Polger and Shapiro’s The Multiple Realization Book // Reviewed by Marion Godman
Marion Godman reviews The Multiple Realization Book, by Polger and Shapiro
This author has yet to write their bio.Meanwhile lets just say that we are proud Elizabeth Hannon contributed a whooping 281 entries.
Marion Godman reviews The Multiple Realization Book, by Polger and Shapiro
Shane N. Glackin reviews The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher, by Couch and Pfeifer
Michael Wilde reviews Making Medical Knowledge, by Miriam Solomon
Elanor Taylor reviews Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy, by Carl Gillett
John Dupré reviews Organisms, Agency, and Evolution, by D. M. Walsh
Julia Bursten reviews Essays in the Philosophy of Chemistry, by Scerri and Fisher
A ‘no miracles’ argument is still prevalent in the scientific realism debate, even if a lot has changed since Hilary Putnam’s formulation of it, and even if the word ‘miracle’ is generally avoided. For example, realists think that if the most central ‘working’ parts of a scientific theory were not even approximately true (for any serious theory of ‘approximate truth’), then it would be incredibly unlikely (‘miraculous’) for that theory to deliver successful novel predictions with ‘perfect’ quantitative accuracy (e.g. to several significant figures). It would be like perfectly predicting the time and position of the next solar eclipse based on a completely false (not even approximately true) model of how the sun, moon, and earth interact. Here it is appropriate to talk in terms of ‘counterexamples’ to scientific realism: any historical case where a scientific theory delivered ‘perfect’ predictions but where the central working parts of the theory are now thought to be radically false would be a very serious thorn in the side of nearly every contemporary scientific realist position.
Adrian Currie reviews Data-centric Biology, by Sabina Leonelli
Andrew Buskell reviews Surfing Uncertainty, by Andy Clark
While we have a better understanding of the olfactory pathway today, many of the central questions remain unresolved. How do you classify smells and how do you make their perception comparable? (And how do you control the volatile stimulus, its concentration, and its administration in psychophysical studies?) What are the perceptual dimensions of smell? Are there such things as primary odours? How does the brain represent smells? From this perspective, the discovery of how the sense of smell works presents us with an intriguing, yet untold, history of creativity in scientific reasoning.