Abstract Criteria of scientific value are of different kinds. This paper concerns ultimate criteria, i.e. the axiology of science. Most ultimate criteria are multi?dimensional. This gives rise to an aggregation problem, which cannot be adequately solved with reference to attitudes and behaviour within the scientific community. Therefore, in many cases, there is no fact of the matter as to whether one theory is better than another. This, in turn, creates problems for methodology.

In Reason, Truth and History and certain related writings, Hilary Putnam attacked the fact-value distinction. This paper criticizes his arguments and defends the distinction. Putnam claims that factual statements presuppose values, that “the empirical world depends upon our criteria of rational acceptability,” and that “we must have criteria of rational acceptability to even have an empirical world.” The present paper argues that these claims are mistaken.

Keywords: W.V.Quine claimed that relativism is paradoxical and unacceptable; nevertheless, his own views concerning truth and the underdetermination of theories by data amount to an interesting and plausible form of relativism.

Many philosophers have argued that statistical evidence regarding group characteristics (particularly stereotypical ones) can create normative conflicts between the requirements of epistemic rationality and our moral obligations to each other. In a recent article, Johnson-King and Babic argue that such conflicts can usually be avoided: what ordinary morality requires, they argue, epistemic rationality permits. In this article, we show that as data get large, Johnson-King and Babic’s approach becomes less plausible. More constructively, we build on their project and develop a (...) generalized model of reasoning about stereotypes under which one can indeed avoid normative conflicts, even in a big data world, when data contain some noise. In doing so, we also articulate a general approach to rational belief updating for noisy data. (shrink)

The archive discovery, manuscript «Notes for the history of Malorossia» («Zapiski dla istorii Malorossii») composed by Ilia Fedorovich Timkovskii (Илья Федорович Тимковский, 1773–1853), was initiated by its author in 1849, yet it was never finished. Like the majority of Timkovskii’s compelling written heritage, the «Notes» were overpassed by the researchers, even though such prominent figures in social science as Ilia Fedovorich’s own nephew Mikhail Maksimovich, Nikolai Shugurov, and Vladimir Naumenko wrote about Timkovskii. Unlike his impressive intellectual and social activity that (...) surpassed the boundaries of his professional mandate (as lawyer, educator, literary scholar, etc.), his historiographical image remains fragmented and partial. Specifically, historiography is scarce as to the role Timkovskii played in facilitating the emergence of Ukrainian historical-cultural space, historical consciousness and knowledge, as well as in creating conditions for development of Ukrainian historic writing. Meanwhile, persisting documentary sources from Tikovskii’s archive, along with his egodocuments that were published in the 19th century, allow to fill this void. The structure of this publication is determined by aforementioned historiographical factors and the intent to introduce new historical sources into scholarly practice. This article includes only the first part of the publication. As such, it provides the introduction into the biographic context of the author of the «Notes», and focuses on his vision of the meaning of history and heritage. It follows the evolution of his idea to write a historical composition through the documents, as well as «external» reasons that caused him to stop working on the «Notes». The second part of the publication (in the next issue of Kyivan Academy), along with the original text of «The Notes for the history of Malorossia», will include the analysis of the sociocultural and source study context within which the «Notes» were created, as well as historical views of the author, and the relationship between his memoirs and historical writing. (shrink)

There are possible worlds in which time is circular and finite in duration, forming a loop of, say, 12,000 years. There are also possible worlds in which time is linear and infinite in both directions and in which history is repetitive, consisting of infinitely many 12,000-year epochs, each two of which are exactly alike with respect to all intrinsic, purely qualitative properties. Could one ever have empirical evidence that one inhabits a world of the first kind rather than a world (...) of the second kind? We argue for the affirmative answer, contra Quine, Newton-Smith, and Bergström. Our argument for that conclusion differs from an argument for the same conclusion due to Weir. Weir’s argument is probabilistic and explicitly requires having evidence against determinism. Our argument is a direct appeal to the simplicity of laws, and it involves no probabilistic component. It is modeled on Shoemaker’s argument that one could have evidence of time without change. (shrink)

Many philosophers are skeptical about the scientific value of the concept of biological information. However, several have recently proposed a more positive view of ascribing information as an exercise in scientific modeling. I argue for an alternative role: guiding empirical data collection for the sake of theorizing about the evolution of semantics. I clarify and expand on Bergstrom and Rosvall’s suggestion of taking a “diagnostic” approach that defines biological information operationally as a procedure for collecting empirical cases. The more (...) recent modeling-based accounts still perpetuate a theory-centric view of scientific concepts, which motivated philosophers’ misplaced skepticism in the first place. (shrink)