Melissa Fernandez

Philosophers of science typically focus on the epistemic performance of scientific models when evaluating them. Analysing the effects that models may have on the world has typically been the purview of sociologists of science. We argue that the reactive (or “performative”) effects of models should also figure in model evaluations by philosophers of science. We provide a detailed analysis of how models in financial economics created the impetus for the growing importance of the phenomenon of “passive investing” in financial markets. Considering this case motivates the position that we call contextualism about model evaluation, or _model contextualism_ for short. Model contextualism encompasses standard analyses of the epistemic performance of the model, but also includes their reactive aspects. It entails identifying the _epistemic and contextual import of the model_, the ways in which a model can engender change in the world (which we call the _channels of transmission_), and the _interactions between the epistemic and reactive import of a model_.

In this article, we present results from a literature review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values of nature conducted for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, as part of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuations of Nature. We identify the most frequently recurring meanings in the heterogeneous use of different value types and their association with worldviews and other key concepts. From frequent uses, we determine a core meaning for each value type, which is sufficiently inclusive to serve as an umbrella over different understandings in the literature and specific enough to help highlight its difference from the other types of values. Finally, we discuss convergences, overlapping areas, and fuzzy boundaries between different value types to facilitate dialogue, reduce misunderstandings, and improve the methods for valuation of nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, to inform policy and direct future research. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

The description of how individual models in families of models are related to each other is crucial for the general philosophical understanding of model-based scientific practice. We focus on the Capital Asset Pricing Models (CAPM) family, a cornerstone in financial economics, to provide a descriptive analysis of model relations within a family. We introduce the concepts of theoretical and empirical complementarity to characterise model relations. Our complementarity analysis of model relations has two types of payoff. Specifically regarding the CAPM, our analysis reveals why this model family, which has been empirically contested, has yet remained popular and important: the different models that have been added over time have made new empirically and theoretically complementary contributions to the model family. More generally, our analysis reveals the dynamic character of model-based scientific practice. Characterising relations between models as theoretically and/or empirically complementary yields three hitherto underappreciated lessons: (i) actual modelling purposes are not always primarily epistemic, (ii) a model's individual import is relative, not absolute, and (iii) there is an important interplay between theory and data models. Faithfully characterising scientific modelling in this way facilitates subsequent analysis of models' epistemic import.

Bioethics emerged as a discipline in the 70s of the last century. One of its main objectives has been to analyze clinical cases that pose moral problems. This analysis is generally carried out by a multidisciplinary group, the Health Care Ethics Committee, which is comprised of ethical experts or healthcare providers assisted by a facilitator, depending on the context. Different methodologies are used in these situations. The deliberative method, in its various configurations, is the most widely used in many Committees. Identify whether the deliberative method is included in regulated undergraduate and postgraduate teaching; analyze whether a single model can be identified or whether there is heterogeneity in the proposals. A bibliographic review was carried out, following the scoping review method. With respect to the first objective, there is no evidence on the teaching and use of the deliberative method in the Faculties and Schools of Medicine and Nursing, the emphasis is placed on training oriented to the resolution of clinical cases and a certain deliberative proposal is developed from them, more pragmatic than ethical-philosophical. In relation to the second objective, differences are observed between the two most prevalent schools (D. Gracia and B. Molewijk), with the model proposed by Gracia being used more in the Spanish-speaking world, and Molewijk's model in the English-speaking world. It can be seen that D. Gracia's proposal is more philosophical and Molewijk's more pragmatic. Finally, it is considered pertinent to further disseminate the deliberative method and its advantages, as well as its potential for bioethics education.

Bioethics emerged as a discipline in the 70s of the last century. One of its main objectives has been to analyze clinical cases that pose moral problems. This analysis is generally carried out by a multidisciplinary group, the Health Care Ethics Committee, which is comprised of ethical experts or healthcare providers assisted by a facilitator, depending on the context. Different methodologies are used in these situations. The deliberative method, in its various configurations, is the most widely used in many Committees. Identify whether the deliberative method is included in regulated undergraduate and postgraduate teaching; analyze whether a single model can be identified or whether there is heterogeneity in the proposals. A bibliographic review was carried out, following the scoping review method. With respect to the first objective, there is no evidence on the teaching and use of the deliberative method in the Faculties and Schools of Medicine and Nursing, the emphasis is placed on training oriented to the resolution of clinical cases and a certain deliberative proposal is developed from them, more pragmatic than ethical-philosophical. In relation to the second objective, differences are observed between the two most prevalent schools (D. Gracia and B. Molewijk), with the model proposed by Gracia being used more in the Spanish-speaking world, and Molewijk's model in the English-speaking world. It can be seen that D. Gracia's proposal is more philosophical and Molewijk's more pragmatic. Finally, it is considered pertinent to further disseminate the deliberative method and its advantages, as well as its potential for bioethics education.