Michael Bradie

Lynch, Parke, and O’Malley highlight the need for better evaluative criteria for causal explanations in microbiome research. They propose new interventionist criteria, show that paradigmatic examples of microbiome explanations are flawed using those criteria, and suggest numerous ways microbiome explanations can be improved. While we endorse their primary criticisms and suggestions for improvements in microbiome research, we make several observations regarding the use of mooted causal models in microbiome research that have significant implications for their overall argument. In sum, we contend that their critique is too modest and that even flawed causal inferences like those they criticize can be valuable for generating better causal models and evaluating explanatory outcomes in individual cases.

From 1914 on Russell's epistemology was dominated by the attempt to show how we come by our knowledge of the external world. As he gradually became aware of the inadequacies of the "pure empiricist" approach, Russell realized that his program was viable only insofar as certain postulates of inference were allowed. In this paper I trace the development of the structural postulates from Analysis of Matter to Human Knowledge. The basic continuity of Russell's thought is established. Certain confusions implicit in the various formulations of the postulates are brought to light. Finally, it is argued that the viability of Russell's program rests on a larger number of independent postulates than he thought were needed. Some implications of Russell's work for current work in the philosophy of science are briefly sketched

Lynch, Parke, and O’Malley highlight the need for better evaluative criteria for causal explanations in microbiome research. They propose new interventionist criteria, show that paradigmatic examples of microbiome explanations are flawed using those criteria, and suggest numerous ways microbiome explanations can be improved. While we endorse their primary criticisms and suggestions for improvements in microbiome research, we make several observations regarding the use of mooted causal models in microbiome research that have significant implications for their overall argument. In sum, we contend that their critique is too modest and that even flawed causal inferences like those they criticize can be valuable for generating better causal models and evaluating explanatory outcomes in individual cases.

The fundamental dialectic of Science as a Process is the interaction between two narrative levels. At one level, the book is a historical narrative of one aspect of one ongoing problem in systematics. At the second level, Hull presents a theoretical model of the scientific process which draws heavily on invoked similarities between biological and scientific change. I first situate the model as one alternative among several which loosely fit under the umbrella of 'evolutionary epistemologies.' Second, I explore one of the implications of Hull's model, namely, that insofar as scientific theories are [parts of] "conceptual lineages," they are "conceptual individuals.".

Contents Preface Acknowledgments 1 Ethics and Evolution The Secret Chain Epistemology from an Evolutionary Point of View Ethics from an Evolutionary Point of View Morals and Models Evolution and Ethics 2 Altruism, Benevolence, and Self-Love in Eighteenth Century British Moral Philosophy Introduction Benevolence and Self-Love from Hobbes to Mackintosh The Eighteenth Century Legacy 3 The Moral Realm of Nature: Nineteenth Century Views on Ethics and Evolution Introduction Natural Facts and Natural Values Nature, Culture, and Conflict 4 Human Nature Introduction The Concept of Human Nature Human Nature and Moral Theory Human Nature and Ideology Does Darwinism Undermine the Concept of Human Nature? 5 Three Contemporary Approaches to Evolutionary Ethics Introduction The Wisdom of the Genes: The Sociobiology of Ethics Richard Alexander and the Biological Basis of Morality Robert Richards and the Revised Theory General Conclusion 6 Darwinism and the Moral Status of Animals Introduction Singer's Expanding Circle Argument James Rachels on "Moral Individualism" Rodd on the Rights of Animals and Our Duties Toward Them Conclusion 7 Final Reflections Summary of the Argument The Biological Roots of Morality The Relevance of Darwin for Moral Philosophy Bibliography Index.

Anthony O’Hear’s target is the claim that Darwinism provides a complete explanation of what it means to be human. The gist of his argument is that there are key normative dimensions to being human that escape the explanatory net of Darwinian or other naturalistic explanations. This is not to say that Darwinian and evolutionary accounts are not relevant to understanding what it means to be human. The point rather is that these accounts do not provide “complete” explanations. That human beings have evolved is not at issue. We are embodied natural beings. As such, we are material objects just like any other animals. But, we are much more as well. We have minds. We are not only conscious but self-conscious. Whereas our capacities for consciousness and self-consciousness have no doubt evolved, these capacities allow us to entertain and pursue “goals and projects puzzling or even inexplicable on biological terms” As conscious beings, we have beliefs. As self-conscious beings, we can and do reflect on and assess these beliefs. We can reason about them and, in so doing, come to sort out “good” beliefs from “bad” beliefs, true beliefs from false ones. We can develop projects such as pursuing “what is true because it is true, rather than because it serves some interest of ours.” In pursuing such a project, O’Hear argues, we have transcended the limitations of naturalistic accounts of our behavior.