Keynote Speaker: Anjan Chakravartty

Reasoned Scientific Disagreement and Permissive Rationality

Abstract:
Even among those whom we might regard as epistemic peers, scientists often disagree. Some philosophers hold that given some evidence and assuming epistemic peerage, there is only one rational option regarding what scientists should believe. Thus, either there is significant irrationality in scientific practice, or the uniqueness thesis is false. I distinguish two cases for thinking about this: relatively transient disagreement (RTD) and relatively stable disagreement (RSD). I suggest that in cases of RTD, disagreement is often better characterized in terms of things like contrary hopes, best bets, and heuristic commitments than in terms of contrary beliefs per se. In cases of RSD, I suggest that disagreement does not generally take the form of contrary beliefs but rather juxtapositions of belief and agnosticism, which are indicative of underlying commitments that are not themselves propositional or evidential but that are nonetheless rational. The upshot is the falseness of the uniqueness thesis and a moderately permissive conception of rationality appropriate to scientific disagreement.

Time: 4:30 – 6:00 pm  

Location: Social Science Research Center, Woodburn Hall

HPS Graduate Conference Preliminary Program

Thanks to all for their submissions!  We're glad to announce the preliminary program for the upcoming conference.  

Friday, March 23th

1:00 – 3:50 pm  Graduate Student Talks

Location: Room 143, Geology Building

Talks are 30-minutes in length, followed by commentary and Q&A time, with a short break before the following talk.  

1:00 pm, Samuel Fajerstein, Indiana University

A Microprocess of Stalinization, 1928-1930: The Transformation of Puti sel'skogo khoziaistva and the 'Army of Soviet Agronomists'
Commentator: Evan Arnet

2:00 pm, Joseph Baxley, University of Notre Dame

A New Look at the Anonymous Parisian Master's Guide in Ripoll 109
Commentator: Meagan Allen

3:00 pm, JP Gamboa, University of Pittsburgh

Pain and Emotion upon Decerebration: Sherrington as a Historical Outlier
Commentator: Luma Melo

4:30 – 6:00 pm  Keynote Speech by Anjan Chakravartty

Location: Social Science Research Center, Woodburn Hall

6:30 – 8:00 pm  Reception and Discussion/Poster Session

Location: Social Science Research Center, Woodburn Hall

Saturday, March 24^th

8:00 am  Light Breakfast Fare

Location: Social Science Research Center, Woodburn Hall

9:00 - 11:50 am  Graduate Student Talks

Location: Social Science Research Center, Woodburn Hall

Talks are 30-minutes in length, followed by commentary and Q&A time, with a short break before the following talk. 

9:00 am, Patrick Tiffany, Indiana University

Do Athenians Dream of Poisoned Water: Water, Wells, and The Great Plague of Athens
Commentator: Brenton Wells

10:00 am, Joshua Barthuly, University of Notre Dame

Dispositional Essentialism Laws and Structural Complexity

 Commentator: Ali Mirza

11:00 am, Mousa Mohammadian, University of Notre Dame

From Peirce’s Abduction to Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation: How Two Historical Developments Fill the Gap
Commentator: Ryan O’Loughlin

12:00 noon – 2:00 pm  Lunch Break (lunch on own)

2:00 – 4:50 pm  Graduate Student Talks

Location: Social Science Research Center, Woodburn Hall

Talks are 30-minutes in length, followed by commentary and Q&A time, with a short break before the following talk. 

2:00 pm, Qiu Lin, Duke University

The Epistemic Status of False Assumptions in Scientific Idealization
Commentator: Becca Jackson, Ryan O’Loughlin

3:00 pm, Teresa Jackson, Indiana University

A Closer Look at the "Ghosts" of the Sex Workers in the USPHS Conducted Guatemalan Syphilis Experiments
Commentator: Chris ChoGlueck

4:00 pm, Samuel Hall, University of Notre Dame

Fixing Evidence and the Problems of Underdetermination
Commentator: Justin Slattery