BJPS Short Reads: Recent Episodes
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
David Thorstad on what lies beyond simple rules
Read the essay here: https://www.thebsps.org/short-reads/thorstad-institutionaldecisionmaking/
Davide Serpico and Valentina Petrolini on rethinking mental health and pathology through epigenetics.
Read the essay here: https://www.thebsps.org/short-reads/drawing-the-line-serpico-petrolini/
James Ladyman and Lorenzo Lorenzetti on understanding effective realism through the lens of structural realism
Read the essay here: https://www.thebsps.org/short-reads/standard-model-ladyman-lorenzetti/
Francesca Bellazzi on what it means to say that a biochemical has a function.
Read the essay here: https://www.thebsps.org/short-reads/biochemical-functions-bellazzi/
Robert Williams and Richard Pettigrew ask how we should measure the accuracy of probabilities.
Read the essay here: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-2iw
Ian Robertson, Julian Kiverstein, and Michael Kirchhoff on the literalist fallacy and realism about the free energy principle.
Read the essay here: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-2iw
David Oderberg, Jonathan Hill, Christopher Austin, Ingo Bojak, François Cinotti, and Jon Gibbins ask what mistakes mean for philosophy and biology.
Read the essay here: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-2ix
David Thorstad asks if bounded agents can have both accuracy and coherence.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-2ba
Analog computation, properly understood, is the best candidate for characterizing neural computation, argues Corey J Maley.
Read the essay here: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-29f.
Liam Kofi Bright and Remco Heesen ask how we determine what to pay attention to.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1SW
Mario Hubert on how an investigation of the initial-value problem challenges our view of electromagnetism.
Read the essay here: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-22Z
Michael te Vrugt asks if exchanging two indistinguishable particles changes anything.
Read the essay here: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-22Z
Eddy Keming Chen offers a new solution to the puzzles of time’s arrow and quantum ontology.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-20r.
Justin Garson on the study of mechanisms and the study of history.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1LN.
Elanor Taylor on what makes a good explanation.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1IZ
Caspar Jacobs on what's wrong with the pristine interpretation.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1TD
Luca Incurvati and Giorgio Sbardolini on the evolution of negation.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1TT.
Richard Healey on whether there are objective facts in the quantum world.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1SZ.
Florian J. Boge explains why it may be epistemically acceptable to tune models for experimental analysis.
Read essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1U9.
Yunus Prasetya on what substantive accounts of explanation say about inference to the best explanation.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1Rd
Oliver M Lean, Luca Rivelli, and Charles H Pence on what philosophers can learn from a ‘distant reading’ of science journals.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1Ql
Josh Habgood-Coote on whether authorship is an obstacle to recognising the division of labour in science.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1NS
Igor Douven on evolutionary modelling and trust in science.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1No
Nadia Ruiz and Armin W Schulz offer a complexity-based reconceptualization of the debate.
Read the essay: https://wp.me/paiQQ4-1J4