Mahmoud Jalloh

This study examines the intellectual and personal relationship between Robert K. Merton and Thomas S. Kuhn, and its lasting influence on the emergence of science studies as a distinct field. While Merton is often positioned as a founder of the sociology of science and Kuhn as the architect of the modern philosophy and history of science, their correspondence and collaborations reveal a deeper and more reciprocal exchange. Drawing on archival sources, including letters, notes, and memoirs, the research demonstrates that Merton and Kuhn’s interactions shaped each other’s academic trajectories in ways often overlooked in standard narratives. Merton’s sociological frameworks helped provide Kuhn with a lens for thinking about scientific communities and norms, while Kuhn’s historical and conceptual innovations, like his articulation of paradigm, redirected Merton’s attention toward new intellectual currents. In particular, their exchanges in the 1970s show a mutual effort to resist being cast as opposites by external commentators. This study concludes that the dialogue between Merton and Kuhn was not incidental but formative, providing a connective tissue that helped establish science studies as an interdisciplinary domain bridging history, philosophy, and sociology of science.

Certain considerations from cosmology (Ellis, in: arXiv preprint, 2006. arXiv:astro-ph/0602280 ; Stud Hist Philos Mod Phys 46:5–23, 2014) and other areas of physics (Sklar, in: PSA Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, pp. 551–564, 1990; Frisch, in: Philos Sci 71:696–706, 2004) pose challenges to the traditional distinction between laws and initial conditions, indicating the need for a more nuanced understanding of physical modality. A solution to these challenges is provided by presenting a conceptual framework according to which laws and fundamental lawlike assumptions within a theory’s nomic structure determine what is physically necessary and what is physically contingent from a physical theory’s point of view. Initial conditions are defined within this framework in terms of the possible configurations of a physical system allowed by the laws and other lawlike assumptions of a theory. The proposed deflationary framework of physical modality offers an alternative way of understanding the distinction between laws and initial conditions and allows the question of the modal status of the initial conditions of the Universe to be asked in a meaningful way.

Scholars have long recognized that Newton regarded Descartes as his principal philosophical interlocutor when composing the first edition of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. The arguments in the Scholium on space and time, for instance, can profitably be interpreted as focusing on the conception of space and motion in part two of Descartes's Principles of Philosophy (1644). What is less well known, however, is that this Cartesian conception, along with Descartes's attempt to avoid Galileo's fate in 1633, serves as an essential background to understanding Newton's own (poorly understood) view of the theological implications of his theory of space and motion. In particular, after withdrawing Le Monde from publication in 1633 because of its Copernican leanings, Descartes later introduced what some regard as a “fudge factor” into the theory of motion in the Principles: from an ordinary perspective the earth does move; but from a philosophical one, it does not. This background indicates the novelty and originality of Newton's own attempt to explicate how scriptural passages concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies can be reconciled with the philosophical views he developed during the 1680s. New evidence from archival sources and correspondence supports this argument, shedding light on the Scholium and on Newton's conception of philosophy's relation to theology

A new formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) for the existence of God is offered, which avoids a number of commonly raised objections. I argue that we can and should focus on the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe, and show how physics itself provides the probabilities that are needed by the argument. I explain how this formulation avoids a number of common objections, specifically the possibility of deeper physical laws, the multiverse, normalisability, whether God would fine-tune at all, whether the universe is too fine-tuned, and whether the likelihood of God creating a life-permitting universe is inscrutable.

This essay offers a conception of logic by which logic may be considered to be exceptional among the sciences on the backdrop of a naturalistic outlook. The conception of logic focused on emphasises the traditional role of logic as a methodology for the sciences, which distinguishes it from other sciences that are not methodological. On the proposed conception, the methodological aims of logic drive its definitions and principles, rather than the description of scientific phenomena. The notion of a methodological discipline is explained as a relation between disciplines or practices. Logic serves as a methodological discipline with respect to any theoretical practice, and this generality, as well as logic’s reflexive nature, distinguish it from other methodological disciplines. Finally, the evolution of model theory is taken as a case study, with a focus on its methodological role. Following recent work by John Baldwin and Juliette Kennedy, we look at model theory from its inception in the mid-twentieth century as a foundational endeavour until developments at the end of the century, where the classification of theories has taken centre-stage.

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.

Physics presents us with a symphony of natural constants: G, h, c, etc. Up to this point, constants have received comparatively little philosophical attention. In this paper I provide an account of dimensionful constants, in particular the gravitational constant. I propose that they represent inter-quantity structure in the form of relations between quantities with different dimensions. I use this account of G to settle a debate over whether mass scalings are symmetries of Newtonian Gravitation. I argue that they are not, but only if we interpret mass anti-quidditistically. This is analogous to anti-haecceitism in the presence of spacetime symmetries.

There is a widely held view on measurement inferences that goes back to Stevens’s theory of measurement scales and ‘permissible statistics’. This view defends the following prohibition: you should not make inferences from averages taken with ordinal scales (versus quantitative scales: interval or ratio). This prohibition is general—it applies to all ordinal scales—and it is sometimes endorsed without qualification. Adhering to it dramatically limits the research that the social and biomedical sciences can conduct. I provide a Bayesian analysis of this inferential problem, determining when measurements from ordinal scales can be used to confirm hypotheses about relative group averages. The prohibition, I conclude, cannot be upheld, even in a qualified sense. The beliefs needed to make average comparisons are less demanding than those appropriate for quantitative scales. I illustrate with the alleged paradigm ordinal scale, the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, arguing that the literature has mischaracterized it.

This chapter concerns dimensions as the term is used in the physical sciences today. Some key points made are: Quantities of the same kind have the same dimension; but that two quantities have the same dimension does not necessarily mean they are of the same kind. The dimension of a quantity is not determined for a single quantity in isolation, but relative to a system of quantities and the relations that hold between them. Dimensions, units, and quantities are distinct notions. In this article, I explain how dimensions, units, and quantities are involved in the design of coherent systems of units; the account involves the equations of physics. When the use of a coherent system of units can be presumed, dimensional analysis is a powerful logico-mathematical method for deriving equations and relations in physics, and for parameterizing equations in terms of dimensionless parameters, which allows identifying physically similar systems. The source of the information yielded by dimensional analysis is not yet well understood in philosophy of physics. This chapter aims to reveal the role of dimensions not only in applications of dimensional analysis to obtain information by involving the principle of dimensional homogeneity, but to the role of dimensions in encoding information about physical relationships in the language of dimensions, specifically via the feature of coherence of a system of units. Philosophers of mathematics and philosophers of science have been concerned to address the question of the effectiveness of mathematics in science. It is argued here that no philosophical analysis of the question of the applicability of mathematics to science is complete without including dimensions and dimensional analysis in the picture.

The concept of similar systems arose in physics, and appears to have originated with Newton in the seventeenth century. This chapter provides a critical history of the concept of physically similar systems, the twentieth century concept into which it developed. The concept was used in the nineteenth century in various fields of engineering, theoretical physics and theoretical and experimental hydrodynamics. In 1914, it was articulated in terms of ideas developed in the eighteenth century and used in nineteenth century mathematics and mechanics: equations, functions and dimensional analysis. The terminology physically similar systems was proposed for this new characterization of similar systems by the physicist Edgar Buckingham. Related work by Vaschy, Bertrand, and Riabouchinsky had appeared by then. The concept is very powerful in studying physical phenomena both theoretically and experimentally. As it is not currently part of the core curricula of STEM disciplines or philosophy of science, it is not as well known as it ought to be.