Harald A. Wiltsche

The empirical foundation of science has often been characterised in terms of the observable-unobservable distinction, developed either syntactically, as a set of statements, or semantically, as aspects of the world represented by models. These approaches have faced well-known challenges: the difficulty of drawing a sharp line between observables and unobservables, the theory-ladenness of observation, and the problem of specifying what, exactly, is observed. We take up these challenges by developing an alternative framework inspired by the phenomenological concept of the life-world. Our proposal offers several advantages: it provides a richer characterization of the foundational level, clarifying the conditions of possibility for inquiry and avoiding overly narrow views that equate the empirical basis with linguistic statements or model components; it stresses the role of the empirical basis not only in individuating phenomena and testing claims, but also in sustaining scientific inquiry throughout; it extends beyond the senses to include cognitive and practical dimensions that shape experience and scientific practice; it foregrounds the role of the observing subject; it highlights the continuity between observation and theory, and between scientific and extra-scientific sense-making; and it integrates the most compelling, if sometimes at first pass conflicting, relevant analytic insights.

Contemporary AI systems - especially large language models (LLMs) - exhibit a striking combination of capabilities and failures: apparent fluency and cross-domain coherence alongside persistent breakdowns in compositional generalization, object tracking, and truth reliability. These phenomena are often interpreted in two opposing ways: either as evidence that AI is converging on human-like intelligence, or as proof that it merely manipulates linguistic form without understanding. In recent interdisciplinary work - including Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson's The Blind Spot and DeepMind researcher Alexander Lerchner's “The Abstraction Fallacy” - a different picture is emerging. Rather than asking whether AI systems are becoming intelligent in the human sense, these approaches ask a more basic question: What if AI systems work because they rely on structures that are rooted in human cognition? This shift in perspective, which draws on the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, helps make sense of both the capabilities and the limits of modern AI. In this paper, we further develop this framework by drawing on Husserl’s account of cognition and language. According to this account, language, once properly understood, is able to mediate between natural and artificial intelligence, an argument first made by Husserl scholar Robert Sokolowski. As we argue, this framework provides a unified explanation of several central empirical findings in contemporary AI: the compositionality gap in large language and reasoning models, persistent failures in whole-part relations and object persistence in vision and world models, and the coexistence of apparent fluency with systematic hallucination. These patterns are not merely engineering challenges but reflect a structural boundary: the absence of world-directed, temporal, and anticipatory cognition that underlies natural language. At the same time, this account explains why AI systems are powerful and scientifically significant: they extend human cognitive achievements by formalizing and scaling structures originally constituted in perceptual experience and expressed in language. This resolves persistent tensions in current debates, including the apparent plausibility of AGI narratives alongside their conceptual instability, and the coexistence of genuine safety risks with misconceptions about “autonomous” or “rogue” intelligence. Because AI extends rather than reconstructs natural intelligence, responsibility lies not in the model but in the system surrounding it - resituating the focus of AI safety from model safety to system safety and grounding the current shift in practice toward harness engineering.

Radical neurophenomenology offers new ways to re-thinking subjectivity and objectivity, and the relation between them. More specifically, radical neurophenomenology crucially relies on the notion of constitution to circumvent the pitfalls that were associated with older, dualistic frameworks. Building on existing work, our paper has two primary goals. First, we will argue that Merleau-Ponty’s later work provides a suitable framework for elaborating a viable concept of (co-)constitution. As we will discuss, it is especially Merleau-Ponty’s notion of the flesh which allows for a better way to understand the concept of constitution. However, our paper extends beyond purely theoretical analysis and interpretation. Our second goal is to illustrate the pragmatic gain of our clarificatory efforts by discussing how a viable concept of constitution should affect and inform the understanding of modern neuroimaging techniques and a qualitative phenomenological philosophy analysis of subjectivity and lived experience, and how this contributes to neurophenomenological inquiries.

Radical neurophenomenology offers new ways to re-thinking subjectivity and objectivity, and the relation between them. More specifically, radical neurophenomenology crucially relies on the notion of constitution to circumvent the pitfalls that were associated with older, dualistic frameworks. Building on existing work, our paper has two primary goals. First, we will argue that Merleau-Ponty’s later work provides a suitable framework for elaborating a viable concept of (co-)constitution. As we will discuss, it is especially Merleau-Ponty’s notion of the flesh which allows for a better way to understand the concept of constitution. However, our paper extends beyond purely theoretical analysis and interpretation. Our second goal is to illustrate the pragmatic gain of our clarificatory efforts by discussing how a viable concept of constitution should affect and inform the understanding of modern neuroimaging techniques and a qualitative phenomenological philosophy analysis of subjectivity and lived experience, and how this contributes to neurophenomenological inquiries.

Phenomenology of science is supposed to return to the things themselves by getting as close as possible to the level of scientific practice. In doing so, it engages with a broader landscape of scholarship on science—from sociology and STS to analytic philosophy—that likewise seeks to clarify the epistemic structures of scientific practice. What sets phenomenology apart, however, is its aim of faithfully describing the essential structures of expert experience—the very experience scientists undergo as they engage in their research—by means of a first-person perspective. This paper identifies a central methodological difficulty in this regard: the challenge of expert experience, namely the difficulty of accessing and describing experiences that require domain-specific expertise. While introducing qualitative methods into the phenomenological toolbox seems a promising route for addressing this difficulty, it brings with it its own set of challenges. Although, as I will argue, there is no straightforward solution to the challenge, a potential way forward lies in focusing more on the collaborative interactions between phenomenologists and scientists during interview-based inquiry, with the aim of fostering interactional expertise in Harry Collins’s sense of the term.

Phenomenology of science is supposed to return to the things themselves by getting as close as possible to the level of scientific practice. In doing so, it engages with a broader landscape of scholarship on science—from sociology and STS to analytic philosophy—that likewise seeks to clarify the epistemic structures of scientific practice. What sets phenomenology apart, however, is its aim of faithfully describing the essential structures of expert experience—the very experience scientists undergo as they engage in their research—by means of a first-person perspective. This paper identifies a central methodological difficulty in this regard: the challenge of expert experience, namely the difficulty of accessing and describing experiences that require domain-specific expertise. While introducing qualitative methods into the phenomenological toolbox seems a promising route for addressing this difficulty, it brings with it its own set of challenges. Although, as I will argue, there is no straightforward solution to the challenge, a potential way forward lies in focusing more on the collaborative interactions between phenomenologists and scientists during interview-based inquiry, with the aim of fostering interactional expertise in Harry Collins’s sense of the term.

In his book, A Phenomenological Approach to Quantum Mechanics: Cutting the Chain of Correlations, Steven French argues that quantum mechanics, understood through the phenomenological lens of London and Bauer, turns physics into a “genuine science”, and thus completes the project Edmund Husserl had started in his last major publication, The Crisis of European Sciences. What makes quantum mechanics a genuine science, according to French, is that it is fully grounded in the “lifeworld and transcendental subjectivity”, just as Husserl dreamt. While we agree with French that London and Bauer’s reading of quantum mechanics is inspired by and thus makes a step towards Husserl’s phenomenology, we argue that a more encompassing phenomenological investigation is still needed if we are to avoid another crisis. More specifically, our claim is that French underestimates the “constitutional history” of the kinds of mathematical idealities that underlie quantum mechanics.Previous article in issue.

We take up the challenge of developing an international network with capacity to survey the world’s scientists on an ongoing basis, providing rich datasets regarding the opinions of scientists and scientific sub-communities, both at a time and also over time. The novel methodology employed sees local coordinators, at each institution in the network, sending survey invitation emails internally to scientists at their home institution. The emails link to a ‘10 second survey’, where the participant is presented with a single statement to consider, and a standard five-point Likert scale. In June 2023, a group of 30 philosophers and social scientists invited 20,085 scientists across 30 institutions in 12 countries to participate, gathering 6,807 responses to the statement Science has put it beyond reasonable doubt that COVID-19 is caused by a virus. The study demonstrates that it is possible to establish a global network to quickly ascertain scientific opinion on a large international scale, with high response rate, low opt-out rate, and in a way that allows for significant (perhaps indefinite) repeatability. Measuring scientific opinion in this new way would be a valuable complement to currently available approaches, potentially informing policy decisions and public understanding across diverse fields.

The objective of this paper is to offer an analysis of several key elements within Niels Bohr’s transcendental interpretation of quantum mechanics. After some stage setting, I will demonstrate that a transcendental perspective on Bohr offers several advantages over alternative interpretations. Specifically, I will argue that some of his most contentious claims become more plausible when viewed through a transcendental lens. However, despite these strengths, Bohr’s approach faces challenges. Following an evaluation of what I consider to be the primary weakness in his framework, the final section of the paper will explore potential avenues for enhancing the viability of the Bohrian project, with a specific focus on the role of phenomenology as a potential solution.

Phenomenologically, perception distinguishes itself from other modes of consciousness by presenting its objects and contents “in the flesh;” it has a presentive character. From the first person perspective, there is a clear difference between thinking about a laptop on the desk, imagining a laptop on the desk, believing or hoping that there is a laptop on the desk, and actually visually perceiving a laptop on the desk. Only perception has a presentive character with respect to physical objects. Epistemologically, perception distinguishes itself by being a source of immediate justification for beliefs about physical states of affairs. Believing, imagining, or hoping that there is a laptop on the desk does not justify a person in believing so. However, if the person sees that there is a laptop on the desk, it is plausible to assume that she is thereby justified in believing that there is a laptop on the desk. Only perception is a source of immediate justification with respect to such states of affairs. In the phenomenological as well as in the recent analytic tradition, there have been attempts to connect the phenomenological and the epistemological distinctiveness of perception: It has been argued that perception is a source of immediate justification precisely by virtue of its presentive phenomenal character. In the analytic tradition, however, it has been often overlooked that the phenomenal character of perception is not exhausted by its presentive character. Perception, essentially, also has a co-presenting character; it has a horizontal structure. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the epistemological significance of the horizontal structure of perception.

This volume brings together philosophers and physicists to explore the parallels between Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, and the phenomenological tradition. It is the first book exclusively devoted to phenomenology and quantum mechanics. By emphasizing the role of the subject's experiences and expectations, and by explicitly rejecting the idea that the notion of physical reality could ever be reduced to a purely third-personal perspective, QBism exhibits several interesting parallels with phenomenology. The central message of QBism is that quantum probabilities must be interpreted as the experiencing agent's personal Bayesian degrees of belief--degrees of belief for the consequences of their actions on a quantum system. The chapters in this volume elaborate whether and specify how phenomenology could serve as the philosophical foundation of QBism. This objective is pursued from the perspective of QBists engaging with phenomenology as well as the perspective of phenomenologists engaging with QBism. These approaches enable us to realize a better understanding of quantum mechanics and the world we live in, achieve a better understanding of QBsim, and introduce the phenomenological foundations of quantum mechanics. Phenomenology and QBism is an essential resource for researchers and graduate students working in philosophy of physics, philosophy of science, quantum mechanics, and phenomenology.

The aim of this paper is to show that scientific thought experiments and works of science fiction are highly suitable tools for facilitating and increasing understanding of science. After comparing one of Einstein’s most famous thought experiments with the science fiction novel “The Forever War”, I shall argue that both proceed similarly in making some of the more outlandish consequences of special relativity theory intelligible. However, as I will also point out, understanding in thought experiments and understanding in science fiction differ in one important respect: While the former aim at what I shall call “physical understanding”, science fiction novels typically have “existential understanding” as their target.

This book offers fresh perspective on the role of phenomenology in the philosophy of physics which opens new avenues for discussion among physicists, "standard" philosophers of physics and philosophers with phenomenological leanings. Much has been written on the interrelations between philosophy and physics in the late 19th and early 20th century, and on the emergence of philosophy of science as an autonomous philosophical sub-discipline. This book is about the under-explored role of phenomenology in the development and the philosophical interpretation of 20th century physics. Part 1 examines questions about the origins and value of phenomenological approaches to physics. Does the work of classical phenomenologists such as Husserl, Merleau-Ponty or Heidegger contain elements of systematic value to both the practice and our philosophical understanding of physics? How did classical phenomenology influence “standard” philosophy of science in the Anglo-American and other traditions? Part 2 probes questions on the role of phenomenology in the philosophies of physics and science: - Can phenomenology help to solve “Wigner’s puzzle”, the problem of the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in describing, explaining and predicting empirical phenomena? - Does phenomenology allow better understanding of the principle of gauge invariance at the core of the standard model of contemporary particle physics? - Does the phenomenological notion of “Lifeworld” stand in opposition to the “scientific metaphysics” movement, or is there potential for dialogue? Part 3 examines the measurement problem. Is the solution outlined by Fritz London and Edmond Bauer merely a re-statement of von Neumann’s view, or should it be regarded as a distinctively phenomenological take on the measurement problem? Is phenomenology a serious contender in continuing discussions of foundational questions of quantum mechanics? Can other interpretational frameworks such as quantum Bayesianism benefit from implementing phenomenological notions such as constitution or horizonal intentionality?

As is well known, the late Husserl warned against the dangers of reifying and objectifying the mathematical models that operate at the heart of our physical theories. Although Husserl’s worries were mainly directed at Galilean physics, the first aim of our paper is to show that many of his critical arguments are no less relevant today. By addressing the formalism and current interpretations of quantum theory, we illustrate how topics surrounding the mathematization of nature come to the fore naturally. Our second aim is to consider the program of reconstructing quantum theory, a program that currently enjoys popularity in the field of quantum foundations. We will conclude by arguing that, seen from this vantage point, certain insights delivered by phenomenology and quantum theory regarding perspectivity are remarkably concordant. Our overall hope with this paper is to show that there is much room for mutual learning between phenomenology and modern physics.

The aim of this paper is to present an outline of a phenomenological theory of thought experiments. In doing so, I am dealing with a topic that is currently starting to receive increased attention from philosophers with phenomenological leanings. However, since no serious attempt has been made to tackle the issue in a systematic fashion, I will not merely review existing phenomenological work on thought experiments. For the most part, my paper is programmatic: its aim is to suggest some basic directions in which a phenomenological theory of scientific thought experiments should be developed.

The debate about scientific realism has occupied center stage in philosophy of science since its very inception. The main question is whether or not scientific theories are true descriptions of the world. Or, to give the question a slightly different spin: What grounds do we have for believing in the reality of the unobservable entities postulated by contemporary science ? Although the main arena of this debate is analytic philosophy, it is clear that these questions are no less important for philosophers with phenomenological leanings. Should phenomenologists advocate SR or should they opt for scientific anti-realism ? And, on a more historical note, which of these options is most appropriate from the viewpoint of Husserl’s work?Such are the questions that Lee Hardy tries to answer in his book. Hardy’s main thesis is “that Husserl was indeed an instrumentalist, but that his instrumen ..