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.     

Empirical agreement in model validation

Empirical agreement is often used as an important criterion when assessing the validity of scientific models. However, it is by no means a sufficient criterion as a model can be so adjusted as to fit available data even though it is based on hypotheses whose plausibility is known to be questionable. Our aim in this paper is to investigate into the uses of empirical agreement within the process of model validation.     

Einstein׳s Equations for Spin 2 Mass 0 from Noether׳s Converse Hilbertian Assertion

An overlap between the general relativist and particle physicist views of Einstein gravity is uncovered. Noether׳s 1918 paper developed Hilbert׳s and Klein׳s reflections on the conservation laws. Energy-momentum is just a term proportional to the field equations and a ‘curl’ term with identically zero divergence. Noether proved a converse “Hilbertian assertion”: such “improper” conservation laws imply a generally covariant action.Later and independently, particle physicists derived the nonlinear Einstein equations assuming the absence of negative-energy degrees of freedom (“ghosts”) for stability, along with universal coupling: all energy-momentum including gravity׳s serves as a source for gravity. Those assumptions (all but) imply (for 0 graviton mass) that the energy-momentum is only a term proportional to the field equations and a symmetric “curl,” which implies the coalescence of the flat background geometry and the gravitational potential into an effective curved geometry. The flat metric, though useful in Rosenfeld׳s stress-energy definition, disappears from the field equations. Thus the particle physics derivation uses a reinvented Noetherian converse Hilbertian assertion in Rosenfeld-tinged form.The Rosenfeld stress-energy is identically the canonical stress-energy plus a Belinfante curl and terms proportional to the field equations, so the flat metric is only a convenient mathematical trick without ontological commitment. Neither generalized relativity of motion, nor the identity of gravity and inertia, nor substantive general covariance is assumed. The more compelling criterion of lacking ghosts yields substantive general covariance as an output. Hence the particle physics derivation, though logically impressive, is neither as novel nor as ontologically laden as it has seemed.     

On Popper’s strong inductivism (or strongly inconsistent anti-inductivism)

It is generally accepted that Popper‘s degree of corroboration, though “inductivist” in a very general and weak sense, is not inductivist in a strong sense, i.e. when by ‘inductivism’ we mean the thesis that the right measure of evidential support has a probabilistic character. The aim of this paper is to challenge this common view by arguing that Popper can be regarded as an inductivist, not only in the weak broad sense but also in a narrower, probabilistic sense. In section 2, first, I begin by briefly characterizing the relevant notion of inductivism that is at stake here; second, I present and discuss the main Popperian argument against it and show that in the only reading in which the argument is formally it is restricted to cases of predicted evidence, and that even if restricted in this way the argument is formally valid it is nevertheless materially unsound. In section 3, I analyze the desiderata that, according to Popper, any acceptable measure for evidential support must satisfy, I clean away its ad-hoc components and show that all the remaining desiderata are satisfied by inductuvist-in-strict-sense measures. In section 4 I demonstrate that two of these desiderata, accepted by Popper, imply that in cases of predicted evidence any measure that satisfies them is qualitatively indistinguishable from conditional probability. Finally I defend that this amounts to a kind of strong inductivism that enters into conflict with Popper’s anti-inductivist argument and declarations, and that this conflict does not depend on the incremental versus non-incremental distinction for evidential-support measures, making Popper’s position inconsistent in any reading.     

Prediction and accommodation revisited

The paper presents a further articulation and defence of the view on prediction and accommodation that I have proposed earlier. It operates by analysing two accounts of the issue—by Patrick Maher and by Marc Lange—that, at least at first sight, appear to be rivals to my own. Maher claims that the time-order of theory and evidence may be important in terms of degree of confirmation, while that claim is explicitly denied in my account. I argue, however, that when his account is analysed, Maher reveals no scientifically significant way in which the time-order counts, and that indeed his view is in the end best regarded as a less than optimally formulated version of my own. Lange has also responded to Maher by arguing that the apparent relevance of temporal considerations is merely apparent: what is really involved, according to Lange, is whether or not a hypothesis constitutes an “arbitrary conjunction.” I argue that Lange’s suggestion fails: the correct analysis of his and Maher’s examples is that provided by my account.     

Acceptance,values, and probability

This essay makes a case for regarding personal probabilities used in Bayesian analyses of confirmation as objects of acceptance and rejection. That in turn entails that personal probabilities are subject to the argument from inductive risk, which aims to show non-epistemic values can legitimately influence scientific decisions about which hypotheses to accept. In a Bayesian context, the argument from inductive risk suggests that value judgments can influence decisions about which probability models to accept for likelihoods and priors. As a consequence, if the argument from inductive risk is sound, then non-epistemic values can affect not only the level of evidence deemed necessary to accept a hypothesis but also degrees of confirmation themselves.     

The problem of confirmation in the Everett interpretation

I argue that the Oxford school Everett interpretation is internally incoherent, because we cannot claim that in an Everettian universe the kinds of reasoning we have used to arrive at our beliefs about quantum mechanics would lead us to form true beliefs. I show that in an Everettian context, the experimental evidence that we have available could not provide empirical confirmation for quantum mechanics, and moreover that we would not even be able to establish reference to the theoretical entities of quantum mechanics. I then consider a range of existing Everettian approaches to the probability problem and show that they do not succeed in overcoming this incoherence.     

On the equivalence of Goodman’s and Hempel’s paradoxes

Historically, Nelson Goodman’s paradox involving the predicates ‘grue’ and ‘bleen’ has been taken to furnish a serious blow to Carl Hempel’s theory of confirmation in particular and to purely formal theories of confirmation in general. In this paper, I argue that Goodman’s paradox is no more serious of a threat to Hempel’s theory of confirmation than is Hempel’s own paradox of the ravens. I proceed by developing a suggestion from R. D. Rosenkrantz into an argument for the conclusion that these paradoxes are, in fact, equivalent. My argument, if successful, is of both historical and philosophical interest. Goodman himself maintained that Hempel’s theory of confirmation was capable of handling the paradox of the ravens. And Hempel eventually conceded that Goodman’s paradox showed that there could be no adequate, purely syntactical theory of confirmation. The conclusion of my argument entails, by contrast, that Hempel’s theory of confirmation is incapable of handling Goodman’s paradox if and only if it is incapable of handling the paradox of the ravens. It also entails that for any adequate solution to one of these paradoxes, there is a corresponding and equally adequate solution to the other.     

State of the field: Measuring information and confirmation

The aim of this paper is to survey and discuss some key connections between information and confirmation within a broadly Bayesian framework. We mean to show that treating information and confirmation in a unified fashion is an intuitive and fruitful approach, fostering insights and prospects in the analysis of a variety of related notions such as belief change, partial entailment, entropy, the value of experiments, and more besides. To this end, we recapitulate established theoretical achievements, disclose a number of underlying links, and provide a few novel results.     

The role of meta-empirical theory assessment in the acceptance of atomism

The universal acceptance of atomism in physics and chemistry in the early 20th century went along with an altered view on the epistemic status of microphysical conjectures. Contrary to the prevalent understanding during the 19th century, on the new view unobservable objects could be ‘discovered’. It is argued in the present paper that this shift can be connected to the implicit integration of elements of meta-empirical theory assessment into the concept of theory confirmation.     

Van Fraassen meets Popper: Logical relations and cognitive abilities

Van Fraassen, like Popper before him, assumes that confirmation and disconfirmation relations are logical relations and thus hold only among abstract items. This raises a problem about how experience, for Popper, and observables, for van Fraassen, enter into epistemic evaluations. Each philosopher offers a drastic proposal: Popper holds that basic statements are accepted by convention; van Fraassen introduces his “pragmatic tautology.” Another alternative is to reject the claim that all evaluative relations are logical relations. Ayer proposed this option in responding to Popper, as did Sosa in a different context. I argue that this option should be pursued and propose a line of research that the option suggests.     

Intersubjective corroboration

How are we to understand the use of probability in corroboration functions? Popper says logically, but does not show we could have access to, or even calculate, probability values in a logical sense. This makes the logical interpretation untenable, as Ramsey and van Fraassen have argued.If corroboration functions only make sense when the probabilities employed therein are subjective, however, then what counts as impressive evidence for a theory might be a matter of convention, or even whim. So isn’t so-called ‘corroboration’ just a matter of psychology?In this paper, I argue that we can go some way towards addressing this objection by adopting an intersubjective interpretation, of the form advocated by Gillies, with respect to corroboration. I show why intersubjective probabilities are preferable to subjective ones when it comes to decision making in science: why group decisions are liable to be superior to individual ones, given a number of plausible conditions. I then argue that intersubjective corroboration is preferable to intersubjective confirmation of a Bayesian variety, because there is greater opportunity for principled agreement concerning the factors involved in the former.     

Model robustness as a confirmatory virtue: The case of climate science

I propose a distinct type of robustness, which I suggest can support a confirmatory role in scientific reasoning, contrary to the usual philosophical claims. In model robustness, repeated production of the empirically successful model prediction or retrodiction against a background of independently-supported and varying model constructions, within a group of models containing a shared causal factor, may suggest how confident we can be in the causal factor and predictions/retrodictions, especially once supported by a variety of evidence framework. I present climate models of greenhouse gas global warming of the 20th Century as an example, and emphasize climate scientists' discussions of robust models and causal aspects. The account is intended as applicable to a broad array of sciences that use complex modeling techniques.