Theoretical virtues play an important role in the acceptance and belief of theories in science and philosophy. Philosophers have well-developed views on which virtues ought and ought not to influence one’s acceptance and belief. But what do scientists think? This paper presents the results of a quantitative study with scientists from the natural and social sciences and compares their views to those held by philosophers. Some of the more surprising results are: all three groups have a preference order regarding theoretical (...) virtues, making theory choice a much more determinate matter than what has sometimes been suggested; the preference orders are very similar for the three groups; simplicity is viewed as an epistemic virtue particularly by social scientists ; and syntactic parsimony is preferred to ontological parsimony by all three groups. (shrink)

Halpern and Pearl ([2005a], [2005b]) use the framework of structural equation models to define a notion of explanation that is based on actual causation. But while Halpern and Pearl’s definition of actual causation has been met with ample, often constructive, criticism, their subsequent definition of explanation has not faced similar scrutiny. It only underwent a slight reformulation by Halpern ([2016]). In this article, I will show that Halpern and Pearl’s definition of explanation is, despite many promising features, still problematic, even (...) if we presuppose adequately defined causal concepts. I will propose some changes to Halpern and Pearl’s definition and argue that those changes are able to resolve the revealed problems while maintaining all the benefits of their approach. (shrink)

Beebe and Buckwalter (2010) made the surprising discovery that people are more inclined to attribute knowledge when norms are violated than when they are conformed to. The epistemic side-effect effect (ESEE) is the analogue of the Knobe effect (Knobe 2003a). ESEE was replicated in a number of experiments. It was also studied under various conditions. We have carried out a meta-analysis of research on ESEE. The results suggest that ESEE is a robust finding but its magnitude is highly variable. Two (...) study-level covariates influence its size: the subject of the knowledge attribution (agent vs third-party) and the type of norm that is violated or complied with. The effect size is not influenced, however, by the manipulation of chances, by whether the story is about a side effect or not, by language or by question phrasing. The impact of the Gettierization of the story is marginally significant. (shrink)