Popper’s theory of World 3 is often regarded as incongruent with his defense of methodological individualism. This article criticizes this widespread view. Methodological individualism is said to be at odds with three crucial assumptions of the theory of World 3: the impossibility of reducing World 3 to subjective mental states because it exists objectively, the view that the mental functions cannot be explained by assuming that individuals are isolated atoms, and the idea that World 3 has causal power and influences (...) both individual minds and actions. This article demonstrates that the inconsistency thesis stems from a confusion between methodological individualism as understood by Popper and reductionism. The reasons for this confusion are analyzed and clarified. It is argued that two variants of methodological individualism can be distinguished, and that unlike psychologistic individualism, Popper’s nonatomistic individualism is fully consistent with his theory of World 3. (shrink)

Este escrito explora La individuación a la luz de las nociones de forma y de información de Gilbert Simondon, tomando como hilo conductor la cuestión de la animalidad. Se analiza si en dicho libro hay un corte antropológico que permita separar tajantemente la individuación del hombre de la de los otros animales. La hipótesis inicial es que tal concepción de la antropogénesis, con el excepcionalismo humanista y el especismo que implica, resulta incompatible con el sistema allí desplegado por Simondon. A (...) lo largo del trabajo se enfatiza que la ontología de Simondon, con sus ambigüedades y tensiones en torno a la cuestión, exige pensar otro concepto de “animalidad” que aquel que hereda de la tradición filosófica contra la que se enfrenta. (shrink)

The European Union Data Protection Regulation will have profound implications for public health, health services research and statistics in Europe. The EU Commission's Proposal was a breakthrough in balancing privacy rights and rights to health and healthcare. The European Parliament, however, has proposed extensive amendments. This paper reviews the amendments proposed by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and their implications for health research and statistics. The amendments eliminate most innovations brought by the Proposal. Notably, (...) derogation to the general prohibition of processing sensitive data shall be allowed for public interests such as the management of healthcare services, but not health research, monitoring, surveillance and governance. The processing of personal health data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes shall be allowed only with the consent of the data subject or if the processing serves an exceptionally high public interest, cannot be performed otherwise and is legally authorised. Research, be it academic, government, corporate or market research, falls under the same rule. The proposed amendments will make difficult or render impossible research and statistics involving the linkage and analysis of the wealth of data from clinical, administrative, insurance and survey sources, which have contributed to improving health outcomes and health systems performance and governance; and may illegitimise efforts that have been made in some European countries to enable privacy-respectful data use for research and statistical purposes. If the amendments stand as written, the right to privacy is likely to override the right to health and healthcare in Europe. (shrink)

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Volume 52, Issue 4, Page 207-234, July 2022. According to Searle’s theory of collective intentionality, the fundamental structure of any society can be accounted for in terms of cooperative mechanisms that create deontic relations. This paper criticizes Searle’s standpoint on the ground that, while his social ontology can make sense of simple systems of interaction like symphony orchestras and football teams, the whole coordinative structure of the modern market society cannot be explained solely in terms (...) of we-intentional collaboration and deontic relations. As clarified by Hayek, because of its complexity, this society is a self-organizing system. It results not only from micro-level agreed constraints, but also from an unintended cybernetic mechanism that affects and shapes both its micro and macro dynamics via a circular causality. Searle ignores the coordination problem posed by complexity and provides strawman arguments against the theory of action underpinning the invisible hand explanation of social phenomena. (shrink)

BackgroundData processing of health research databases often requires a Data Protection Impact Assessment to evaluate the severity of the risk and the appropriateness of measures taken to comply with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation. We aimed to define and apply a comprehensive method for the evaluation of privacy, data governance and ethics among research networks involved in the EU Project Bridge Health.MethodsComputerised survey among associated partners of main EU Consortia, using a targeted instrument designed by the principal investigator (...) and progressively refined in collaboration with an international advisory panel. Descriptive measures using the percentage of adoption of privacy, data governance and ethical principles as main endpoints were used for the analysis and interpretation of the results.ResultsA total of 15 centres provided relevant information on the processing of sensitive data from 10 European countries. Major areas of concern were noted for: data linkage, access and accuracy of personal data and anonymisation procedures. A high variability was noted in the application of privacy principles.ConclusionsA comprehensive methodology of Privacy and Ethics Impact and Performance Assessment was successfully applied at international level. The method can help implementing the GDPR and expanding the scope of Data Protection Impact Assessment, so that the public benefit of the secondary use of health data could be well balanced with the respect of personal privacy. (shrink)

This book contributes to the developing dialogue between cognitive science and social sciences. It focuses on a central issue in both fields, i.e. the nature and the limitations of the rationality of beliefs and action. The development of cognitive science is one of the most important and fascinating intellectual advances of recent decades, and social scientists are paying increasing attention to the findings of this new branch of science that forces us to consider many classical issues related to epistemology and (...) philosophy of action in a new light. This book encourages scholars from different fields who are interested in the dialogue between cognitive science and social sciences, to develop and analyze new perspectives that allow us to elucidate the mystery of rationality. What is rationality? What are its limitations? What rationality assumptions must be used to study social and economic phenomena? The target audience primarily comprises researchers and experts in the field. Analysis of the concept of rationality is a leitmotiv in the history of the social sciences and has involved endless disputes. Since it is difficult to give a precise definition of this concept, and there is a lack of agreement about its meaning, it is possible to say that there is a ‘mystery of rationality’. What is it to be rational? Is rationality merely instrumental or does it also involve the endorsement of values, i.e. the choice of goals? Should we consider rationality to be a normative principle or a descriptive one? Can rationality be only Cartesian or can it also be argumentative? Is rationality a conscious skill or a partly tacit one? This book, which has been written by an outstanding collection of authors, including both philosophers and social scientists, tries to make a useful contribution to the debates on these problems and shed some light on the mystery of rationality. (shrink)

In this chapter Nathalie Bulle and Francesco Di Iorio present critical realism’s take on methodological individualism, their affinities and differences relating to notions of structure and agency in interpreting social reality, and challenge Margaret Archer’s criticisms of MI, which seem to combat a “straw man.”.

While methodological individualism is a fundamental approach within the social sciences, it is often misunderstood. This highlights the need for a discursive and up-to-date reference work analyzing this approach’s classic arguments and assumptions in the light of contemporary issues in sociology, economics and philosophy. This two-volume handbook presents the first comprehensive overview of methodological individualism. Chapters discuss historical and contemporary debates surrounding this central approach within the social sciences, as well as cutting edge developments related to the individualist tradition with (...) philosophical and scientific implications. Bringing together multiple contributions from the world’s leading experts on this important tradition of theorizing, this collective endeavor provides teachers, researchers and students in sociology, economics, and philosophy with a reliable and critical understanding of the founding principles, key thinkers and intellectual development of MI since the late 19th century. ​. (shrink)

While methodological individualism is a fundamental approach within the social sciences, it is often misunderstood. This highlights the need for a discursive and up-to-date reference work analyzing this approach’s classic arguments and assumptions in the light of contemporary issues in sociology, economics and philosophy. This two-volume handbook presents the first comprehensive overview of methodological individualism. Chapters discuss historical and contemporary debates surrounding this central approach within the social sciences, as well as cutting edge developments related to the individualist tradition with (...) philosophical and scientific implications. Bringing together multiple contributions from the world’s leading experts on this important tradition of theorizing, this collective endeavor provides teachers, researchers and students in sociology, economics, and philosophy with a reliable and critical understanding of the founding principles, key thinkers and intellectual development of MI since the late 19th century. (shrink)

This chapter takes the form of a discussion between the editors of this volume and Steven Lukes, one the most eminent critics of methodological individualism. The focus is on Lukes’ interpretation of methodological individualism in terms of linguistic exclusivism (i.e., naive reductionism), the multiple-realization problem, Boudon’s and Elster’s micro-foundationalist approach, ontological individualism, and the rationality of human action.

This chapter takes the form of a discussion between the editors of this volume and Joseph Agassi, regarding the relationship between methodological individualism and institutional individualism. The focus is on Agassi’s interpretation of traditional methodological individualism in terms of psychologism; the role of institutions and structural factors in social explanation; Popper’s theory of World 3; the application of Weber’s interpretative approach—Verstehen—to typical ways of thinking and acting; and the Austrian School of economics.

The purpose of this article is to show that Boudon’s explanation of action in terms of “good reasons” can be philosophically enriched by merging his methodological perspective with Mises’ praxeology and Gadamer’s hermeneutics. In order to develop our goal of merging Boudon’s approach with Mises’ and Gadamer’s, we will focus on two points. The first is the identification of the invariable structure of human action. Unlike Boudon, we suggest that the best way to establish this invariable structure, which makes the (...) explanation of action possible, is not to refer to the controversial concept of “human nature,” but rather to use Mises’ praxeological analysis of the invariable logic which all actions have in common. The second point analyzed in this article is the temporal and cultural dimension of the interpretative process which individuals elaborate to develop their reasons. This point, which is related to hermeneutical philosophy and is not investigated in detail by Boudon, is largely discussed by Gadamer. In our opinion, merging Gadamer’s description of the interpretative process – a process that Gadamer calls “hermeneutical circle” – and Boudon’s sociology of “good reasons” is useful because, unlike Boudon, Gadamer clarifies the epistemological nature of the interpretative process as well as the reasons why this process – which is a trial and error process – allows us to understand the actions of people who belong to different cultures. (shrink)

This chapter takes the form of a discussion between the editors of this volume and Daniel Little regarding the relationship between methodological individualism and methodological localism. The focus is on Little’s view that methodological individualism is incompatible with the assumption that actors are socially constituted and socially situated as well as on other topics such as micro-foundations, the micro–macro link, ontological individualism, causal explanation, rationality, Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, and Durkheim.

On doctrine and concept of doubt in Indian philosophy; seminar papers.

The concepts of Fundierung (“foundation” or “founding”) and Stiftung (“institution” or “instituting”) play a prominent role in the work of Edmund Husserl, who employs Fundierung to describe relations of essential necessity in “static” analyses of intentional consciousness, and Stiftung to describe movements of sedimentation and reactivation in “genetic” analyses of the co-advent of consciousness and the world. Martin Heidegger, meanwhile, employs the notion of Stiften (“establishing”) in his ontological questioning of the disclosure of the truth of beings. It is, therefore, (...) surprising that scholars tend to assume, if not explicitly assert, that Merleau-Ponty treats Fundierung and Stiftung as synonyms. I argue, on the contrary, that Fundierung and Stiftung take on increasingly divergent functions over the course of Merleau-Ponty’s writings, with Stiftung ultimately giving voice to the “ontological operations” of individuation through intertwining whereby sensible and sentient beings, qua flesh, give birth to sense. In particular, I take seriously Merleau-Ponty’s account of Stiftung – from Institution and Passivity onward – as a “double relation of Fundierung”; given that Fundierung is already a “double relation” between the founding and the founded term, Stiftung must be conceived as a “fourfold” relation, wherein each term is simultaneously founding and founded, relative to the other. This fourfold structure articulates the relation of “simultaneity” or “existential eternity” between beings and sense in their advent. By tracing the development of the concept of Stiftung in Merleau-Ponty’s work, I attempt to show that interpreting his thinking of la chair as an “ontology of institution” – in the sense of an articulation of the movement of existence as relations of Stiftung – highlights the originality of his ontologization of Husserlian phenomenology, and thereby his status as a “foundational” thinker in his own right, rather than a merely regional thinker of embodiment.Les concepts de Fundierung (fondation) et de Stiftung (institution) jouent un rôle central dans l’oeuvre d’Edmund Husserl, qui emploie Fundierung pour décrire des relations de nécessité essentielle dans les analyses « statiques » de la conscience intentionnelle, et Stiftung pour décrire les mouvements de sédimentation et de réactivation dans les analyses « génétiques » de l’avènement concomitant de la conscience et du monde. Martin Heidegger, de son côté, emploie la notion de Stiften (instituer, établir) dans son questionnement ontologique du dévoilement de la vérité de l’être. C’est pourquoi il est surprenant que les commentateurs tendent à supposer, sinon à affirmer, que Merleau-Ponty traite Fundierung et Stiftung comme des synonymes. Je soutiens au contraire que ces deux notions exercent des fonctions de plus en plus divergentes dans ses écrits, où la Stiftung exprime au fond les « opérations ontologiques » de l’individuation à travers l’entrelacement par lequel les êtres sensibles et sentants (en tant que chair) donnent naissance au sens. En particulier, je prends au sérieux la conception merleau-pontienne de la Stiftung – à partir des cours sur L’Institution et la passivité – comme « une double relation de Fundierung » ; étant donné que la Fundierung est déjà une « double relation » entre le terme fondant et le terme fondé, la Stiftung doit être conçue comme une relation « quadripartite » dans laquelle chaque terme est simultanément fondant et fondé, relatif à l’autre. Cette structure quadripartite articule la relation de « simultanéité » ou d’« éternité existentielle » entre les étants et le sens dans leur avènement. En retraçant le développement du concept de Stiftung dans les travaux de Merleau-Ponty, je tente de montrer que l’interprétation de sa pensée de la chair comme une « ontologie de l’institution » – au sens d’une articulation du mouvement de l’existence comme relations de Stiftung – souligne l’originalité de son ontologisation de la phénoménologie husserlienne, et par là son statut comme penseur « fondationnel » de plein droit, plutôt qu’un penseur simplement régional de l’incarnation.I concetti di Fundierung (fondazione) e di Stiftung (istituzione) ricoprono un ruolo centrale nell’opera di Edmund Husserl, che si serve del termine Fundierung per descrivere le relazioni di necessità nelle analisi “statiche” della coscienza intenzionale, e di Stiftung per descrivere i movimenti di sedimentazione e di riattivazione nelle analisi “genetiche” del co-avvento di coscienza e mondo. Inoltre, Martin Heidegger usa il termine Stiften (istituire, stabilire) nella sua interrogazione ontologica dello svelamento della verità dell’essere. Per questo, risulta sorprendente che i commentatori di Merleau-Ponty tendano a supporre, se non ad affermare, che il filosofo tratti Fundierung e Stiftung come dei sinonimi. Ritengo al contrario che queste due nozioni rivestano funzioni progressivamente divergenti nei suoi scritti, dal momento che la Stiftung viene ad esprimere le “operazioni ontologiche” dell’individuazione attraverso l’intreccio per cui gli esseri sensibili e senzienti (in quanto carne) permettono la nascita del senso. In particolare, prendo in considerazione la concezione merleau-pontiana della Stiftung – a partire dai corsi sull’istituzione e la passività – come una “doppia relazione di Fundierung”. Nella misura in cui la Fundierung è già una “doppia relazione” tra termine fondante e termine fondato, la Stiftung deve essere pensata come una relazione “quadripartita” in cui ogni termine è simultaneamente fondante e fondato, relativamente all’altro. Questa struttura quadripartita articola la relazione di “simultaneità” o d’“eternità esistenziale” tra gli enti e il senso nel loro avvenimento. Ritracciando lo sviluppo del concetto di Stiftung nei testi di Merleau-Ponty, tento dunque di mostrare come un’interpretazione della sua filosofia della carne come “ontologia dell’istituzione” – nel senso di un’articolazione del movimento dell’esistenza come relazione di Stiftung – metta in luce l’originalità della sua ontologizzazione della fenomenologia husserliana. Ne emerge dunque a pieno titolo un pensatore “fondazionale”, piuttosto che un pensatore semplicemente regionale dell’incarnazione. (shrink)

Text on fundamentals of Vedanta philosophy; includes Sanskrit commentary with Hindi Translation and English explanation.

Portion of Pratyakṣakhaṇḍa of Tattvacintāmaṇi, compendium of Navya Nyāya philosophy by Gaṅgeśa, 13th century with Dīpikā commentary.

: In his book Free Will Sam Harris tries to persuade us to abandon the morally pernicious idea of free will. The following contribution articulates and defends a more sophisticated model of free will that is not only consistent with neuroscience and introspection but also grounds a variety of responsibility that justifies both praise and blame, reward and punishment. This begins with the long lasting parting of opinion between compatibilists and incompatibilists. While Harris dismisses compatibilism as a form of theology, (...) this article aims at showing that Harris has underestimated and misinterpreted compatibilism and at defending a more sophisticated version of compatibilism that is imprevious to Harris’ criticism. Keywords : Sam Harris; Free Will; Compatibilism; Incompatibilism; Neuroscience Riflessioni su "Free Will" di Sam Harris Riassunto : Nel suo libro Free Will Sam Harris cerca di persuaderci ad abbandonare l’idea, a suo avviso moralmente perniciosa, del libero arbitrio. Il contributo seguente articola e difende un modello di libero arbitrio che non solo è coerente con le neuroscienze e con l’introspezione, ma che dà anche fondamento a varie responsabilità giustificando encomi e biasimo, premi e punizioni. Questo prende le mosse dalla discussione della disputa di lunga data fra compatibilisti e incompatibilisti. Mentre Harris respinge il compatibilismo alla stregua di una forma di teologia, questo articolo ambisce a mostrare come Harris abbia sottostimato e mal interpretato il compatibilismo e come invece sia possibile enucleare una forma di compatibilismo più sofisticata, insensibile alle sue critiche. Parole chiave : Sam Harris; Libero arbitrio; Compatibilismo; Incompatibilismo; Neuroscienza. (shrink)

Contributed articles chiefly on Hindu philosophy; souvenir published on the occasion of the Aśvamedha, Hindu sacrifice held at Kota, 11-15 February 1995.

The thought system of Qâdî ‘Abd al-Jabbâr, who is a productive intellectual worker in the Mu‘tazilî school, is established on the contingency (imkân) of obligation (taklîf) of the God upon people. In other words he has a universe and order of thought which is built around the term obligation. Therefore, the content of Qâdî’s aforementioned thought which has a very significant place in Mu‘tazilî thought is constituted of responsbilities of human beings. These responsibilities of the human beings are gathered under (...) the title of rational ones (aqliyyât) in terms of being held responsible by reason and the title sem‘iyyât which covers the things that fall under the category of responsibilities that can be only known by revelation (wahy) due to the imposibility of being assigned by the sole reason. In short, aqliyyât corrresponds to the rational field of obligation whereas se‘miyyât corresponds to the legal (shar’i) field of responsibility. The responsibilites under the title aqliyyât are such as tawhîd, justice, and other non-primary premises that serve as instruments for comrehending these two terms. The content of sem‘iyyât, on the other hand, is constituted of the issues that fall outside of the rational obligation (taklîf al-aqlî) and can only be known by means of sam‘ (revelation) such as the knowledge that adultry leads to moral corruption or the knowledge of juristic worships. We can observe that Qâdî ‘Abd al-Jabbâr, did make use of three different kinds of proofs in order to prove, found, and justify the aforementioned issues which lay the foundations for his thought. These are rational (aqlî), revelational (sam‘î) and linguistic (lugawi) proofs, respectively. For each of these kinds of proofs there is an idiosyncratic domain of coverage on which that kind of proof is considered as the unique authority. This research aims to elaborate the domain the only authority of which is the linguistic proofs and also aims to render it comprehensive. So to speak, the motivating factor of this research is to clarify the question of to what extent the language plays a role in Qâdî’s thought and its domain of influence in the simplest way. (shrink)

_:_ This metacomment on Dennett’s comment on Sam Harris’s book on free will examines two issues. First, how one should conceive of the relationship between philosophy and science, in particular considering the dismissive attitude many highly regarded scientists show towards philosophy today. Second, a critical assessment of Harris’s replies to Dennett’s criticisms. _Keywords:_ Daniel Dennett; Sam Harris; Free Will; Science; Philosophy _In difesa dei vincoli avuncolari. Dennett e Harris sul rapporto tra filosofia e scienza_ _Riassunto:_ Questo metacommento sulle osservazioni avanzate (...) da Dennett sul libro di Sam Harris sul libero arbitrio verte su due questioni. In primo luogo, discute come si dovrebbe concepire il rapporto tra filosofia e scienza, in particolar modo considerando l’atteggiamento sprezzante mostrato oggi nei confronti della filosofia da diversi scienziati molto in vista. In secondo luogo saranno oggetto di valutazione critica le risposte di Harris alle critiche di Dennett. _Parole chiave: _Daniel Dennett; Sam Harris; Libero arbitrio; Scienza; Filosofia. (shrink)

: What is at stake in the debate between those, such as Sam Harris and me, who contend that we would lack free will on the supposition that we are causally determined agents, and those that defend the claim that we might then retain free will, such as Daniel Dennett? I agree with Dennett that on the supposition of causal determination there would be robust ways in which we could shape, control, and cause our actions. But I deny that on (...) this supposition we would have the control in action required for us to basically deserve to be blamed, praised, punished or rewarded. In this response, I argue that this is the core issue that divides compatibilists and incompatiblists about free will and causal determination, and that the incompatibilist position is the right one to accept. Keywords: Sam Harris; Daniel Dennett; Free Will Skepticism; Compatibilism; Incompatibilism Risposta a Daniel Dennet sullo scetticismo circa il libero arbitrio Riassunto: Qual è la posta in gioco nel dibattito che vede contrapporsi chi – come Sam Harris e me – sostiene che non avremmo libertà di volere sulla scorta dell’ipotesi per cui siamo agenti causalmente determinati e chi, al contrario – come Daniel Dennett – difende l’idea che possa darsi un libero volere? Concordo con Dennett circa il fatto che, anche nell’ipotesi della determinazione causale, resterebbe lo spazio per sostenere che per vari e importanti aspetti saremmo comunque noi a modellare, controllare e causare le nostre azioni. E tuttavia rifiuto che su questa base avremmo il controllo in azioni richieste per meritare di essere biasimati, lodati, puniti o premiati. A mio avviso questo è l’elemento cardine che divide i compatibilisti dagli incompatibilisti all’interno del dibattito sul libero arbitro e sulla determinazione causale e ritengo che la posizione corretta sia quella incompatibista. Parole chiave: Sam Harris; Daniel Dennett; Scetticismo verso il libero arbitrio; Compatibilismo; Incompatibilismo. (shrink)

: This article critically examines central arguments made in Sam Harris’ Free Will as well as key aspects of Daniel Dennett’s compatibilist conception of free will. I argue that while Dennett makes thoughtful replies to Harris’ critique of compatibilism, his compatibilism continues to be plagued by critical points raised by Bruce Waller. Additionally, I argue that Harris’ rejection of the libertarian view of free will is ill-informed and I explain the basics of Robert Kane’s libertarian view, arguing that it can (...) be defended against points raised by both Dennett and Harris. Keywords: Free Will; Libertarianism; Compatibilism; Daniel Dennett; Sam Harris Una replica libertaria Dennett e Harris sul libero arbitrio Riassunto : Questo articolo prende criticamente in esame gli argomenti principali presentati nel volume di Sam Harris “Free Will” e gli aspetti principali della concezione compatibili sta proposta da Daniel Dennett sul libero arbitrio. Intendo sostenere che Dennett, pur rispondendo accuratamente alla critica del compatibilismo proposta da Harris, sostiene un compatibilismo che resta sotto il giogo delle critiche sollevate da Bruce Waller. Inoltre, cercherò di sostenere che il rifiuto della prospettiva libertarian proposto da Harris è una posizione male informata ed esporrò I principi di base della prospettiva libertarian di Robert Kane, affermando che lo si può difendere dale critiche sollevate sia da Dennett che da Harris. Parole chiave: Libero arbitrio; Libertarianismo; Compatibilismo; Daniel Dennett; Sam Harris. (shrink)

It has been hypothesized that our believing that, or its seeming to us as though, the world is in some way dynamical partially explains (and perhaps rationalizes) future-bias. Recent work has, in turn, found a correlation between future-bias and near-bias, suggesting that there is a common explanation for both. Call the claim that what partially explains our being both future- and near-biased is our believing/it seeming to us as though the world is dynamical, the dynamical explanation. We empirically test two (...) versions of the dynamical explanation. The first is the moving ego explanation—according to which it is our belief that the ego moves, or our phenomenology as of the ego moving, that jointly (partially) explains future- and near-bias. The second is the moving time explanation—according to which it is our belief that time robustly passes, or our phenomenology as of robust passage, which jointly (partially) explain future- and near-bias. We found no evidence in favour of either explanation. (shrink)

This paper offers a new account of metaphysical explanation. The account is modelled on Kitcher’s unificationist approach to scientific explanation. We begin, in Sect. 2, by briefly introducing the notion of metaphysical explanation and outlining the target of analysis. After that, we introduce a unificationist account of metaphysical explanation before arguing that such an account is capable of capturing four core features of metaphysical explanations: irreflexivity, non-monotonicity, asymmetry and relevance. Since the unificationist theory of metaphysical explanation inherits irreflexivity and non-monotonicity (...) directly from the unificationist theory of scientific explanation that underwrites it, we focus on demonstrating how the account can secure asymmetry and relevance. (shrink)

Call an explanation in which a non-mathematical fact is explained—in part or in whole—by mathematical facts: an extra-mathematical explanation. Such explanations have attracted a great deal of interest recently in arguments over mathematical realism. In this article, a theory of extra-mathematical explanation is developed. The theory is modelled on a deductive-nomological theory of scientific explanation. A basic DN account of extra-mathematical explanation is proposed and then redeveloped in the light of two difficulties that the basic theory faces. The final view (...) appeals to relevance logic and uses resources in information theory to understand the explanatory relationship between mathematical and physical facts. 1Introduction2Anchoring3The Basic Deductive-Mathematical Account4The Genuineness Problem5Irrelevance6Relevance and Information7Objections and Replies 7.1Against relevance logic7.2Too epistemic7.3Informational containment8Conclusion. (shrink)

What distinguishes causation from grounding? One suggestion is that causation, but not grounding, occurs over time. Recently, however, counterexamples to this simple temporal criterion have been offered. In this paper, we situate the temporal criterion within a broader framework that focuses on two aspects: locational overlapping in space and time and the presence of intermediaries in space and time. We consider, and reject, the idea that the difference between grounding and causation is that grounding can occur without intermediaries. We go (...) on to use the fact that grounding and causation both involve intermediaries to develop a better temporal criterion for distinguishing causation from grounding. The criterion is this: when a cause and effect are spatially disjoint, there is always a chain of causal intermediaries between the cause and the effect that are extended in time. By contrast, when the grounds and the grounded are spatially disjoint, there is always a chain of grounding intermediaries, but the chain need not be extended in time, it can be purely spatial. The difference between grounding and causation, then, is that causation requires time for chaining in a way that grounding does not. (shrink)

La pubblicazione di questo volume risponde a diverse esigenze. Prima fra tutto di stimolare un dibattito interdisciplinare intorno a uno fra gli argomenti che maggiormente suscitarono l'interesse di Francesco Iengo: il concetto di metropoli, o meglio la macroarea concettuale, a cui si collega la riflessione sulla società e sulla civiltà moderna e sull'idea stessa di modernità. Ulteriore preoccupazione è stata quella di di evitare il classico omaggio "alla memoria" confrontandoci con lavori scientifici di Iengo in modo interlocutorio, eludendo malinconiche rimembrwnze (...) e sterili piaggerie accademiche. Il risultato è un quadro collettivo movimentato e ampio che spazia storicamente e geograficamente, in una varietà di approcci e di spunti, tra estetica, filosofia, letteratura, antropologia, cinema. (shrink)

Mathematics appears to play an explanatory role in science. This, in turn, is thought to pave a way toward mathematical Platonism. A central challenge for mathematical Platonists, however, is to provide an account of how mathematical explanations work. I propose a property-based account: physical systems possess mathematical properties, which either guarantee the presence of other mathematical properties and, by extension, the physical states that possess them; or rule out other mathematical properties, and their associated physical states. I explain why Platonists (...) should accept that physical systems have mathematical properties, and why a property based account is better than existing accounts of mathematical explanation. I close by considering whether nominalists can accept the view I propose here. I argue that they cannot. (shrink)