Pascal Ludwig

How are our scientific theories related to each other? Do they draw, together, a unified picture of the world, or should we infer from their disunity that reality is ontologically plural in some way? This chapter addresses the question of whether ontological pluralism is a defendable metaphysical thesis and whether philosophy of science has anything to say about it. It examines whether psychological phenomena possess an irreducible nature of their own that would be distinct from the nature of the phenomena studied by neuroscience. If, on the contrary, the explanatory gap between physics and special sciences is to be filled, the question is raised as to how it has to be done. Is conceptual analysis enough? Or should the explanatory gap be simply dismissed as being badly formulated? The chapter proposes a discussion of the current reductionist strategies.

Since the publication of “Behavioral studies of obedience” in 1963, and then of “Obedience to Authority” in 1974, the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale in the early 1960s has provoked many lively debates. The opening of his archives by Yale University (Blass 2002), the partial replication of the experiment (Burger 2009), interviews with former “guinea pigs” or collaborators (Perry 2012), as well as the more general context of the replicability crisis in experimental psychology (Ritchie 2020) have triggered a revival of these debates.On the basis of these new data, several aspects of Milgram’s experiments have been reexamined: their experimental protocol, which does not exactly match Milgram's account of it (Gibson 2019); the decision not to include in the interpretation interviews in which subjects claimed not to have been fooled by the device designed to deceive them (Perry, Brannigan & alii 2018); the lessons to be learned from the behavior observed (Burger, Girgis & Manning 2011; Reicher, Haslam & Smith 2012); the usefulness of these findings in explaining the behavior of ordinary perpetrators during genocides, and in particular the Shoah (Russell & Gregory 2015; Roth 2022); the moral legitimacy of the device itself (Perry 2012). Moreover, all of these investigations converge on the question of whether the crisis of reproducibility affects experiments on authority and, if so, to what extent. As Stuart Ritchie's (2020) cautious treatment of the Milgram case in his review of the reproducibility crisis shows, this question remains open.The fact remains that debates around one of the founding and paradigmatic works of experimental social psychology ultimately call into question the very value of this discipline or at least the direction it should take. Augustine Brannigan goes so far as to call for “the end of experimental social psychology” (Brannigan 2017, p. 141) in this regard. Finally, both Milgram and the psychologists and philosophers following in his wake interpreted the astonishment that his results aroused as a symptom of adherence to a mistaken anthropology. The situationist research program thus aimed to understand what this error is, where it comes from, and how to rectify it (Ross & Nisbett 1991; Doris 2005; Sabini & Silver 2005; Roth 2022). The subsequent interrogation of Milgram's results thus also calls into question the value of this philosophical program.The authority experiments were based on epistemological and ontological presuppositions that conditioned their design and interpretation, and that have thus far rarely been drawn out and directly discussed. For example, by designating his task as an “experiment on authority”, Milgram presupposed the existence of a concept of authority that would apply to the experiment in question, but about which he remained confused, because he was theoretically eclectic, relying as much on Hannah Arendt as on cybernetics (Milgram 1974). Stephen Gibson (2019) thus looked for a concept that could adequately describe what was actually taking place during the experiment and suggested that the Foucauldian concept of power was more suitable than the concept of authority.To take another example, Milgram's explicit goal was not only to reproduce in the laboratory an ordinary relationship of subordination, but to simulate the administrative and social structure that made possible the implementation of the extermination of the European Jews (Milgram 1963; Milgram 1974; Blass 2002). Against the prejudice according to which historical events are non-repeatable singularities, he thus presupposed the possibility of solving experimentally some of the explanatory problems that plague historians.In order to contribute productively to current debates on the value of Milgram's experiments, and more generally of social psychology, this special issue tries to identify the presuppositions, theoretical consequences, and justifications of the experiments.

Milgram’s experiments have had a considerable influence on the historical study of genocidal behavior, which originated with Christopher Browning’s groundbreaking book Ordinary Men. The purpose of my article is to examine and critically assess the following theory which is often taken somewhat for granted: “Relevance thesis: findings in social psychology, most notably Milgram’s findings about obedience behavior, are causally relevant to explaining perpetrators’ behaviors.” The relevance theory presupposes that certain paradigmatic studies in social psychology have both internal and external validity. In the context of the replication crisis which has affected many recent findings in social psychology, it seems crucial to discuss this presupposition. I shall argue that the evidence is mixed.

Selon la théorie de la connaissance phénoménale comme accointance, notre connaissance des propriétés phénoménales de nos états conscients repose sur une relation épistémologiquement directe et métaphysiquement simple. Dans cet article, je soutiens que le meilleur argument en faveur de cette approche est une inférence à la meilleure explication. Je décris l’ explanandum et l’ explanans de cette inférence, ce qui me conduit à distinguer un sens faible et un sens fort de l’accointance. Je montre ensuite que l’inférence est fragile pour deux raisons. En premier lieu, il n’est pas clair que l’ explanandum puisse être établi indépendamment de la thèse même qu’il motive, ce qui fait apparaître un risque de circularité explicative au sens de Hempel. En second lieu, les défenseurs de l’accointance devraient montrer comment une relation métaphysiquement simple, donc irréductible à des mécanismes, peut expliquer l’acquisition des croyances phénoménales. Je conclus que nous n’avons pas actuellement de raisons d’accepter la thèse forte de l’accointance, mais que le concept d’accointance faible pourrait certainement jouer un rôle important dans une théorie de la connaissance phénoménale

En sciences sociales, les scientifiques utilisent les rapports des sujets sur leurs propres états mentaux dans leurs démarches expérimentales. Ainsi, l’introspection, ou la capacité des sujets à former des croyances sur leurs propres états mentaux, y joue un rôle important. Selon les tenants de l’introspectionnisme, l’introspection est une méthode, certes privée, mais qui permet de justifier directement des hypothèses scientifiques. Ainsi, contrairement aux méthodes utilisées dans les sciences de la nature qui se fondent uniquement sur des données publiques, les sciences sociales utiliseraient des données subjectives pour justifier leurs hypothèses. Contre l’introspectionnisme, nous défendons que l’introspection n’est pas utilisée pour justifier directement les hypothèses, mais que sa place est plutôt similaire à celle d’un instrument de mesure des états et processus mentaux des sujets, susceptible d’être calibré, à la façon dont les instruments de mesure utilisés dans les sciences...

In this paper, I claim that self-knowledge is at the heart of Descartes’s Cogito. Following Hintikka, many commentators have focused their attention on the rational link between « I think » and « I exist », without proposing a unified account of the Cogito that could shed light both upon its structure and upon the essential role played by introspective self-knowledge. In addition, many contemporary theories of self-knowledge, inspired by Gareth Evans’ influential transparency intuition, have been put forward as reactions against a supposedly « Cartesian » image of introspection. In this context, Peacocke’s recent vindication of Descartes’ argument could prove to be a crucial milestone in the history of the Cogito’s readings. Departing boldly from Gilbert Ryle’s interpretation of Cartesian introspection as involving a privileged access to an inner world, Peacocke claims that the certainty of the Cogito is due to the very identity of the concepts involved in it. On this rationalist reconstruction, the transition from « I think » to « I exist » can be seen as both rational and non-inferential, and I argue that this could lead to a new understanding of the debate on the inferential character of the Cogito. I also argue, ultimately, that Peacocke does not deliver a fully unified theory of introspective self-knowledge.

RÉSUMÉ: Le but de cet article est de défendre une conception inférentialiste de l’introspection des qualia contre une série d’objections apparemment décisives. Selon la theorie inférentialiste, une auto-attribution d’un état qualitatifest la conclusion d’un raisonnement, plutôt que le résultat d’une expérience d’un type spécifique. Contre cela, il a été remarqué qu'il ne semble pas exister de raisonnements déductifs formellement corrects permettant d’arriver à une conclusion introspective. Je concède que toute tentative visant à construire de tels raisonnements est à coup sûr vouée à l’échec. Mais cela ne me semble pas menacer l’approche inférentialiste. Certaines inférences sont en effet correctes non pas en vertu de leur forme logique, mais en raison du sens des concepts qu’elles mobilisent. Je soutiens que c’est précisément le cas des raisonnement introspectifs. Ceux-ci sont matériellement corrects, en raison des relations inférentielles a priori reliant le concept d’expérience consciente à certains concepts démonstratifs.ABSTRACT: The aim of this article is to defend the inferentialist conception of qualia introspection against some apparently decisive objections. According to inferentialism, a self-attribution of a qualitative state is to be understood as the conclusion of an inference, rather than as issuing from an experience of a specific kind. It has been objected that formally correct inferences warranting introspective conclusions are simply not to be found. I concede this point, but maintain that inferentialism should not be abandoned. Some deductive inferences are correct because of the contents of the concepts which occur in them, rather than in virtue of their logical form. I claim that this is what happens for introspective inferences: they are materially correct because of apriori conceptual liaisons linking the concept of a conscious experience with a certain class of demonstrative concepts.

ABSTRACT: In the first part of this paper, I criticize the indexical interpretation of meta-ethical relativism. According to the indexical interpretation, the content of a moral statement varies with the context of its utterance. I argue that such an interpretation is not empirically plausible, and that it cannot explain the seriousness of radical moral disagreements. In the constructive part of the paper, I offer an alternative, minimalist interpretation of moral relativism, which is based upon an analogy with the case of the relativity of motion. View HTML Send article to KindleTo send this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply. Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.De la relativité des jugements morauxVolume 51, Issue 1Pascal Ludwig DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217312000248Your Kindle email address Please provide your Kindle [email protected]@kindle.com Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Send article to Dropbox To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox. De la relativité des jugements morauxVolume 51, Issue 1Pascal Ludwig DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217312000248Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Send article to Google Drive To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive. De la relativité des jugements morauxVolume 51, Issue 1Pascal Ludwig DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217312000248Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Export citation Request permission.

Filipe Drapeau Vieira Contim,Pascal Ludwig | : La plupart des théoriciens de l’identité des types souscrivent à un physicalisme a posteriori à l’égard des propriétés phénoménales. Selon cette conception, les énoncés d’identité esprit/cerveau peuvent être justifiés par une inférence à la meilleure explication (IME) partant du fait empirique des corrélations esprit/cerveau. Nous soutenons que la théorie de l’identité ne peut pas s’appuyer sur cette méthodologie abductive. Nous montrons tout d’abord que l’on ne peut pas justifier les énoncés d’identité esprit/cerveau au moyen d’une IME partant des corrélations esprit/cerveau car cette stratégie conduit à un dilemme : ou bien les corrélations ne sont pas des explananda, ou bien les identités esprit/cerveau doivent être admises comme des faits bruts au même titre que les lois dualistes. Nous montrons ensuite que ces énoncés d’identité peuvent être néanmoins justifiés par une IME partant du pouvoir causal des états phénoménaux. Cette seconde stratégie n’est toutefois d’aucune aide pour la forme a posteriori de théorie de l’identité ici discutée dans la mesure où elle débouche sur un physicalisme de type a priori. | : Most type identity theorists endorse a posteriori physicalism about phenomenal properties. On such a view, mind/brain identity statements can be justified by an inference to the best explanation (IBE) starting from the empirical premise of mind/brain correlations. We contend that Identity Theory cannot be based on such an abductive methodology. First, we argue that mind/brain identity statements cannot be justified by an IBE from correlations as it leads to the following dilemma : either correlations are trivial facts that cannot pretend to the status of explananda, or mind/brain identities must be admitted as brute facts, just like dualist laws. Second, we show that these identity statements can still be justified by an IBE starting from the premise of mental causation. However, this strategy is of no help for the a posteriori brand of Identity Theory here challenged since the same premise forces one to embrace a priori physicalism.

The aim of this paper is to put forward an alternative to what I shall call "the received view on phenomenal concepts". According to this view, our concepts of phenomenal states directly refer to these states. I claim, on the contrary, that phenomenal concepts are _descriptive, indirect_ _and_ _relational_. More precisely, I endorse a descriptivist analysis according to which phenomenal concepts are descriptive concepts having perceptual demonstratives as constituents. I introduce and discuss two distinctions: the distinction between the perceptible properties of objects and the qualitative characters of experiences on the one hand, and the corresponding distinction between perceptual demonstratives of perceptible properties and phenomenal concepts on the other. I then proceed as follows. Firstly, I state the main motivations behind the received view. Then, I try to show that every argument that can be advanced in favor of the received view is either powerless against my descriptivist position, or can be re-interpreted as an argument supporting it. In particular, I argue to the effect that some of the main motivations which are usually taken for granted when accepting the received view rest upon a fallacy, which I call the