Jamie Shaw

The purpose of this paper is to review, organize, and analyze disparate kinds of biases that can impact the quality of scientific research. We offer an analysis of what constitutes a bias and then provide a novel taxonomy of biases in science based on the criteria used to individuate them in the literature, i.e., based on the different criteria researchers use to identify biases. We identify five criteria: mechanism, effect, content, stage, and feature. We then conceptualize the impact of different biases using the notion of a ‘research pipeline.’ Furthermore, we identify a type of bias that can permeate the research pipeline as a whole, called ‘systemic bias,’ which includes biases that are likely to be more pervasive and thus more difficult to counteract. We conclude by stressing the importance of classifying biases in ways that are epistemically useful for science.

In this paper, I consider issues relating to the pursuitworthiness of some prominent instances of big science. Building off of DiMarco and Khalifa ( 2022 ), I provide a framework for the prominent risks and possible benefits of different kinds of big science. Based on this, I propose funding allocation mechanisms for evaluating the pursuitworthiness of different variants of big science. Special attention will be paid to the economic-epistemic impacts big science can have on pluralism, while engaging issues related to replication in big science and social responsibility. After clarifying what is meant by ‘big science’, I distinguish between three kinds of big science: normal, revolutionary, and socially-oriented big science. I go on to argue that modified crowdfunding, lotteries, and citizen juries present respectively appropriate funding mechanisms for their evaluations.

Paul K Feyerabend’s engagement with physics started before his engagement with philosophy, and he continued to think about new developments in physics until the end. To understand Feyerabend’s philosophy, therefore, it is crucial to understand his views on physics, many of which have remained unpublished until now. Doing so pays off, not only in helping us to understand the history of philosophy of science, but also insofar as it opens up new resources for contemporary philosophy of physics. The papers collected in this special issue demonstrate just how impactful such a project can be. This special issue arrives in two parts, each collecting four papers. The first half was published in 2022. This is the introduction for the second half.

Considerations of realism and pluralism pervade Feyerabend’s later works, as they do in his earlier corpus. However, Conquest of Abundance and surrounding papers mark Feyerabend’s first sustained foray into metaphysics. Specifically, he hypothesizes a pluralist realism that incorporates Kantian and constructivist elements. This work was composed when the ‘metaphysical disunity’ hypothesis was fashionable among members of the ‘Stanford School’. After building on previous explorations of Feyerabend’s later metaphysics (‘abundance realism’), we compare Feyerabend’s later works to prominent formulations of metaphysical pluralism in the Stanford School. We point to overlaps and divergences between Feyerabend’s later metaphysical pluralism and the formulations in the Stanford School. Despite significant intellectual overlap, the historical connections between Feyerabend’s later work and the Stanford School remain minimal. We argue that this is largely due to Feyerabend’s self-isolation from academic philosophy in the 1980s and his radical antiscientism. Moreover, we argue that Feyerabend’s metaphysics naturally extend from his attempts to situate science in diverse, democratic societies with hints of his later metaphysics in earlier writings, suggesting that Feyerabend’s “metaphysical turn” represents a shift in emphasis rather than a substantive change of position.

We provide a transcription and critical overview of Paul Feyerabend’s unpublished manuscript “On the Responsibility of Scientists.” Specifically, we locate the manuscript within Feyerabend’s corpus and show how it relates to his published remarks on topics such as expertise, democracy and science, opportunism, science funding, and the value of scientific knowledge. We also show how Feyerabend’s views anticipate and point to novel directions for contemporary philosophical literature on values in science.

Feyerabend’s arguments for epistemological anarchism in Against Method have attracted continued attention from philosophers of science. The complexity of the history of scientific practice and an unrelenting fallibilism, Feyerabend argues, provide crucial motivations for an open-ended theoretical and methodological pluralism. The purpose of this paper is to consider another argument Feyerabend provides in his correspondence with J.J.C. Smart in the mid-1960s that supports epistemological anarchism. My goal, here, is to reconstruct the argument, show how it builds on quieter themes in Feyerabend’s corpus and how it relates to his later proclamations that ‘anything goes.’ In doing so, I show how Feyerabend attempts to reimagine the purpose of philosophy of science.

This essay offers a discussion and contextualisation of a series of letters exchanged between Jordi Cat and Paul Feyerabend from 1989 to 1994. These letters provide insights into Feyerabend’s later thought on a variety of themes including quantum holism, the disunity of science, the development of logical empiricism, and science activism. In doing so, we provide some original analysis and exegesis of Feyerabend’s evolving views on scientific methodology and quantum mechanics by focusing on Feyerabend’s changing attitudes towards Bohm, Bohr, and his eventual colleague Hans Primas and his later sympathies with the algebraic approach. We also highlight Feyerabend’s role in the growth of the Disunity of Science movement and how he connected disunity to practical considerations in the philosophy of action.

This book (edited by Jonathan Y. Tsou, Jamie Shaw, and Carla Fehr) offers eighteen original historical and philosophical essays focused on values in science, scientific pluralism, and pragmatism. These themes have been central in the work of Matthew J. Brown, and the book frames these topics through an engagement with Brown’s broadly ranging work on values in science. The themes of this book are integrated and unified in the pragmatic and value-laden ideal of science defended by Professor Brown in his fascinating 2020 book, Science and Moral Imagination. Brown's ideal of moral imagination prescribes that scientists should recognize the contingencies in their work as unforced choices, examine morally salient aspects of these decisions, recognize the various interests of relevant stakeholders, explore and construct alternative options, and exercise fair and warranted value judgments to guide those decisions. The interdisciplinary essays in this volume engage with different aspects of Brown's philosophical research on scientific values as well as his historical research on figures such as John Dewey and Paul K. Feyerabend. The international contributors to this volume include distinguished and familiar voices from the values in science literature (e.g., Kevin Elliott, Janet Kourany, and Don Howard) as well as newer voices. The resulting book showcases some of the latest innovative research being done on values, pluralism, and pragmatism, and it will be an important resource for researchers working on values in science. Specific topics addressed in the book include: moral imagination, inductive risk, epistemic priority, the value free ideal of science, values in the contexts of artificial intelligence and medicine, varieties of pluralism (e.g., epistemic, ethical, and cultural), and the structure of scientific communities. The book also features novel historical research on important figures in the traditions of pragmatism, pluralism, and values in science, such as John Dewey, John Stuart Mill, Paul Feyerabend, W. V. O. Quine, Ludwig Fleck, among others. The contributions to the volume represent a broad range of contemporary history and philosophy of science perspectives, which have guided Brown's own work, including socially relevant philosophy of science (SRPoiSE), history of philosophy of science (HOPOS), feminist philosophy of science, and philosophy of science in practice (SPSP). The book will be of interest to a broad audience of researchers working in philosophy of science, philosophy of medicine, history and philosophy of science, and science and technology studies.

This paper focuses on the relevance of Indian epistemology and the philosophy of language to contemporary Western philosophy. Hence it discusses (1) how perceptual, inferential and verbal cognitions are related to the same object, (2) how to draw the distinction in meaning between transformationally equivalent sentences, such as ‘Brutus killed Caesar’ and ‘Caesar was killed by Brutus’, and (3) why the predicate-expression is to be considered as unsaturated but the subjectexpression as saturated. In order to answer these questions the Nyāya philosophers have discussed the distinction between several pairs of terms, such as ‘subject–predicate’, ‘qualificand–qualifier’ and ‘the first term–the second term’. This paper also deals with the Nyāya conception of inference for others, and the interpretations of the premise called ‘upanaya’ (‘application’) or the cognition called ‘parāmarśa’ (‘operation’)

One of the aims of this paper is to discuss the different senses of the term 'existence' as used by the nyaya philosophers. this discussion leads us to a discussion on absence or negation and its role in logic. a discussion on empty terms has also been introduced in this context. according to the nyaya, existence, knowability and nameability are considered as universal properties. the distinction between these universal properties has been discussed in this context. i have also discussed the question whether the nyaya has used redundant terms in designating the same imposed property by using three different terms. a distinction between different senses of the term 'property' has also been discussed in this context

This paper presents a diagrammatic notation for visualizing epistemic entities and relations. The notation was created during the Visualizing Worldviews project funded by the University of Toronto’s Jackman Humanities Institute and has been further developed by the scholars participating in the university’s Research Opportunity Program. Since any systematic diagrammatic notation should be based on a solid ontology of the respective domain, we first outline the current state of the scientonomic ontology. We then proceed to providing diagrammatic tools for visualizing the epistemic entities and relations of this ontology. These basic diagramming techniques allow us to construct diagrams of various types for both synchronic and diachronic visualizations. The paper concludes by highlighting some future research directions. As the notation presented here is de facto accepted and used in scientonomy, the paper suggests no modifications.

Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this paper is to argue that current proponents of funding science by lottery overestimate the viability of peer review and thus unduly restrict the scope of lotteries in science funding practice. I further show how this analysis suggests a different way of introducing lotteries into science funding policy.

There has been a resurgence between two closely related discussions concerning modern science funding policy. The first revolves around the coherence and usefulness of the distinction between basic and applied science and the second concerns whether science should be free to pursue research according to its own internal standards or pursue socially responsible research agendas that are held accountable to moral or political standards. In this paper, I argue that the distinction between basic and applied science, and the concomitant debate about freedom and social responsibility, require revision. I contend that the distinction can only be maintained in cases of _urgent science_. I go on to elucidate the notion of urgent science using a case study from research of the climate refugee crisis.