Edouard Machery

It is often said that successful scientific research must be built on trust. Focusing on the alleged necessity of trust for successful scientific communication and thus for scientific cooperation (which underlies much of contemporary science), I argue that science mustn’t be built on trust. Appearances to the contrary come from a failure to distinguish different attitudes toward scientists’ testimony, in particular, trusting and relying on other scientists. This article proposes an account of scientific reliance and explains how it differs from scientific trust; it also shows why this distinction matters for science.

The concepts of health and disease are fundamental to medical research, healthcare, and public health, and philosophers have long sought to clarify their meaning and implications. Increasingly, it is suggested that progress in this area could be advanced by integrating empirical methods with philosophical reflection. This Element explores the emerging field of experimental philosophy of medicine (XPhiMed), which takes this approach by applying empirical methods to longstanding philosophical debates. It begins with an overview of the philosophical debates and their methodological challenges, followed by an exploration of experimental findings on health, disease, and disorder, along with their implications for philosophy and other fields.

Representational systems such as language, mind and perhaps even the brain exhibit a structure that is often assumed to be compositional. That is, the semantic value of a complex representation is determined by the semantic value of their parts and the way they are put together. Dating back to the late 19th century, the principle of compositionality has regained wide attention recently. Since the principle has been dealt with very differently across disciplines, the aim of the two volumes is to bring together the diverging approaches. They assemble a collection of original papers that cover the topic of compositionality from virtually all perspectives of interest in the contemporary debate. The well-chosen international list of authors includes psychologists, neuroscientists, computer scientists, linguists, and philosophers.

The aim of the paper is to explore how people understand the concepts of health and disease, including the factors that influence their judgments about whether a condition is a disease or a healthy state. The study investigates whether health and disease judgments come apart, and whether they are affected by factors such as typicality, dysfunction, and disvalue. We conclude that the folk concept of health is positive (such that being healthy is consistent with having a disease), while the folk concept of disease is naturalistic (such that value judgments do not play a direct, significant role in determining whether a condition counts as a disease).

In this article, I argue that philosophers’ intuitions about reference are not more reliable than lay people’s and that intuitions about the reference of proper names and uses of proper names provide equally good evidence for theories of reference.En este artículo defiendo que las intuiciones de los filósofos sobre la referencia no son más fiables que las de los legos y que las intuciones sobre la referencia de los nombres propios y los usos de los nombres propios ofrecen evidencia de igual valor para las teorías de la referencia.

There have recently been a number of strong claims that normative considerations, broadly construed, influence many philosophically important folk concepts and perhaps are even a constitutive component of various cognitive processes. Many such claims have been made about the influence of such factors on our folk notion of causation. In this paper, we argue that the strong claims found in the recent literature on causal cognition are overstated, as they are based on one narrow type of data about a particular type of causal cognition; the extant data do not warrant any wide-ranging conclusions about the pervasiveness of normative considerations in causal cognition. Of course, almost all empirical investigations involve some manner of ampliative inference, and so we provide novel empirical results demonstrating that there are types of causal cognition that do not seem to be influenced by moral considerations.

This study investigates the influence of evaluative judgments, specifically regarding an individual's moral character, on judgments of health and disease. Though it might seem that assessments judgments of health and disease should be impervious to evaluative judgments, two hypotheses suggest that health and disease judgments might be influenced by evaluative judgments: the "naturalization hypothesis" which centers on our inclination to assign blame, and the "pathologization hypothesis" rooted in the belief of a just world. These hypotheses lead to opposing predictions about how someone with a perceived negative moral character might have their condition categorized. Employing a fictional vignette and the methodologies of experimental philosophy, our research provides evidence in favor of the "pathologization hypothesis." While this phenomenon likely carries real-world implications, especially in healthcare, it also has potential for offering insights into the dynamics of medicalization and stigma.

Prior research has unveiled a pathologization effect where individuals perceived as having bad moral character are more likely to have their conditions labeled as diseases and are less often considered healthy compared to those viewed as having a good moral character. Moreover, these individuals are perceived as less unlucky in their affliction and more deserving of it. This study explores the broader impacts of moral character on such judgments, hypothesizing that these effects reach deeper and extend to both negative and positive moral evaluations. The pathologization effect also raises concerns about potential discrimination and the overmedicalization of normal health variations, so we also examine whether providing more detailed descriptions of conditions mitigates the influence of judgments of moral character. The methodology and broader implications of our findings are discussed, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of how moral judgments might influence patient care.

This article examines whether people share the Gettier intuition (viz. that someone who has a true justified belief that p may nonetheless fail to know that p) in 24 sites, located in 23 countries (counting Hong-Kong as a distinct country) and across 17 languages. We also consider the possible influence of gender and personality on this intuition with a very large sample size. Finally, we examine whether the Gettier intuition varies across people as a function of their disposition to engage in “reflective” thinking.

This chapter examines the folk concept of disease by assessing (1) whether disease judgments are influenced by whether a condition is typical, dysfunctional, and disvalued and (2) whether they are influenced by the causes and symptoms of a condition. Results tentatively suggest that the folk concept of disease is naturalistic (i.e., value judgments don’t seem to matter) and perhaps not essentially causal (symptoms are sufficient for a condition to be a disease) and that gender and disgust sensitivity influence disease judgment.

The notion of compositionality was first introduced as a constraint on the relation between the syntax and the semantics of languages. It was later postulated as an adequacy condition also for other representational systems such as structures of mental concepts, computer programs, and even neural architectures. Syntax is compositional in that it builds more complex well-formed expressions recursively, on the basis of smaller ones, while semantics is compositional in that it constructs the meanings of larger expressions on the basis of the meanings of smaller ones. Unless empirical linguistic or psychological evidence were to require it nothing else should be needed to understand language. Traditionally, the term compositionality is used in opposition to various forms of holism, with which compositionality is often said to be inconsistent.

This article discusses three important models of concept combination—Smith and colleagues' Selective Modification model, Hampton's Composite Prototype model, and Costello and Keane's C3 model. Smith and colleagues' famous model of concept combination combines a model for producing complex concepts out of simple concepts with a prototype model of concept representation and a metric for computing the typicality of objects with respect to those concepts. The model of concept combination proposed by Smith and colleagues applies only to modifier–head complex concepts. Hampton's model of concept combination includes, along with a qualitative description of the process resulting in complex concepts, a model of concepts, a model of categorization, and a model of typicality judgement. For Hampton, concept combination consists in the inheritance of typical properties from the combined concepts by the complex concept.