to Duhem and Stanford).&nbsp\; Second\, this response is only partially successful because the eliminative arguments have to be considered in the context of a specific regime.&nbsp\; Solar system tests of gravity\, using the PPN framework\, favour GR &mdash\; or any competing theories that are equivalent to it within this regime.&nbsp\; But\, third\, eliminative arguments in different regimes may be complementary\, if theories that are equivalent in one regime can be distinguished in other regimes. These three points support a qualified defense of the value of eliminative reasoning.</p>\n<p>Zoom invite:</p>\n<p>Topic: Chris Smeenk "Eliminative Reasoning and its Limits"</p>\n<p>Time: Apr 30\, 2021 03:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)</p>\n<p>Join Zoom Meeting</p>\n<p><a href="https://westernuniversity.zoom.us/j/99535589000?pwd=aGgwc3pDSDgxTUZ0WFNJMTJtOVFuZz09">https://westernuniversity.zoom.us/j/99535589000?pwd=aGgwc3pDSDgxTUZ0WFNJMTJtOVFuZz09</a></p>\n<p>Meeting ID: 995 3558 9000</p>\n<p>Passcode: philosophy</p>\n<p>One tap mobile</p>\n<p>+16475580588\,\,99535589000#\,\,\,\,*8292335559# Canada</p>\n<p>Dial by your location</p>\n<p>&nbsp\; &nbsp\; &nbsp\; &nbsp\; +1 647 558 0588 Canada</p>\n<p>Meeting ID: 995 3558 9000</p>\n<p>Passcode: 8292335559</p>\n<p>Find your local number: https://westernuniversity.zoom.us/u/aeI9Ku1PRt</p>\n<p>Join by SIP</p>\n<p>99535589000@zoomcrc.com</p>\n<p>Join by H.323</p>\n<p>162.255.37.11 (US West)</p>\n<p>162.255.36.11 (US East)</p>\n<p>69.174.57.160 (Canada Toronto)</p>\n<p>65.39.152.160 (Canada Vancouver)</p>\n<p>Meeting ID: 995 3558 9000</p>\n<p>Passcode: 8292335559</p>
ORGANIZER:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR