Border cases between autonomy and relevance: Economic sciences in Berlin—A natural experiment

The faculty of economics at today's Humboldt University in Berlin, as no other institution of economics, has witnessed three radical ruptures in its history: in 1933, National Socialism replaced the pluralism prevailing in the Weimar Republic by imposing a “German economics”; after WWII, GDR authorities replaced this NS regime by imposing a Marxist imperative, which after the fall of the wall was replaced by the Western standards of neoclassical economics. In reconstructing these three reforms, institutional history can serve as a context in which questions about the political nature of economic knowledge can be answered that remain speculative in a conceptual context. I thus present a natural experiment in the political epistemology of economics: How do economists respond to, resist, and stabilize, changing political regimes? How do economists renegotiate the autonomy of economic knowledge given changing demands as of its social task? Among others, I show that contrary to Robert Merton's old, but still widely held thesis in political epistemology—that the values of science are compatible only with democratic regimes—the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes created better conditions for methodological pluralism in economics than democratic society.     

Overlapping ontologies and Indigenous knowledge. From integration to ontological self-determination

Current controversies about knowledge integration reflect conflicting ideas of what it means to “take Indigenous knowledge seriously”. While there is increased interest in integrating Indigenous and Western scientific knowledge in various disciplines such as anthropology and ethnobiology, integration projects are often accused of recognizing Indigenous knowledge only insofar as it is useful for Western scientists. The aim of this article is to use tools from philosophy of science to develop a model of both successful integration and integration failures. On the one hand, I argue that cross-cultural recognition of property clusters leads to an ontological overlap that makes knowledge integration often epistemically productive and socially useful. On the other hand, I argue that knowledge integration is limited by ontological divergence. Adequate models of Indigenous knowledge will therefore have to take integration failures seriously and I argue that integration efforts need to be complemented by a political notion of ontological self-determination.     

Patient participation in the clinical encounter and clinical practice guidelines: The case of patients’ participation in a GRADEd world

It is widely acknowledged that the patient's perspective should be considered when making decisions about how her care will be managed. Patient participation in the decision making process may play an important role in bringing to light and incorporating her perspective. The GRADE framework is touted as an evidence-based process for determining recommendations for clinical practice; i.e. determining how care ought to be managed. GRADE recommendations are categorized as “strong” or “weak” based on several factors, including the “values and preferences” of a “typical” patient. The strength of the recommendation also provides instruction to the clinician about when and how patients should participate in the clinical encounter, and thus whether an individual patient's values and preferences will be heard in her clinical encounter. That is, a “strong” recommendation encourages “paternalism” and a “weak” recommendation encourages shared decision making. We argue that adoption of the GRADE framework is problematic to patient participation and may result in care that is not respectful of the individual patient's values and preferences. We argue that the root of the problem is the conception of “values and preferences” in GRADE – the framework favours population thinking (e.g. “typical” patient “values and preferences”), despite the fact that “values and preferences” are individual in the sense that they are deeply personal. We also show that tying the strength of a recommendation to a model of decision making (paternalism or shared decision making) constrains patient participation and is not justified (theoretically and/or empirically) in the GRADE literature.     

The role of symmetry in the interpretation of physical theories

The symmetries of a physical theory are often associated with two things: conservation laws (via e.g. Noether׳s and Schur׳s theorems) and representational redundancies (“gauge symmetry”). But how can a physical theory׳s symmetries give rise to interesting (in the sense of non-trivial) conservation laws, if symmetries are transformations that correspond to no genuine physical difference? In this paper, I argue for a disambiguation in the notion of symmetry. The central distinction is between what I call “analytic” and “synthetic“ symmetries, so called because of an analogy with analytic and synthetic propositions. “Analytic“ symmetries are the turning of idle wheels in a theory׳s formalism, and correspond to no physical change; “synthetic“ symmetries cover all the rest. I argue that analytic symmetries are distinguished because they act as fixed points or constraints in any interpretation of a theory, and as such are akin to Poincaré׳s conventions or Reichenbach׳s ‘axioms of co-ordination’, or ‘relativized constitutive a priori principles’.     

Accountability and values in radically collaborative research

This paper discusses a crisis of accountability that arises when scientific collaborations are massively epistemically distributed. We argue that social models of epistemic collaboration, which are social analogs to what Patrick Suppes called a “model of the experiment,” must play a role in creating accountability in these contexts. We also argue that these social models must accommodate the fact that the various agents in a collaborative project often have ineliminable, messy, and conflicting interests and values; any story about accountability in a massively distributed collaboration must therefore involve models of such interests and values and their methodological and epistemic effects.     

Explanation,understanding, and unrealistic models

How can false models be explanatory? And how can they help us to understand the way the world works? Sometimes scientists have little hope of building models that approximate the world they observe. Even in such cases, I argue, the models they build can have explanatory import. The basic idea is that scientists provide causal explanations of why the regularity entailed by an abstract and idealized model fails to obtain. They do so by relaxing some of its unrealistic assumptions. This method of ‘explanation by relaxation’ captures the explanatory import of some important models in economics. I contrast this method with the accounts that Daniel Hausman and Nancy Cartwright have provided of explanation in economics. Their accounts are unsatisfactory because they require that the economic model regularities obtain, which is rarely the case. I go on to argue that counterfactual regularities play a central role in achieving ‘understanding by relaxation.’ This has a surprising implication for the relation between explanation and understanding: Achieving scientific understanding does not require the ability to explain observed regularities.     

Putting the Earth System in a numerical box? The evolution from climate modeling toward global change

Since the 1980s, climate modeling has undergone major transformations. The most prominent of these are the proliferation of coupled models and the integration within models of a growing number of environments and feedbacks. Climate modelers now increasingly define their object in terms of an “Earth System” instead of a “climate system”. In addition to this proliferation of coupled models, the carbon cycle and its feedback on various environments, from the atmosphere to the ocean and to vegetation cover, has become a prominent component of climate modeling. These transformations derive from the IPCC’s overall methodology, and are closely bound up with both a heightened awareness of the risks of climate change, as well as an issue of crucial political importance: the question of socio-economic/climate integration. In this article I follow, from a roughly chronological point of view, the major steps of this evolution and its links with the evolution of the political agenda. What can we say about this seemingly irreversible tendency to incorporate everything into models and to take account of everything that influences the Earth’s climate? Could we correlate it to the strong tendency toward globalization? How is the notion of climate itself affected? These are the main questions of the paper.     

Mach׳s principle as action-at-a-distance in GR: The causality question

A part of the revival of interest in Mach׳s principle since the early 1960s has involved work by physicists aimed at calculating various sorts of frame-dragging effects by matter shells surrounding an interior region, and arguing that under certain conditions or in certain limits (ideally, ones that can be viewed as plausibly similar to conditions in our cosmos) the frame dragging becomes “complete” (e.g. Lynden-Bell, Katz, & Bičák, 1995) . Such results can bolster the argument for the satisfaction of Mach׳s principle by certain classes of models of GR. Interestingly, the frame-dragging “effect” of (say) a rotational movement of cosmic matter around a central point is argued by these physicists to be instantaneous—not an effect propagating at the speed of light. Not all physicists regard this as unproblematic. But rather than exploring whether there is something unphysical about such instantaneous “action at a distance”, or a violation of the precepts of Special Relativity, I am interested in exploring whether these physicists׳ calculations should be thought of as showing local inertia (resistance to acceleration) to be an effect, with distant matter distributions being the cause. I will try to apply some leading philosophical accounts of causation to the physical models of frame dragging, to see whether they imply that the frame dragging is superluminal causation. I will then offer reflections on the difficulties of applying causal talk in physical theories.     

上海湿地生态系统的效益分析

上海是一座湿地面积占23.5%的海滨特大城市。由于湿地生态系统功能和服务的多面性,给人类尤其是上海带来巨大的生态效益、经济效益和社会效益。上海湿地的主要功能是为城市的持续发展提供生态屏障作用,维持生物多样性,净化和过滤等生态服务以及防风暴及保护海岸线功能。上海湿地的社会效益主要有旅游休闲、历史及文化价值、教育及科学研究等价值,促进湿地周边地区经济的可持续发展。上海湿地的直接经济效益主要指湿地生态系统产生的产品的价值,它包括食品、农业产品及其它生产原料、景观娱乐等产生的直接价值,直接经济效益可用产品的市场价格来估算。同时上海还有国际重要湿地,涉及国际共同利益和效益。因此,为求得上海湿地可持续开发和保护,必须将经济效益、生态效益和社会效益放在同等重要的条件上,不能片面追求单个效益目标,正确的做法是在提高经济效益中十分重视生态效益,在提高生态效益中尽可能争取高的经济效益,并达到社会效益的有效提高,从而实现上海湿地生态系统生态经济效益的最优化。     

Local reduction in physics

A conventional wisdom about the progress of physics holds that successive theories wholly encompass the domains of their predecessors through a process that is often called “reduction.” While certain influential accounts of inter-theory reduction in physics take reduction to require a single “global” derivation of one theory׳s laws from those of another, I show that global reductions are not available in all cases where the conventional wisdom requires reduction to hold. However, I argue that a weaker “local” form of reduction, which defines reduction between theories in terms of a more fundamental notion of reduction between models of a single fixed system, is available in such cases and moreover suffices to uphold the conventional wisdom. To illustrate the sort of fixed-system, inter-model reduction that grounds inter-theoretic reduction on this picture, I specialize to a particular class of cases in which both models are dynamical systems. I show that reduction in these cases is underwritten by a mathematical relationship that follows a certain liberalized construal of Nagel/Schaffner reduction, and support this claim with several examples. Moreover, I show that this broadly Nagelian analysis of inter-model reduction encompasses several cases that are sometimes cited as instances of the “physicist׳s” limit-based notion of reduction.     

The case of the composite Higgs: The model as a “Rosetta stone” in contemporary high-energy physics

This paper analyses the practice of model-building “beyond the Standard Model” in contemporary high-energy physics and argues that its epistemic function can be grasped by regarding models as mediating between the phenomenology of the Standard Model and a number of “theoretical cores” of hybrid character, in which mathematical structures are combined with verbal narratives (“stories”) and analogies referring back to empirical results in other fields (“empirical references”). Borrowing a metaphor from a physics research paper, model-building is likened to the search for a Rosetta stone, whose significance does not lie in its immediate content, but rather in the chance it offers to glimpse at and manipulate the components of hybrid theoretical constructs. I shall argue that the rise of hybrid theoretical constructs was prompted by the increasing use of nonrigorous mathematical heuristics in high-energy physics. Support for my theses will be offered in form of a historical–philosophical analysis of the emergence and development of the theoretical core centring on the notion that the Higgs boson is a composite particle. I will follow the heterogeneous elements which would eventually come to form this core from their individual emergence in the 1960s and 1970s, through their collective life as a theoretical core from 1979 until the present day.     

The many faces of unification and pluralism in economics: The case of Paul Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis

The history of modern economics abounds with pleas for more pluralism as well as pleas for more unification. These seem to be contradictory goals, suggesting that pluralism and unification are mutually exclusive, or at least that they involve trade-offs with more of one necessarily being traded off against less of the other. This paper will use the example of Paul Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947) to argue that the relationship between pluralism and unification is often more complex than this simple dichotomy suggests. In particular, Samuelson's Foundations is invariably presented as a key text in the unification of modern economics during the middle of the twentieth century; and in many ways that is entirely correct. But Samuelson's unification was not at the theoretical (causal and explanatory) level, but rather at the purely mathematical derivational level. Although this fact is recognized in the literature on Samuelson, what seems to be less recognized is that for Samuelson, much of the motivation for this unification was pluralist in spirit: not to narrow scientific economics into one single theory, but rather to allow for more than one theory to co-exist under a single unified derivational technique. This hidden pluralism will be discussed in detail. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for more recent developments in economics.     

For the Glory of Athens: Xenophon’s Hipparchikos <Logos>, a technical treatise and instruction manual on ideal leadership

Xenophon’s Peri hippikes <technees>, “On Horsemanship,” and the Hipparchikos <logos>, “the Cavalry Commander”, writings which can be regarded as technical works with a didactic purpose, are almost unknown. Xenophon was interested in problems of leadership and the exercise of power (For the titles of the both writings and the analogous supplementary terms “technees” and “logos” compare Breitenbach, 1966, 1761. Angled brackets are used by modern editors of ancient texts as text-critical signs and are inserted here because “peri hippikes” and “hipparchikos” are adjectives and cannot stand alone; “technees” and “logos” are supplied as absent, but implied, substantives. The conventional signs “<>” clarify this supplementary act for the modern reader.). The “Cavalry Commander” (ca. 365 B.C.) intended for the instruction of potential hipparchs (calvary commanders) is simultaneously political and didactic and technical; in this text, categories of leadership that had been developed in earlier works are combined in a powerful manner. Xenophon constructed “leaders” as exempla (“examples”) of correct behaviour; military and political theory are synthesised. The Hipparchikos logos, as a didactic work, aims to produce specialists who master their techné (“art” or “skill”), to develop their ideal qualities. Both texts are directed at an Athenian society, in which the cavalry had lost their significance and pride as a result of recent political turbulence. Xenophon hoped to reform the cavalry for the benefit of Athens. The basic question of the didactic work is: how can I become the best hipparch, how can I go beyond simply filling the office, and instead develop it for the well-being of the polis and thus serve the city? The art of leadership consists in dealing with subordinates in such a manner that they obey and follow voluntarily—still an innovative and modern approach today.     

The relative facts interpretation and Everett's note added in proof

In the published version of Hugh Everett III's doctoral dissertation, he inserted what has become a famous footnote, the “note added in proof”. This footnote is often the strongest evidence given for any of various interpretations of Everett (the many worlds, many minds, many histories and many threads interpretations). In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of the footnote. One that is supported by evidence found in letters written to and by Everett; one that is suggested by a new interpretation of Everett, an interpretation that takes seriously the central position of relative states in Everett's pure wave mechanics: the relative facts interpretation. Of central interest in this paper is how to make sense of Everett's claim in the “note added in proof” that “all elements of a superposition (all “branches”) are “actual,” none any more “real” than the rest.”     

Richard Lewontin and the “complications of linkage”

During the 1960s and 1970s population geneticists pushed beyond models of single genes to grapple with the effect on evolution of multiple genes associated by linkage. The resulting models of multiple interacting loci suggested that blocks of genes, maybe even entire chromosomes or the genome itself, should be treated as a unit. In this context, Richard Lewontin wrote his famous 1974 book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, which concludes with an argument for considering the entire genome as the unit of selection as a result of linkage. Why did Lewontin and others devote so much intellectual energy to the “complications of linkage” in the 1960s and 1970s? We argue that this attention to linkage should be understood in the context of research on chromosomal inversions and co-adapted gene complexes that occupied mid-century evolutionary genetics. For Lewontin, the complications of linkage were an extension of this chromosomal focus expressed in the new language of models for linkage disequilibrium.     

Multi-model ensembles in climate science: Mathematical structures and expert judgements

Projections of future climate change cannot rely on a single model. It has become common to rely on multiple simulations generated by Multi-Model Ensembles (MMEs), especially to quantify the uncertainty about what would constitute an adequate model structure. But, as Parker points out (2018), one of the remaining philosophically interesting questions is: “How can ensemble studies be designed so that they probe uncertainty in desired ways?” This paper offers two interpretations of what General Circulation Models (GCMs) are and how MMEs made of GCMs should be designed. In the first interpretation, models are combinations of modules and parameterisations; an MME is obtained by “plugging and playing” with interchangeable modules and parameterisations. In the second interpretation, models are aggregations of expert judgements that result from a history of epistemic decisions made by scientists about the choice of representations; an MME is a sampling of expert judgements from modelling teams. We argue that, while the two interpretations involve distinct domains from philosophy of science and social epistemology, they both could be used in a complementary manner in order to explore ways of designing better MMEs.     

Fooling around with tenses

What, exactly, is the relation between statements about future contingents and statements concerning the spacelike? This question may be answered by transferring Thomasonian supervaluations for future tense statements to statements about the spacelike past, present and future, endorsing present contingents and past contingents. For this task, a language is described semantically which contains (frame-relative versions of) the usual quantifier-like tense operators, operators for (frame-relative) “somewhere”/“everywhere”, the operators “for every reference frame”/“for some reference frame” and three different “necessity” operators with their “possibility” counterparts. Technically, special attention is paid to interaction laws between the different kinds of operators. The “necessity” operators differ in the area on which alternatives must coincide in order to count as accessible. Supervaluations are discussed for past light-cone coincidence. Metaphysically, this approach points towards a distinction between two kinds of determinateness which were undistinguishable pre-relativistically: deictic determinateness (past light-cone) and narrative determinateness (frame-relative present-plus-past). An indeterministic solution to the problem of the “wings” is proposed which, without accepting a frame-independent spatially extended present, solves the problem of “massive coincidence” by carefully analysing the famous tunnel example as a story of decisions and by distinguishing between “whether” and “that”-clauses.     

Explicating formal epistemology: Carnap's legacy as Jeffrey's radical probabilism

Quine's “naturalized epistemology” presents a challenge to Carnapian explication: why try to rationally reconstruct probabilistic concepts instead of just doing psychology? This paper tracks the historical development of Richard C. Jeffrey who, on the one hand, voiced worries similar to Quine's about Carnapian explication but, on the other hand, claims that his own work in formal epistemology—what he calls “radical probabilism”—is somehow continuous with both Carnap's method of explication and logical empiricism. By examining how Jeffrey's claim could possibly be accurate, the paper suggests that Jeffrey's radical probabilism can be seen as a sort of alternative explication project to Carnap's own inductive logic. In so doing, it deflates both Quine's worries about Carnapian explication and so also, by extension, similar worries about formal epistemology.     

Why history matters to philosophy of physics

Naturalized metaphysics remains the default presupposition of much contemporary philosophy of physics. As metaphysics is supposed to concern the general structure of reality, so scientific naturalism draws upon our best physical theories to attempt to answer the foundational question “par excellence ” viz., “how could the world possibly be the way this theory says it is?” A particular case study, Hilbert's attempt to analyze and explain a seeming “pre-established harmony” between mind and nature, is offered as a salutary reminder that naturalism's ready inference from physical theory to ontology may be too quick.     

A wavelet approach for factor‐augmented forecasting

It has been acknowledged that wavelets can constitute a useful tool for forecasting in economics. Through a wavelet multi‐resolution analysis, a time series can be decomposed into different timescale components and a model can be fitted to each component to improve the forecast accuracy of the series as a whole. Up to now, the literature on forecasting with wavelets has mainly focused on univariate modelling. On the other hand, in a context of growing data availability, a line of research has emerged on forecasting with large datasets. In particular, the use of factor‐augmented models have become quite widespread in the literature and among practitioners. The aim of this paper is to bridge the two strands of the literature. A wavelet approach for factor‐augmented forecasting is proposed and put to test for forecasting GDP growth for the major euro area countries. The results show that the forecasting performance is enhanced when wavelets and factor‐augmented models are used together. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.