November Lunchtime Talks at the Center for Philosophy of Science
Description
Tuesday, November 10th at 12PM Eastern Time
Speaker: Antonella Tramacere
Affiliations: Research Fellow at Mississippi State University, Associate Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, and Appointed Research Fellow at the University of Bologna
Title: "Lost in Abstraction: Awareness of Action through Time and Causality"
Abstract: A body of psychophysical studies suggests that subjective agency results from causal expectations and is connected to changes in time perception. Subjective agency is the awareness of being the one who executes an action, and it arises when one expects that an action causes a consequence. Remarkably, this expectation affects time perception creating the illusion of time proximity. This allows the definition of subjective agency through the connection to both causality and time, thus overcoming the vagueness and mentalism of previous accounts.
We describe and theoretically motivate the position that a subjective agency relies on an intermediate, supramodal level of representation between sensorimotor associations and symbolic reasoning. We try to predict the age at which infants acquire subjective agency, and the taxonomic distribution of these features among other species. We conclude with concrete proposals for testing subjective agency in ontogeny and phylogeny through non-verbal measures of time perception.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_2IgfHc_9QHSp-hbZpYSwOw
Friday, November 13th at 12PM Eastern Time
Speaker: Simon DeDeo
Affiliations: CMU & the Santa Fe Institute
Title: "Explosive Proofs of Mathematical Truths"
Abstract: Justifications for believing a mathematical proof are traditionally based in the validity of its underlying deductive steps. However, in a skeptical argument going back to Hume, this should make even weak belief in a theorem unjustified because errors compound exponentially. To understand how and why mathematical arguments appear, by contrast, to be paradigms of certainty, we undertake a data science study of the epistemic structure of actual proofs, ranging from Euclid’s Geometry and Apollonius’ Conics to fifty computer-assisted contemporary proofs including Godel Incompleteness and the Four Color Theorem. Our analysis shows that these proofs share an underlying network structure. This structure enables the emergence of certainty even in the presence of skepticism of the correctness of any particular step. This emergence is explosive, and has an isomorphism to phase transitions in material objects. I finish with some remarks from practicing mathematicians that serve to validate the model of mathematical belief formation we propose.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_l0jdzxEDTSupgpaXzkJwZw
Tuesday, November 17th at 12PM Eastern Time
Speaker: Edouard Machery
Affiliations: Director of the Center for Philosophy of Science, Pitt HPS
Title: "Are Perverse Incentives Responsible for the Replication Crisis?"
Abstract: It is commonly claimed that unacceptable or questionable scientific practices, including fraud, salami publishing, and p-hacking, are due to the perverse incentives that shape scientific research. In this talk I will examine critically the empirical evidence and the models in support of this claim.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jtArjv8yS4eTHjXBHTq53w
Friday, November 20th at 12PM
Speaker: Roberto Fumagalli
Affiliation: King’s College London
Title: "We Should Not Use Randomization Procedures to Allocate Scarce Life-Saving Resources"
Abstract: In the recent literature across philosophy, medicine and public policy, many influential arguments have been put forward to support the use of randomization procedures to allocate scarce life-saving resources. In this paper, I provide a systematic categorization and a critical evaluation of these arguments. I shall argue that none of those arguments justifies using randomization procedures to allocate scarce life-saving resources and that the relevant decision makers should directly allocate scarce life-saving resources to the individuals with the strongest claims to these resources rather than use randomization procedures to allocate such resources.
Keywords: Morality; Health Care; Allocation; Randomization; Decision Making; Equal Chances.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4p2ZbBl6QvCBhBV_MBIXww
Speaker: Antonella Tramacere
Affiliations: Research Fellow at Mississippi State University, Associate Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, and Appointed Research Fellow at the University of Bologna
Title: "Lost in Abstraction: Awareness of Action through Time and Causality"
Abstract: A body of psychophysical studies suggests that subjective agency results from causal expectations and is connected to changes in time perception. Subjective agency is the awareness of being the one who executes an action, and it arises when one expects that an action causes a consequence. Remarkably, this expectation affects time perception creating the illusion of time proximity. This allows the definition of subjective agency through the connection to both causality and time, thus overcoming the vagueness and mentalism of previous accounts.
We describe and theoretically motivate the position that a subjective agency relies on an intermediate, supramodal level of representation between sensorimotor associations and symbolic reasoning. We try to predict the age at which infants acquire subjective agency, and the taxonomic distribution of these features among other species. We conclude with concrete proposals for testing subjective agency in ontogeny and phylogeny through non-verbal measures of time perception.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_2IgfHc_9QHSp-hbZpYSwOw
Friday, November 13th at 12PM Eastern Time
Speaker: Simon DeDeo
Affiliations: CMU & the Santa Fe Institute
Title: "Explosive Proofs of Mathematical Truths"
Abstract: Justifications for believing a mathematical proof are traditionally based in the validity of its underlying deductive steps. However, in a skeptical argument going back to Hume, this should make even weak belief in a theorem unjustified because errors compound exponentially. To understand how and why mathematical arguments appear, by contrast, to be paradigms of certainty, we undertake a data science study of the epistemic structure of actual proofs, ranging from Euclid’s Geometry and Apollonius’ Conics to fifty computer-assisted contemporary proofs including Godel Incompleteness and the Four Color Theorem. Our analysis shows that these proofs share an underlying network structure. This structure enables the emergence of certainty even in the presence of skepticism of the correctness of any particular step. This emergence is explosive, and has an isomorphism to phase transitions in material objects. I finish with some remarks from practicing mathematicians that serve to validate the model of mathematical belief formation we propose.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_l0jdzxEDTSupgpaXzkJwZw
Tuesday, November 17th at 12PM Eastern Time
Speaker: Edouard Machery
Affiliations: Director of the Center for Philosophy of Science, Pitt HPS
Title: "Are Perverse Incentives Responsible for the Replication Crisis?"
Abstract: It is commonly claimed that unacceptable or questionable scientific practices, including fraud, salami publishing, and p-hacking, are due to the perverse incentives that shape scientific research. In this talk I will examine critically the empirical evidence and the models in support of this claim.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jtArjv8yS4eTHjXBHTq53w
Friday, November 20th at 12PM
Speaker: Roberto Fumagalli
Affiliation: King’s College London
Title: "We Should Not Use Randomization Procedures to Allocate Scarce Life-Saving Resources"
Abstract: In the recent literature across philosophy, medicine and public policy, many influential arguments have been put forward to support the use of randomization procedures to allocate scarce life-saving resources. In this paper, I provide a systematic categorization and a critical evaluation of these arguments. I shall argue that none of those arguments justifies using randomization procedures to allocate scarce life-saving resources and that the relevant decision makers should directly allocate scarce life-saving resources to the individuals with the strongest claims to these resources rather than use randomization procedures to allocate such resources.
Keywords: Morality; Health Care; Allocation; Randomization; Decision Making; Equal Chances.
Registration Link: https://pitt.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4p2ZbBl6QvCBhBV_MBIXww
| November 10, 2020 | |
| November 20, 2020 |
This online seminar series has ended.
Link for additional information
Sponsoring institution
Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh