Studies in History and Philosophy of Science最新文献

英文中文

Proto-externalist analyses of Darwinism in Polish philosophy at turn of 19th century: How disputes of A. Chałupczyński and B. Dybowski anticipated later controversies among historians of biology 19世纪初波兰哲学中达尔文主义的原始外在主义分析：A. Chałupczyński和B. Dybowski的争论如何预示了后来生物学史家之间的争论

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-15 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102111

Michał Jakub Wagner

This article revises the genealogy of “externalism” in Darwin studies by foregrounding two nineteenth-century Polish figures – Adam Chałupczyński and Benedykt Dybowski. Against the usual line from Marxism, pragmatism, and sociology of science, it shows that Marx/Engels and C. S. Peirce criticized Social Darwinism and reception dynamics rather than reducing Darwin's theory to capitalist ideology. Chałupczyński offers an explicit non-Marxist/pragmatist externalism: reading natural selection as an expression of British imperial capitalism and proposing a cooperation-cantered, pacifist evolutionism shaped by Polish nation-building ambitions. Dybowski anticipates “essentialist story” of J. Dewey and E. Mayr by attacking “mutational” (typological) thinking and tying resistance to Darwinism to church authority, idealist philosophy, and social hierarchy. Set alongside Russian and German politicizations of biological discourse, these cases show externalist analyses emerging from diverse East-European contexts. Recovering them complicates the internalism/externalism binary, decouples externalism from a narrow Anglophone lineage, and significantly widens the archive for Darwin-studies.

本文通过突出两位19世纪的波兰人物——亚当Chałupczyński和本尼迪克特·迪博斯基，修正了达尔文研究中“外在主义”的谱系。与马克思主义、实用主义和科学社会学的通常路线相反，它表明马克思/恩格斯和C. S.皮尔斯批评社会达尔文主义和接受动力学，而不是将达尔文的理论归结为资本主义意识形态。Chałupczyński提供了一种明确的非马克思主义/实用主义的外在主义：将自然选择解读为大英帝国资本主义的一种表达，并提出了一种以合作为中心的和平主义进化论，这种进化论受到波兰国家建设野心的影响。Dybowski通过攻击“突变”（类型学）思维，并将对达尔文主义的抵制与教会权威、唯心主义哲学和社会等级联系起来，预见了J. Dewey和E. Mayr的“本质主义故事”。这些案例与俄罗斯和德国的生物学话语政治化相结合，显示了来自不同东欧背景的外部主义分析。恢复它们使内部主义和外部主义的二元对立变得复杂，将外部主义从狭隘的英语谱系中分离出来，并大大拓宽了达尔文研究的档案。

{"title":"Proto-externalist analyses of Darwinism in Polish philosophy at turn of 19th century: How disputes of A. Chałupczyński and B. Dybowski anticipated later controversies among historians of biology","authors":"Michał Jakub Wagner","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102111","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102111","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article revises the genealogy of “externalism” in Darwin studies by foregrounding two nineteenth-century Polish figures – Adam Chałupczyński and Benedykt Dybowski. Against the usual line from Marxism, pragmatism, and sociology of science, it shows that Marx/Engels and C. S. Peirce criticized Social Darwinism and reception dynamics rather than reducing Darwin's theory to capitalist ideology. Chałupczyński offers an explicit non-Marxist/pragmatist externalism: reading natural selection as an expression of British imperial capitalism and proposing a cooperation-cantered, pacifist evolutionism shaped by Polish nation-building ambitions. Dybowski anticipates “essentialist story” of J. Dewey and E. Mayr by attacking “mutational” (typological) thinking and tying resistance to Darwinism to church authority, idealist philosophy, and social hierarchy. Set alongside Russian and German politicizations of biological discourse, these cases show externalist analyses emerging from diverse East-European contexts. Recovering them complicates the internalism/externalism binary, decouples externalism from a narrow Anglophone lineage, and significantly widens the archive for Darwin-studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145981862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The conceptual evolution of exclusion rules in the DSM: Problems with determining when one diagnosis should rule out another DSM中排除规则的概念演变：确定一种诊断应排除另一种诊断的问题

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102107

Rachel Cooper

For each mental disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the classification provides diagnostic criteria which list the symptoms required for diagnosis. Most sets of diagnostic criteria incorporate exclusion criteria, which state that a diagnosis can only be made in the absence of certain other diagnoses (for example, a specific learning disorder can usually only be diagnosed in the absence of intellectual disability). Exclusion criteria make it clear whether diagnoses can be made together or are exclusive. In the absence of such guidelines, diagnoses will not be reliable and the prevalence of conditions cannot be measured. Through tracing the conceptualisation of exclusion criteria across the DSM series, I show that exclusion criteria are necessary, but that determining what they should be has been intractably difficult. The exclusion rules employed by a classification reflect basic ontological and theoretical judgements about the causal structure of psychopathology. Pragmatic judgements also often play a role. As such, exclusion criteria introduce multiple tensions into the DSM system. On the one hand, exclusion criteria are required. On the other hand, the fact that exclusion criteria often rely on theoretical suppositions undermines any claims that the DSM can avoid controversial commitments. At the same time, the role played by pragmatic concerns, which are by nature often context dependent, threatens the employment of the DSM as a multi-purpose classification used world-wide. More fundamentally, difficulties around determining exclusion rules can arise because it is often unclear how mental disorders might be individuated, and such difficulties undermine hopes that the DSM might describe ‘natural kinds’ of disorder.

对于《精神障碍诊断和统计手册》（DSM）中列出的每种精神障碍，分类提供了诊断标准，列出了诊断所需的症状。大多数诊断标准都包含排除标准，即只有在没有某些其他诊断的情况下才能做出诊断（例如，特定的学习障碍通常只能在没有智力残疾的情况下诊断出来）。排除标准明确了诊断是可以一起进行还是单独进行。如果没有这样的指南，诊断将不可靠，疾病的流行程度也无法衡量。通过追溯DSM系列中排除标准的概念化，我表明排除标准是必要的，但确定它们应该是什么是非常困难的。分类所采用的排除规则反映了对精神病理因果结构的基本本体论和理论判断。务实的判断也经常发挥作用。因此，排除标准将多个张力引入DSM系统。一方面，需要排除标准。另一方面，排除标准通常依赖于理论假设的事实削弱了DSM可以避免有争议承诺的任何主张。与此同时，务实的关切所发挥的作用，其本质上往往取决于具体情况，威胁到DSM作为世界范围内使用的多用途分类的使用。更根本的是，确定排除规则的困难可能会出现，因为人们往往不清楚精神障碍是如何个体化的，而这种困难破坏了DSM可能描述“自然类型”障碍的希望。

{"title":"The conceptual evolution of exclusion rules in the DSM: Problems with determining when one diagnosis should rule out another","authors":"Rachel Cooper","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102107","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102107","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>For each mental disorder listed in the <em>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</em> (DSM), the classification provides diagnostic criteria which list the symptoms required for diagnosis. Most sets of diagnostic criteria incorporate exclusion criteria, which state that a diagnosis can only be made in the absence of certain other diagnoses (for example, a specific learning disorder can usually only be diagnosed in the absence of intellectual disability). Exclusion criteria make it clear whether diagnoses can be made together or are exclusive. In the absence of such guidelines, diagnoses will not be reliable and the prevalence of conditions cannot be measured. Through tracing the conceptualisation of exclusion criteria across the DSM series, I show that exclusion criteria are necessary, but that determining what they should be has been intractably difficult. The exclusion rules employed by a classification reflect basic ontological and theoretical judgements about the causal structure of psychopathology. Pragmatic judgements also often play a role. As such, exclusion criteria introduce multiple tensions into the DSM system. On the one hand, exclusion criteria are required. On the other hand, the fact that exclusion criteria often rely on theoretical suppositions undermines any claims that the DSM can avoid controversial commitments. At the same time, the role played by pragmatic concerns, which are by nature often context dependent, threatens the employment of the DSM as a multi-purpose classification used world-wide. More fundamentally, difficulties around determining exclusion rules can arise because it is often unclear how mental disorders might be individuated, and such difficulties undermine hopes that the DSM might describe ‘natural kinds’ of disorder.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145981861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Emergent causal novelty. From early emergentism to the contemporary debate 突发因果新颖性。从早期的萌芽到当代的争论

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-13 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102103

Erica Onnis

Among metaphysicians, philosophers of science, and scientists, emergent phenomena are usually considered entities that depend on lower-level goings-on while maintaining some autonomy and manifesting some novelty in relation to them. Yet, understanding these features more precisely is an open problem. In this paper, I focus on emergent novelty. In the contemporary debate, this feature has been steadily interpreted in causal terms, and this causal interpretation has often been developed in a power-based framework. Moreover, several authors who played important roles in reintroducing this interpretation in the contemporary debate traced it back to the so-called “British Emergentists”. This paper aims to show that this alleged inheritance should be carefully reassessed. On the one hand, at least some of the early emergentists (John Stuart Mill, Conwy Lloyd Morgan, and Samuel Alexander) did not attach tremendous importance to causal efficacy compared to other forms of emergent novelty that I suggest calling “qualitative”. On the other hand, while contemporary accounts of emergence are prevalently outlined within a non-Humean metaphysical framework in which talk of powers is pertinent, at least some of the early emergentists were prevalently Humean in relation to causality, and explicitly rejected talk of powers or causal properties. Moreover, both Alexander and Lloyd Morgan recognised at least another form of causal efficacy associated with what the former called “Nisus”. This paper suggests that acknowledging and recovering these pluralist views about novelty and causation, besides representing a more accurate reading of early emergentism, would allow for the formulation of better and more comprehensive models of emergence.

在形而上学家、科学哲学家和科学家中，涌现现象通常被认为是依赖于较低层次的实体，同时保持一定的自主性，并表现出与之相关的一些新颖性。然而，更精确地理解这些特征是一个悬而未决的问题。在本文中，我主要关注突现新颖性。在当代的争论中，这一特征一直被稳定地用因果关系来解释，而这种因果解释往往是在基于权力的框架中发展起来的。此外，几位在当代辩论中重新引入这种解释方面发挥了重要作用的作者将其追溯到所谓的“英国紧急主义者”。本文旨在表明，这种所谓的继承应该仔细地重新评估。一方面，至少有一些早期的涌现主义者（John Stuart Mill， Conwy Lloyd Morgan和Samuel Alexander）与我建议称之为“定性”的其他涌现新颖性形式相比，并不十分重视因果效应。另一方面，虽然当代关于涌现的描述普遍是在一个非休谟的形而上学框架中概述的，其中关于权力的讨论是相关的，至少一些早期的涌现主义者在因果关系方面普遍是休谟的，并且明确地拒绝谈论权力或因果属性。此外，亚历山大和劳埃德•摩根（Lloyd Morgan）都至少认识到与前者所称的“Nisus”相关的另一种形式的因果效力。本文认为，承认和恢复这些关于新颖性和因果关系的多元主义观点，除了代表对早期涌现主义更准确的解读之外，还将有助于形成更好、更全面的涌现模型。

{"title":"Emergent causal novelty. From early emergentism to the contemporary debate","authors":"Erica Onnis","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102103","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102103","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Among metaphysicians, philosophers of science, and scientists, emergent phenomena are usually considered entities that depend on lower-level goings-on while maintaining some autonomy and manifesting some novelty in relation to them. Yet, understanding these features more precisely is an open problem. In this paper, I focus on emergent novelty. In the contemporary debate, this feature has been steadily interpreted in causal terms, and this causal interpretation has often been developed in a power-based framework. Moreover, several authors who played important roles in reintroducing this interpretation in the contemporary debate traced it back to the so-called “British Emergentists”. This paper aims to show that this alleged inheritance should be carefully reassessed. On the one hand, at least some of the early emergentists (John Stuart Mill, Conwy Lloyd Morgan, and Samuel Alexander) did not attach tremendous importance to causal efficacy compared to other forms of emergent novelty that I suggest calling “qualitative”. On the other hand, while contemporary accounts of emergence are prevalently outlined within a non-Humean metaphysical framework in which talk of powers is pertinent, at least some of the early emergentists were prevalently Humean in relation to causality, and explicitly rejected talk of powers or causal properties. Moreover, both Alexander and Lloyd Morgan recognised at least another form of causal efficacy associated with what the former called “Nisus”. This paper suggests that acknowledging and recovering these pluralist views about novelty and causation, besides representing a more accurate reading of early emergentism, would allow for the formulation of better and more comprehensive models of emergence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145950329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

"Why do we argue about the specialness of the social sciences?" “为什么我们要争论社会科学的特殊性？”

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102113

Anna Alexandrova , Martin Kusch

引用次数: 0

Revisiting the social contract for science 重新审视科学的社会契约

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102106

R.M. Morgan , E.A. Levin , R. Haslam , M. Biriotti

The conceptual framework that presents scientific researchers in a transactional relationship with wider society, receiving funding and autonomy in exchange for producing beneficial discoveries and outcomes, is generally known as the social contract for science. This contract has been revisited multiple times, with iterations evolving as ‘wicked problems’ have become identified by many as priorities for research, and as funding models have become more generally tied to predefined or applied outcomes. In parallel, within the Arts and Humanities, there has been growing discourse on the characteristics and ramifications of ‘Modernism’, ‘Postmodernism’, ‘Liquid Modernity’, and ‘Metamodernism’. This paper juxtaposes these two separate bodies of thought, and in doing so, identifies that both are underpinned by similar core themes: (1) ‘trust’ (including a loss of trust in professional researchers, or objective, unproblematic truth), (2) ‘acceleration’ (including acceleration of research outputs), and (3) ‘crisis’ (including narratives of risk, urgency, and emergency underpinning research). Comparison also reveals the importance of narrative, ‘polylogue’, and transparency in navigating modern research into ‘metacrises’. Considering the next iteration of the Social Contract for Science may be helpful in navigating uncertainty, complexity, and (in some quarters) dissatisfaction with the current funding model of university research.

科学研究人员与更广泛的社会处于交易关系，以产生有益的发现和成果来换取资金和自主权，这一概念框架通常被称为科学的社会契约。这个合同已经被重新审视了很多次，随着“棘手问题”的迭代演变，许多人已经将其确定为研究的优先事项，而资金模型也越来越普遍地与预定义或应用的结果联系在一起。与此同时，在艺术与人文学科中，关于“现代主义”、“后现代主义”、“流动现代性”和“元现代主义”的特征和分支的论述也在不断增加。本文将这两个独立的思想体系并置，并通过这样做，确定两者都以类似的核心主题为基础：(1)“信任”（包括对专业研究人员的信任丧失，或客观的，毫无疑问的真相），(2)“加速”（包括研究产出的加速），以及(3)“危机”（包括风险，紧迫性和紧急基础研究的叙述）。比较还揭示了叙事、“多语”和透明度在引导现代研究进入“元危机”中的重要性。考虑科学社会契约的下一个迭代可能有助于引导不确定性、复杂性，以及（在某些方面）对当前大学研究资助模式的不满。

{"title":"Revisiting the social contract for science","authors":"R.M. Morgan , E.A. Levin , R. Haslam , M. Biriotti","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102106","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102106","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The conceptual framework that presents scientific researchers in a transactional relationship with wider society, receiving funding and autonomy in exchange for producing beneficial discoveries and outcomes, is generally known as the social contract for science. This contract has been revisited multiple times, with iterations evolving as ‘wicked problems’ have become identified by many as priorities for research, and as funding models have become more generally tied to predefined or applied outcomes. In parallel, within the Arts and Humanities, there has been growing discourse on the characteristics and ramifications of ‘Modernism’, ‘Postmodernism’, ‘Liquid Modernity’, and ‘Metamodernism’. This paper juxtaposes these two separate bodies of thought, and in doing so, identifies that both are underpinned by similar core themes: (1) ‘trust’ (including a loss of trust in professional researchers, or objective, unproblematic truth), (2) ‘acceleration’ (including acceleration of research outputs), and (3) ‘crisis’ (including narratives of risk, urgency, and emergency underpinning research). Comparison also reveals the importance of narrative, ‘polylogue’, and transparency in navigating modern research into ‘metacrises’. Considering the next iteration of the Social Contract for Science may be helpful in navigating uncertainty, complexity, and (in some quarters) dissatisfaction with the current funding model of university research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 102106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145927275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Evaluating the string-based multiverse research programme from the perspective of the history of science 从科学史的角度评价基于字符串的多元宇宙研究计划

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-07 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102104

Man Ho Chan

Recently, many scientific studies have discussed multiverse models based on the string theory landscape. However, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, there has been a great debate on the falsifiability of the multiverse models. As there is no consensus among scientists and philosophers on the criteria of falsifiability, whether the string-based multiverse theory is a legitimate scientific theory or not is found to be inconclusive. In this article, I have used Lakatos's idea of a scientific research programme to evaluate the string-based multiverse theory developed over the past few decades. From the perspective of the history of science, I show that the string-based multiverse research programme is close to being a degenerating research programme, which means that this line of research did not generate any substantial growth of truth content.

近年来，许多科学研究都在讨论基于弦理论的多元宇宙模型。然而，从科学哲学的角度来看，关于多元宇宙模型的可证伪性一直存在着很大的争论。由于科学家和哲学家在可证伪性的标准上没有达成共识，基于弦的多元宇宙理论是否是一个合法的科学理论被发现是不确定的。在这篇文章中，我使用了拉卡托斯的科学研究计划来评估过去几十年来发展起来的基于弦的多元宇宙理论。从科学史的角度来看，我表明基于字符串的多元宇宙研究计划接近于一个退化的研究计划，这意味着这条研究路线并没有产生任何实质性的真理内容增长。

引用次数: 0

Iberian Oceanography: The Strait of Gibraltar region and the Portuguese research vessel Albacora in the international scientific framework (1925–1940) 伊比利亚海洋学：国际科学框架中的直布罗陀海峡地区和葡萄牙科考船Albacora （1925-1940）

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-07 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102114

Pier Luigi Pireddu

This article examines the oceanographic research conducted with the Portuguese vessel Albacora, owned by the Vasco da Gama Aquarium, between 1925 and 1940. During this period, the Albacora completed several expeditions, which are summarized here within an international scientific context. The vessel's contributions are highlighted through an overview of key scientific achievements in the first half of the 20th century, with particular emphasis on the close collaboration between Scandinavian countries and the Portuguese scientific community, led by the pivotal figure Alfredo Magalhães Ramalho. In addition to detailing major Scandinavian expeditions, the article thoroughly explores the Albacora's role in studying the Strait of Gibraltar region. Previously analyzed by Scandinavian researchers, this area received renewed attention through the Albacora's inclusion in an International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) research program. The Strait is presented within an Iberian context, shedding light on debates along the Spain-Portugal axis and illustrating the region's historical significance in advancing knowledge of ocean circulation. Through the Albacora, Portugal became an integral part of an international network dedicated to oceanographic and marine research.

本文考察了1925年至1940年间由葡萄牙船只Albacora进行的海洋学研究，该船归Vasco da Gama水族馆所有。在此期间，Albacora完成了几次探险，在国际科学背景下进行了总结。通过对20世纪上半叶主要科学成就的概述，突出了这艘船的贡献，特别强调了斯堪的纳维亚国家与葡萄牙科学界之间的密切合作，由关键人物阿尔弗雷多·马加尔·赫斯·拉马霍领导。除了详细介绍主要的斯堪的纳维亚探险外，文章还深入探讨了Albacora在研究直布罗陀海峡地区中的作用。此前，斯堪的纳维亚的研究人员对这一地区进行了分析，通过将长鳍鲸纳入国际海洋探索理事会（ICES）的研究计划，该地区重新受到了关注。该海峡在伊比利亚的背景下呈现，揭示了沿着西班牙-葡萄牙轴的辩论，并说明了该地区在推进海洋环流知识方面的历史意义。通过Albacora，葡萄牙成为致力于海洋学和海洋研究的国际网络的组成部分。

{"title":"Iberian Oceanography: The Strait of Gibraltar region and the Portuguese research vessel Albacora in the international scientific framework (1925–1940)","authors":"Pier Luigi Pireddu","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102114","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102114","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article examines the oceanographic research conducted with the Portuguese vessel <em>Albacora</em>, owned by the Vasco da Gama Aquarium, between 1925 and 1940. During this period, the <em>Albacora</em> completed several expeditions, which are summarized here within an international scientific context. The vessel's contributions are highlighted through an overview of key scientific achievements in the first half of the 20th century, with particular emphasis on the close collaboration between Scandinavian countries and the Portuguese scientific community, led by the pivotal figure Alfredo Magalhães Ramalho. In addition to detailing major Scandinavian expeditions, the article thoroughly explores the Albacora's role in studying the Strait of Gibraltar region. Previously analyzed by Scandinavian researchers, this area received renewed attention through the <em>Albacora</em>'s inclusion in an International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) research program. The Strait is presented within an Iberian context, shedding light on debates along the Spain-Portugal axis and illustrating the region's historical significance in advancing knowledge of ocean circulation. Through the <em>Albacora</em>, Portugal became an integral part of an international network dedicated to oceanographic and marine research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 102114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145927345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Pragmatic pluralism and problem framing: Why pragmatism demands pluralism 实用主义多元主义与问题框架：为什么实用主义需要多元主义。

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-06 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102109

Erman Sözüdoğru

In this paper I focus on the benefits of scientific pluralism in practice. My main motivation is to investigate how do these benefits play out in practice, and how do different systems of knowledge come together to address particular questions? One might accept the epistemic benefits of plurality, yet still deem it undesirable for pragmatic reasons. My argument responds to this objection, which assumes that pragmatic demands can supersede the epistemic benefits of pluralism based on the problems at hand.

I argue that this objection fails because it assumes problems are independent of inquirers. Building on classical pragmatism, I argue that problems are framed by inquirers and cannot be seen as separate from practices. Rather than facing predefined problems, inquirers confront indeterminate situations, requiring judgements on how to formulate the situation. Different framings are possible based on who is involved in making these judgments. A lack of plurality among inquirers leads to frameworks that overlook certain aspects and complexity. Therefore, pluralism is pragmatically beneficial when framing a problem, enabling inquirers to explore various dimensions of complex situations and enrich problem framing.

I illustrate my argument by analysing the early responses to the UK COVID-19 outbreak, showing how the problem was initially framed as biomedical, neglecting social, logistical, and psychological aspects. The lack of plurality in the inquirer community led to shortcomings in the official response. Building on this case, I show that pragmatism demands pluralism when dealing with complex situations, demonstrating that plurality must be promoted in practice, going beyond recognized epistemic benefits.

在本文中，我着重讨论科学多元化在实践中的好处。我的主要动机是研究这些好处在实践中是如何发挥作用的，以及不同的知识体系是如何结合在一起解决特定问题的？人们可能会接受多元性在认知上的好处，但出于实用的原因，仍然认为它是不可取的。我的论点回应了这一反对意见，它假设实用主义的要求可以取代基于手头问题的多元主义的认识上的好处。我认为这种反对意见是站不住脚的，因为它假设问题是独立于调查者的。在古典实用主义的基础上，我认为问题是由询问者提出的，不能被看作是与实践分开的。询问者面对的不是预先确定的问题，而是不确定的情况，需要对如何形成这种情况作出判断。根据参与做出这些判断的人的不同，可能会有不同的框架。问询者缺乏多元性导致框架忽略了某些方面和复杂性。因此，在构建问题时，多元主义在实际中是有益的，它使探究者能够探索复杂情况的各个维度，并丰富问题框架。我通过分析对英国COVID-19疫情的早期反应来说明我的论点，展示了这个问题最初是如何被定性为生物医学问题，而忽视了社会、后勤和心理方面的问题。询问者群体缺乏多元性，导致官方回应存在缺陷。在这个案例的基础上，我表明，在处理复杂的情况时，实用主义要求多元化，表明在实践中必须促进多元化，而不仅仅是公认的认识上的好处。

{"title":"Pragmatic pluralism and problem framing: Why pragmatism demands pluralism","authors":"Erman Sözüdoğru","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102109","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102109","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this paper I focus on the benefits of scientific pluralism in practice. My main motivation is to investigate how do these benefits play out in practice, and how do different systems of knowledge come together to address particular questions? One might accept the epistemic benefits of plurality, yet still deem it undesirable for pragmatic reasons. My argument responds to this objection, which assumes that pragmatic demands can supersede the epistemic benefits of pluralism based on the problems at hand.</div><div>I argue that this objection fails because it assumes problems are independent of inquirers. Building on classical pragmatism, I argue that problems are framed by inquirers and cannot be seen as separate from practices. Rather than facing predefined problems, inquirers confront indeterminate situations, requiring judgements on how to formulate the situation. Different framings are possible based on who is involved in making these judgments. A lack of plurality among inquirers leads to frameworks that overlook certain aspects and complexity. Therefore, pluralism is pragmatically beneficial when framing a problem, enabling inquirers to explore various dimensions of complex situations and enrich problem framing.</div><div>I illustrate my argument by analysing the early responses to the UK COVID-19 outbreak, showing how the problem was initially framed as biomedical, neglecting social, logistical, and psychological aspects. The lack of plurality in the inquirer community led to shortcomings in the official response. Building on this case, I show that pragmatism demands pluralism when dealing with complex situations, demonstrating that plurality must be promoted in practice, going beyond recognized epistemic benefits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 102109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145918846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Objectivity and objectification. On the ethics and epistemologies of skin colour measurements in the social sciences 客观和客观化。论社会科学中肤色测量的伦理学与认识论。

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-06 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102112

Sarah Abel

引用次数: 0

On the uses and abuses of biomarkers in clinical reasoning 生物标志物在临床推理中的应用与滥用

IF 1.8 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Pub Date : 2026-01-02 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102108

Benjamin Chin-Yee

Biomarkers are central to the practice of precision oncology, which looks to novel biomarkers to ‘personalize’ cancer care. Philosophers have highlighted epistemic issues surrounding biomarkers but a general account of their role in clinical reasoning is lacking. This article examines biomarker use in clinical reasoning through the lens of abstraction. I propose clinical abstraction as a descriptive and normative account of reasoning with biomarkers that overcomes epistemic and ethical problems raised in the literature.

生物标志物是精确肿瘤学实践的核心，它寻求新的生物标志物来“个性化”癌症治疗。哲学家们强调了围绕生物标志物的认识论问题，但缺乏对其在临床推理中的作用的一般描述。本文通过抽象的视角考察了生物标志物在临床推理中的应用。我建议临床抽象作为一种描述性和规范性的生物标志物推理的描述，克服了文献中提出的认知和伦理问题。

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀