Kareem Khalifa

This open access book presents and defends a new approach towards social functionalism: Presentist Social Functionalism. This approach draws on recent developments in evolutionary biology and philosophy of biology to provide a more compelling theoretical foundation for functionalist social analysis. Functionalist approaches to the social sciences—which aim at using facts about what social institutions are for to provide a fulcrum with which to understand, evaluate, and respond to social reality—are about as old as the subject itself, but have also been the subject of much criticism. In particular, a widespread concern for the functionalist tradition in the social sciences is that functional ascriptions often lack a plausible theoretical grounding, and that where such a theoretical grounding can be provided, the empirical presuppositions of this grounding often fail to be met. However, recent developments in evolutionary biology and the philosophy of biology promise to change this situation: they show that functional ascription can be compellingly made in an ahistorical, non-reproduction-based, and non-normative manner, which makes it possible to develop a new account of social functionalism that can fulfil the latter’s theoretical and empirical desiderata. To show this, the book begins by laying out the major existing accounts of social functionalism and detailing their challenges. It then develops the new, alternative account of Presentist Social Functionalism. Given its interdisciplinary nature and application-focused approach, the book is of interest to researchers in a variety of fields, from evolutionary biology to the social sciences and philosophy.

What is it for the verdict of a criminal trial to be just? It is widely agreed that a Guilty verdict is just only if the defendant did the relevant deed, and only if his rights were not violated in the process of apprehending, charging, and convicting him. I argue that more is required: he must be found Guilty because he is guilty, and not solely for other reasons. The conviction must be based on the guilt. I argue that many rules of evidence and procedural rules designed to protect a defendant's rights also encourage fulfillment of this basing condition and that the condition helps to explain how an erroneous conviction involving no misconduct can nevertheless be a moral wrong. I argue that the condition also gives an explanation (among others) of why a naked statistic is insufficient for a just conviction.

What sort of inquiry is social science? This question used to preoccupy philosophers, but fell off their agenda due to a stalemate between so-called naturalists, who took the ideal to benatural science, and exceptionalists, who allied social sciences with the humanities. I show that both positions commit the error of contrastivism, namely, defining social science in contrast to these two traditions, which inevitably ends up caricaturing them. Using recent advances in philosophy, I formulate constructivism about social sciences, a view that denies an essence to this inquiry and grounds it in the needs of communities to understand and improve themselves.

Mauricio Suárez develops a conception of representation that delivers a compelling account of modeling practice. He begins by discussing the history and methodology of model building, helpfully charting the emergence of what he calls the modeling attitude, a nineteenth century and fin de siècle development. Throughout the book, prominent cases of models, both historical and contemporary, are used as benchmarks for the accounts of representation considered throughout the book. After arguing against reductive naturalist theories of scientific representation, Suárez sets out his own account: a case for pluralism regarding the means of representation and minimalism regarding its constituents. He shows that scientists employ a plurality of different modeling relations in their representational practice - which also help them to assess the accuracy of their representations - while demonstrating that there is nothing metaphysically deep about the constituent relation that encompasses all these diverse means. The book also probes the broad implications of Suárez's inferential conception outside scientific modeling itself, covering analogies with debates about artistic representation over the past several decades, as well as the consequences for epistemology of adopting an inferential conception of representation. His inferential conception is neutral between realism and instrumentalism, and he illustrates this by looking at, and briefly taking issue with, the epistemology of some of the most widely discussed philosophers in the literature.

Model transfer is the scientific practice of taking a model which was initially applied in one particular kind of target system in some particular scientific domain and applying it to represent a novel target system in a novel scientific domain. This paper motivates a realist interpretation of empirically successful model transfers and the implications of such an interpretation for the metaphysics of science. The paper uses two examples of empirically successful model transfer, the first of which is a strikingly successful recent application of the Ising model to neurobiology, the second of which is Maxwell’s “method of physical analogy”. The paper first defends the need for a realist picture regarding the transfer of model templates and the apparent discovery of physical analogies. Then, it examines further the implications of such a picture, finding it to be quite revisionary in its conception of the nature of causal processes.

This paper explores the socio-epistemic practice of shopping for experts. I argue that expert shopping is particularly likely to occur on what Thi Nguyen calls cognitive islands. To support my argument, I focus on macroeconomics. First, I make a prima-facie case for thinking that macroeconomics is a cognitive island. Then, I argue that ordinary people are particularly likely to engage in expert shopping when it comes to macroeconomic matters. In particular, I distinguish between two kinds of expert shopping, which I call cynical and wishful, and introduce the notion of assisted expert shopping, which occurs when people or organizations shop for experts on behalf of other people. I argue that assisted expert shopping can sometime result in what I call a propagandistic use of expertise. Finally, I critically examine some possible reasons for optimism and find them wanting. I conclude by suggesting that that much of what I said about shopping for macroeconomic experts might also apply mutatis mutandis to other policy-relevant domains of expertise.

Accounts of scientific explanation disagree about what’s required for a cause, law, or other fact to be a reason why an event occurs. In short, they disagree about the conditions for explanatory relevance. Nonetheless, most accounts presuppose that claims about explanatory relevance play a descriptive role in tracking reality. By rejecting the need for this descriptivist assumption, I develop an expressivist account of explanatory relevance and explanation: to judge that an answer is explanatory is to express an attitude of _being for being satisfied by that answer_. I show how expressivism vindicates ordinary scientific discourse about explanation, including claims about the objectivity and mind-independence of explanations. By avoiding commitment to ontic relevance relations, I rehabilitate an irrealist conception of explanation.

Our concern in this paper lies with a common argument from racial discrimination to realism about races: some people are discriminated against for being members of a particular race (i.e., racial discrimination exists), so some people must be members of that race (i.e., races exist). Error theorists have long responded that we can explain racial discrimination in terms of racial attitudes alone, so we need not explain it in terms of race itself. But to date there has been little detailed discussion of whether it is better to explain racial discrimination in terms of race or in terms of racial attitudes alone. Our goal is to offer a novel and detailed argument in defense of explaining racial discrimination in terms of racial attitudes alone, by attending to the neglected phenomenon of misperception discrimination, which involves differential treatment due to misperceived race. We argue that the discriminatory action in misperception cases must be explained in the same way as cases where (according to the realist) the victim’s race is accurately perceived. Thus, the victim’s actual race cannot provide the best explanation. The main upshot of our argument is that explanatory arguments from racial discrimination to realism about race fail.