In this introduction to the special issue ‘Epistemic Injustice and Collective Wrongdoing,’ we show how the eight contributions examine the collective dimensions of epistemic injustice. First, we contextualize the articles within theories of epistemic injustice. Second, we provide an overview of the eight articles by highlighting three central topics addressed by them: i) the effects of epistemic injustice and collective wrongdoing, ii) the underlying epistemic structures in collective wrongdoing, unjust relations and unjust societies, and iii) the remedies and strategies of (...) resistance to epistemic injustice. We close by pointing to connections and issues that may motivate further research. (shrink)

Kripke (1977) presents an argument designed to show that the considerations in Donnellan (1966) concerning attributive and referential uses of (definite) descriptions do not, by themselves, refute Russell’s (1905) unitary theory of description sentences (RTD), which takes (utterances of) them to express purely general, quantificational, propositions. Against Kripke, Marga Reimer (1998) argues that the two uses do indeed reflect a semantic ambiguity (an ambiguity at the level of literal truth conditions). She maintains a Russellian (quantificational) analysis of utterances involving attributively (...) used descriptions but attempts to defend the following two claims about utterances involving referentially used descriptions (referential utterances) (1998, p. 89). (shrink)

It is widely accepted that public discourse as we know it is less than ideal from an epistemological point of view. In this paper, we develop an underappreciated aspect of the trouble with public discourse: what we call the Listening Problem. The listening problem is the problem that public discourse has in giving appropriate uptake and reception to ideas and concepts from oppressed groups. Drawing on the work of Jürgen Habermas and Nancy Fraser, we develop an institutional response to the (...) listening problem: the establishment of what we call Receptive Publics, discursive spaces designed to improve listening skills and to give space for counterhegemonic ideas. (shrink)

Hempel seems to hold the following three views: (H1) Understanding is pragmatic/relativistic: Whether one understands why X happened in terms of Explanation E depends on one's beliefs and cognitive abilities; (H2) Whether a scientific explanation is good, just like whether a mathematical proof is good, is a nonpragmatic and objective issue independent of the beliefs or cognitive abilities of individuals; (H3) The goal of scientific explanation is understanding: A good scientific explanation is the one that provides understanding. Apparently, H1, (...) H2, and H3 cannot be all true. Some philosophers think that Hempel is inconsistent, while some others claim that Hempel does not actually hold H3. I argue that Hempel does hold H3 and that he can consistently hold all of H1, H2, and H3 if he endorses what I call the “understanding argument.” I also show how attributing the understanding argument to Hempel can make more sense of his D-N model and his philosophical analysis of the pragmatic aspects of scientific explanation. (shrink)

The paper takes a novel approach to a classic problem—Hempel’s Raven Paradox. A standard approach to it supposes the solution to consist in bringing our inductive logic into “reflective equilibrium” with our intuitive judgements about which inductive inferences we should license. This approach leaves the intuitions as a kind of black box and takes it on faith that, whatever the structure of the intuitions inside that box might be, it is one for which we can construct an isomorphic formal (...) edifice, a system of inductive logic. By popping open the box we can see whether that faith is misplaced. I aim, therefore, to characterize our pre-theoretical, intuitive understanding of generalizations like “ravens are black” and argue that, intuitively, we take them to mean, for instance: “ravens are black by some indeterminate yet characteristic means.” I motivate and explicate this formulation and bring it to bear on Hempel’s Problem. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Firt, Hemmo and Shenker argue that Hempel’s dilemma, typically thought to primarily undermine physicalism, is generalizable and impacts mind-body dualism and many other theories equally. I challenge this view and argue that Hempel’s dilemma admits of at least two distinct construals: a general-skeptical construal, underpinned by historically driven arguments such as the pessimistic induction, and a non-skeptical construal, driven by the specific puzzles and volatility of current physics. While the general-skeptical construal applies to all (...) changeable deep-structure theories, the non-skeptical construal primarily targets volatile theories which harbor exclusionary ambitions. As a result, dualism largely evades both construals due to the stability of theories of the mental and their lack of exclusionary ambitions. Conversely, physicalism is uniquely susceptible to both construals due to its strong commitment to deep-structure realism, inherent exclusionary ambitions, and the volatility of certain branches of fundamental physics. The paper ultimately concludes that Hempel’s dilemma is not universally problematic, but presents a unique challenge to physicalism while being relatively congenial to dualism. (shrink)

Recently, Michael Friedman has claimed that virtually all the seeds of Hempel’s philosophical development trace back to his early encounter with the Vienna Circle (Friedman 2003, 94). As opposed, however, to Friedman’s view of the principal early influences on Hempel, we shall see that those formative influences originated rather with the Berlin Group. Hempel, it is true, spent the fall term of 1929 as a student at the University of Vienna, and, thanks to a letter of recommendation (...) from Hans Reichenbach, he even attended some sessions of the Vienna Circle. But he spent much less time in Vienna than in Berlin, where he studied under Reichenbach from 1926 till 1933 and wrote a dissertation on probability, Reichenbach’s specialty. Hempel also attended seminars conducted by Walter Dubislav, another member of the Berlin Group. (shrink)

According to the so-called Hempel’s Dilemma, the thesis of physicalism is either false or empty. Our intention in this paper is not to propose a solution to the Dilemma, but rather to argue as follows: to the extent that Hempel’s Dilemma applies to physicalism it equally applies to any theory that gives a deep-structure and changeable account of our experience or of high-level theories. In particular, we will show that it also applies to mind-body dualistic theories. The scope (...) of Hempel’s Dilemma turns out to be very wide: it is a special case of a general sceptical argument against changeable deep-structure theories in and outside science. (shrink)

This paper presents a new analysis of C.G. Hempel’s conditions of adequacy for any relation of confirmation [Hempel C. G. (1945). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press, pp. 3–51.], differing from the one Carnap gave in §87 of his [1962. Logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]. Hempel, it is argued, felt the need for two concepts of confirmation: one aiming at true (...) hypotheses and another aiming at informative hypotheses. However, he also realized that these two concepts are conflicting, and he gave up the concept of confirmation aiming at informative hypotheses. I then show that one can have Hempel’s cake and eat it too. There is a logic that takes into account both of these two conflicting aspects. According to this logic, a sentence H is an acceptable hypothesis for evidence E if and only if H is both sufficiently plausible given E and sufficiently informative about E. Finally, the logic sheds new light on Carnap’s analysis. (shrink)

According to Hempel's paradox, evidence (E) that an object is a nonblack nonraven confirms the hypothesis (H) that every raven is black. According to the standard Bayesian solution, E does confirm H but only to a minute degree. This solution relies on the almost never explicitly defended assumption that the probability of H should not be affected by evidence that an object is nonblack. I argue that this assumption is implausible, and I propose a way out for Bayesians. Introduction (...) Hempel's paradox, the standard Bayesian solution, and the disputed assumption Attempts to defend the disputed assumption Attempts to refute the disputed assumption A way out for Bayesians Conclusion. (shrink)

Hempel’s Converse Consequence Condition (CCC), Entailment Condition (EC), and Special Consequence Condition (SCC) have some prima facie plausibility when taken individually. Hempel, though, shows that they have no plausibility when taken together, for together they entail that E confirms H for any propositions E and H. This is “Hempel’s paradox”. It turns out that Hempel’s argument would fail if one or more of CCC, EC, and SCC were modified in terms of explanation. This opens up the (...) possibility that Hempel’s paradox can be solved by modifying one or more of CCC, EC, and SCC in terms of explanation. I explore this possibility by modifying CCC and SCC in terms of explanation and considering whether CCC and SCC so modified are correct. I also relate that possibility to Inference to the Best Explanation. (shrink)

English translation of a paper originally published in French in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy under the title 'Comment l'urne de Carter et Leslie se déverse dans celle de Hempel'. In this paper, I present firstly a solution to Hempel's Problem. I recall secondly the solution to the Doomsday Argument described in my previous Une Solution pour l'Argument de l'Apocalypse (Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1998) and remark that both solutions are based on a similar line of reasoning. I (...) show thirdly that the Doomsday Argument can be reduced to the core of Hempel's Problem. (shrink)

A reading is offered of Carl Hempel’s and Thomas Kuhn’s positions on, and disagreements about, rationality in science that relates these issues to the debate between W.V. Quine and Rudolf Carnap on the analytic/synthetic distinction.

Historically, Nelson Goodman’s paradox involving the predicates ‘grue’ and ‘bleen’ has been taken to furnish a serious blow to Carl Hempel’s theory of confirmation in particular and to purely formal theories of confirmation in general. In this paper, I argue that Goodman’s paradox is no more serious of a threat to Hempel’s theory of confirmation than is Hempel’s own paradox of the ravens. I proceed by developing a suggestion from R. D. Rosenkrantz into an argument for the (...) conclusion that these paradoxes are, in fact, equivalent. My argument, if successful, is of both historical and philosophical interest. Goodman himself maintained that Hempel’s theory of confirmation was capable of handling the paradox of the ravens. And Hempel eventually conceded that Goodman’s paradox showed that there could be no adequate, purely syntactical theory of confirmation. The conclusion of my argument entails, by contrast, that Hempel’s theory of confirmation is incapable of handling Goodman’s paradox if and only if it is incapable of handling the paradox of the ravens. It also entails that for any adequate solution to one of these paradoxes, there is a corresponding and equally adequate solution to the other. (shrink)

Hempel‘s paradox of the ravens, and his take on it, are meant to be understood as being restricted to situations where we have no additional background information. According to him, in the absence of any such information, observations of FGs confirm the hypothesis that all Fs are G. In this paper I argue against this principle by way of considering two other paradoxes of confirmation, Goodman‘s 'grue‘ paradox and the 'tacking‘ (or 'irrelevant conjunct‘) paradox. What these paradoxes reveal, I (...) argue, is that a presumption of causal realism is required to ground any confirmation; but once we grant causal realism, we have no reason to accept the central principles giving rise to the paradoxes. (shrink)

Physicalism, the thesis that everything is physical, is one of the most controversial problems in philosophy. Its adherents argue that there is no more important doctrine in philosophy, whilst its opponents claim that its role is greatly exaggerated. In this superb introduction to the problem Daniel Stoljar focuses on three fundamental questions: the interpretation, truth and philosophical significance of physicalism. In answering these questions he covers the following key topics: -/- (i)A brief history of physicalism and its definitions, (ii)what a (...) physical property is and how physicalism meets challenges from empirical sciences, (iii)'Hempel’s dilemma’ and the relationship between physicalism and physics, (iv)physicalism and key debates in metaphysics and philosophy of mind, such as supervenience, identity and conceivability, and (v)physicalism and causality. -/- Additional features include chapter summaries, annotated further reading and a glossary of technical terms, making Physicalism ideal for those coming to the problem for the first time. (shrink)

The disciplinary characterisation (DC) is the most popular approach to defining metaphysical naturalism and physicalism. It defines metaphysical naturalism with reference to scientific theories and defines physicalism with reference to physical theories, and suggests that every entity that exists is a posited entity of these theories. DC has been criticised for its inability to solve Hempel’s dilemma and a list of problems alike. In this paper, I propose and defend a novel version of DC that can be called a (...) historical paths approach. The idea is (roughly) that metaphysical naturalism can be defined with reference to the historical ideas that current scientific ideas descend from. I argue that it is not rendered implausible by the above problems, and hence that DC is more defensible and attractive than it may first appear. I then argue that the approach also provides a useful framework for the naturalisation of the philosophy of mind and phenomenology. (shrink)

After Wesley Salmon’s causal-mechanical stance on explanation in the 1980s, the ontic-epistemic debate of scientific explanations appeared to be resolved in the philosophy of science. However, since the twenty-first century, this debate has been rekindled among philosophers who focus on mechanistic explanations. Nevertheless, its issues have evolved, necessitating scrutiny of the new trends in this debate and a comparison with the original controversy between Carl Hempel and Salmon. The primary objective of this paper is to elucidate three categorical dimensions (...) in the ontic-epistemic debates, spanning from the original to the recent controversies. Subsequently, it will explore why the conception of explanation is linked to representations, what conditions are necessary for linguistic expressions to be explanatory, and what roles norms play in explanation. Consequently, contrary to the common stereotype, it will be argued that mechanistic explanations are more likely to be epistemic rather than ontic. (shrink)

Die Zeiten, in denen Kausalität das Charakteristikum von Wissenschaftlichkeit war, scheinen sich ihrem Ende zu nähern. Seit dem Beginn unseres Jahrhunderts ist eine seit langem schwelende Krise des herkömmlichen Kausalitätsverständnisses in den Naturwissenschaften unübersehbar zum Ausdruck gekommen. Dessen ungeachtet halten jedoch viele Wissenschaftstheoretiker an Kausalitätsvorstellungen als vermeintlich unverzichtbarem Analyseinstrument fest. In Kritik dieser Tendenz zur Verkennung eines grundlegenden Bedeutungsverlustes wird der historische Verdrängungsprozess von Kausalitätsvorstellungen unter den Stichworten der Entfinalisierung und Entsubstantialisierung nachgezeichnet. Aus der Perspektive geschichtlicher Rekonstruktion handelt es sich (...) bei den gegenwärtigen Vorstellungen um den letzten Rest einer unvergleichlich reichhaltigeren ursprünglichen kausalen Begrifflichkeit. Am Beispiel der heute wohl weitverbreitetsten, auf C. G. Hempel zurückgehenden Vorstellung werden die wichtigsten Merkmale der kausalen Relation diskutiert. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass für das naturwissenschaftliche Kausalitätsverständnis, soweit es sich auf einen Begriff bringen lässt, in der Tat ein reduzierter Sinngehalt der Kategorie der Verursachung in kausalen Erklärungen, eine begrenzte Anwendbarkeit sowie ein reduzierter Geltunganspruch typisch sind. Die Grenzen naturwisseschaftlicher Kausalitätsvorstellungen betreffen deren' strenge begriffliche Fassung, nicht jedoch ihre Brauchbarkeit als heuristische Forschungsmaxime in Situationen, in denen unerwartete Phänomene auftreten oder Phänomene ausbleiben, mit denen man zuvor fest gerechnet hat. Für diese Situationen ist die Überlegung, was der Fall gewesen wäre, wenn eine Ursache nicht eingetreten wäre, in besonderer Weise bezeichnend. Welche Relevanz dieser Kausalitätsvorstellung zukünftig zukommen wird, hängt wesentlich vom Charakter der weiteren Wissenschaftsentwicklung ab. (shrink)

Paradoxes and their Resolutions is a ‘thematic compilation’ by Avi Sion. It collects in one volume the essays that he has written in the past (over a period of some 27 years) on this subject. It comprises expositions and resolutions of many (though not all) ancient and modern paradoxes, including: the Protagoras-Euathlus paradox (Athens, 5th Cent. BCE), the Liar paradox and the Sorites paradox (both attributed to Eubulides of Miletus, 4th Cent. BCE), Russell’s paradox (UK, 1901) and its derivatives the (...) Barber paradox and the Master Catalogue paradox (also by Russell), Grelling’s paradox (Germany, 1908), Hempel's paradox of confirmation (USA, 1940s), and Goodman’s paradox of prediction (USA, 1955). This volume also presents and comments on some of the antinomic discourse found in some Buddhist texts (namely, in Nagarjuna, India, 2nd Cent. CE; and in the Diamond Sutra, date unknown, but probably in an early century CE). (shrink)

Die Berliner Gruppe um Hans Reichenbach, Kurt Lewin, Walter Dubislav, Alexander Herzberg, Kurt Grelling und Carl Gustav Hempel, die die »Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Philosophie« in Berlin leitete, verstand sich als gleichberechtigter Partner der Wiener Kollegen und schlug durchaus einen eigenständigen Weg zu »einer an der exakten Wissenschaft geschulten Philosophie« (Reichenbach) ein. Im öffentlichen und geistigen Leben der deutschen Hauptstadt spielte sie eine bedeutende Rolle, bevor ihre Mitglieder durch den Nationalsozialismus ins Exil gezwungen wurden. Nach ihrer Emigration haben Reichenbach, (...) class='Hi'>Hempel und andere für die Entwicklung der analytischen Philosophie und der modernen Wissenschaftstheorie im angelsächsischen Sprachraum eine bedeutende Rolle gespielt. Der Band fasst erstmals in einer repräsentativen Auswahl die Texte der Berliner Gruppe in einer Anthologie zusammen und zeigt die Bedeutung und die Einheitlichkeit der Gruppe als – neben dem Wiener Kreis – zweitem Entstehungsort exakter Philosophie. (shrink)

Hempel, Popper, and Kuhn argue that to be scientific is to be testable, to be falsifiable, and most nearly to do normal science, respectively. I argue that to be scientific is largely to be interactive, offering some examples from science to show that the ideas from different fields of science interact with one another. The results of the interactions are that hypotheses become more plausible, new phenomena are explained and predicted, we understand phenomena from a new perspective, and our (...) worldview becomes simpler. I also argue that given that the interactions are impressive features of science, astrology and religion would be regarded as science, provided that there are similar interactions in those enterprises. (shrink)

Carl Hempel (1965) argued that probabilistic hypotheses are limited in what they can explain. He contended that a hypothesis cannot explain why E is true if the hypothesis says that E has a probability less than 0.5. Wesley Salmon (1971, 1984, 1990, 1998) and Richard Jeffrey (1969) argued to the contrary, contending that P can explain why E is true even when P says that E’s probability is very low. This debate concerned noncontrastive explananda. Here, a view of contrastive (...) causal explanation is described and defended. It provides a new limit on what probabilistic hypotheses can explain; the limitation is that P cannot explain why E is true rather than A if P assign E a probability that is less than or equal to the probability that P assigns to A. The view entails that a true deterministic theory and a true probabilistic theory that apply to the same explanandum partition are such that the deterministic theory explains all the true contrastive propositions constructable from that partition, whereas the probabilistic theory often fails to do so. (shrink)

This argument defends Hempel's rejection of the converse-consequence condition and argues against Baruch Brody's attempt to revive "something like" it.

According to one large family of views, scientific explanations explain a phenomenon (such as an event or a regularity) by subsuming it under a general representation, model, prototype, or schema (see Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441; Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press; Darden (2006); Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of (...) scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 331–496). New York: Free Press; Kitcher (1989); Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25). My concern is with the minimal suggestion that an adequate philosophical theory of scientific explanation can limit its attention to the format or structure with which theories are represented. The representational subsumption view is a plausible hypothesis about the psychology of understanding. It is also a plausible claim about how scientists present their knowledge to the world. However, one cannot address the central questions for a philosophical theory of scientific explanation without turning one’s attention from the structure of representations to the basic commitments about the worldly structures that plausibly count as explanatory. A philosophical theory of scientific explanation should achieve two goals. The first is explanatory demarcation. It should show how explanation relates with other scientific achievements, such as control, description, measurement, prediction, and taxonomy. The second is explanatory normativity. It should say when putative explanations succeed and fail. One cannot achieve these goals without undertaking commitments about the kinds of ontic structures that plausibly count as explanatory. Representations convey explanatory information about a phenomenon when and only when they describe the ontic explanations for those phenomena. (shrink)

The acceptance of causal closure has had a profoundly limiting effect on the philosophical treatment of sui generis mental causation in recent decades. Philosophical treatments of special divine action have been likewise hampered by a widespread commitment to closure. If fundamental reality is as closure tells us it is, then nonphysical minds—human and divine— are either causally impotent or redundant. In this paper, I reject this limitation as baseless. Specifically, I will show how Hempel’s dilemma poses a far greater (...) challenge when applied to a causal closure principle than it did to the task of defining physicalism. Reponses to the dilemma can be used to disambiguate closure, but not without significant cost. In light of Hempel’s dilemma, there is no conception of closure that can do all of the following: rule out sui generis mental causation, have a reasonable chance of being true, and avoid problematic circularity. At the end of the day, I maintain that closure, properly understood, is, or ought to be, just one methodological stance among many. If this is correct, it is a stance that a theist can freely reject. (shrink)

Physicalism is the claim that that there is nothing in the world but the physical. Philosophers who defend physicalism have to confront a well-known dilemma, known as Hempel’s dilemma, concerning the definition of ‘the physical’: if ‘the physical’ is whatever current physics says there is, then physicalism is most probably false; but if ‘the physical’ is whatever the true theory of physics would say that there is, we have that physicalism is vacuous and runs the risk of becoming trivial. (...) This article has two parts. The first, negative, part is devoted to developing a criticism of the so-called via negativa response to Hempel’s dilemma. In the second, more substantial, part, I propose to take the first horn of Hempel’s dilemma. However, I argue for a broad construal of ‘current physics’ and characterize ‘the physical’ accordingly. The virtues of the broad characterization of ‘the physical’ are: first, it makes physicalism less likely to be false; and second, it ties our understanding of ‘the physical’ to the reasons we have for believing in physicalism. That is, it fulfills the desideratum of construing our theses according to the reasons we have to believe in them. (shrink)

Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap and Herbert Feig are the most prominent of the positivists to formulate views on the mind-body problem (aside from Hempel’s one-off treatment in 1935). While their views differed from each other and changed over time they were all committed to some form of scientific physicalism, though a linguistic or conceptual rather than ontological form of it. In focus here are their views during the heyday of logical positivism and its immediate aftermath, though some initial scene-setting (...) of Schlick’s and Carnap’s pre-positivist views will help to understand the final opposing positions of Carnap and Feigl. (shrink)

The problem addressed in this paper is “the main epistemic problem concerning science”, viz. “the explication of how we compare and evaluate theories [...] in the light of the available evidence” (van Fraassen, BC, 1983, Theory comparison and relevant Evidence. In J. Earman (Ed.), Testing scientific theories (pp. 27–42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Sections 1– 3 contain the general plausibility-informativeness theory of theory assessment. In a nutshell, the message is (1) that there are two values a theory should exhibit: (...) truth and informativeness—measured respectively by a truth indicator and a strength indicator; (2) that these two values are conflicting in the sense that the former is a decreasing and the latter an increasing function of the logical strength of the theory to be assessed; and (3) that in assessing a given theory by the available data one should weigh between these two conflicting aspects in such a way that any surplus in informativeness succeeds, if the shortfall in plausibility is small enough. Particular accounts of this general theory arise by inserting particular strength indicators and truth indicators. In Section 4 the theory is spelt out for the Bayesian paradigm of subjective probabilities. It is then compared to incremental Bayesian confirmation theory. Section 4 closes by asking whether it is likely to be lovely. Section 5 discusses a few problems of confirmation theory in the light of the present approach. In particular, it is briefly indicated how the present account gives rise to a new analysis of Hempel’s conditions of adequacy for any relation of confirmation (Hempel, CG, 1945, Studies in the logic of comfirmation. Mind, 54, 1–26, 97–121.), differing from the one Carnap gave in § 87 of his Logical foundations of probability (1962, Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Section 6 adresses the question of justification any theory of theory assessment has to face: why should one stick to theories given high assessment values rather than to any other theories? The answer given by the Bayesian version of the account presented in section 4 is that one should accept theories given high assessment values, because, in the medium run, theory assessment almost surely takes one to the most informative among all true theories when presented separating data. The concluding section 7 continues the comparison between the present account and incremental Bayesian confirmation theory. (shrink)

This book introduces readers to the topic of explanation. The insights of Plato, Aristotle, J.S. Mill and Carl Hempel are examined, and are used to argue against the view that explanation is merely a problem for the philosophy of science. Having established its importance for understanding knowledge in general, the book concludes with a bold and original explanation of explanation.

English translation of an article originally published in French in Liber Amicorum Pascal Engel, J. Dutant, G. Fassio & A. Meylan (eds.), University of Geneva, 2014, pp. 581-608. In what follows, I strive to present the elements of a philosophical doctrine, which can be defined as dialectical contextualism. I proceed first to define the elements of this doctrine: dualities and polar contraries, the principle of dialectical indifference and the one-sidedness bias. I emphasize then the special importance of this doctrine in (...) one specific field of meta-philosophy: the methodology for solving philosophical paradoxes. Finally, I describe several applications of this methodology on the following paradoxes: Hempel's paradox, the surprise examination paradox and the Doomsday Argument. (shrink)

REPRODUÇÃO ANIMAL: O CICLO ESTRAL DE BOVINOS LEITEIROS – Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro ANIMAL REPRODUCTION: THE OESTROUS CYCLE OF DAIRY BOVINES -Follicular Development, Corpus Luteum and Stages of Estrus Apoio: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Departamento de Zootecnia da UFRPE E-mail: [email protected] WhatsApp: (82)98143-8399 FISIOLOGIA CLÍNICA DO CICLO ESTRAL DE BOVINOS LEITEIROS 1. RESUMO A fêmea bovina apresenta ciclos estrais em intervalos de 19 a 23 dias e estes só são interrompidos durante a gestação ou devido (...) a alguma patologia. O estro é o período de aceitação da cópula e tem uma duração de 8 a 18 horas. Durante o metaestro ocorre a ovulação e se desenvolve o corpo lúteo. O diestro é o estágio mais longo do ciclo e é caracterizado pela presença de um corpo lúteo. Se a gestação não for estabelecida, o endométrio segrega prostaglandina F2α(PGF2α) o que induz a luteólise, reiniciando assim um novo ciclo. 2. EIXO HIPOTÁLAMO-HIPÓFISE-OVÁRIO As hormonas são substâncias produzidas por diferentes células do organismo que exercem funções específicas em outras células (células brancas). Algumas hormonas atuam na mesma célula que a secreta (atividade autocrina), outras nas células vizinhas (atividade parácrina) e outras são transportadas pelo sangue e exercem a sua função em células de outros órgãos (atividade endócrina). Existem outros tipos de hormônios que comunicam a diferentes indivíduos e são conhecidos como feromônios. Os feromônios regulam diferentes funções, entre as quais se destacam as reprodutivas. O hipotálamo encontra-se na base do cérebro, é formado por núcleos pares de neurônios e comunica-se com a hipófise através de um sistema circulatório especializado conhecido como sistema porta-hipotálamo-hipofisário. Os neurônios da área ventromedial e da área pré-óptica do hipotálamo secretam a hormona libertadora das gonadotropinas (GnRH), que por sua vez chega à hipófise através do sistema porta-hipotálamo-hipofisário e estimula a secreção da hormona luteinizante (LH) e da hormona folículo estimulante (FSH). A LH mantém um padrão de secreção paralelo à secreção da GnRH; ou seja, uma parcela de GnRH corresponde a uma parcela de LH, ao contrário da FSH que tem uma produção basal elevada inibida pelo estradiol e inibina, por este motivo, a sua secreção não apresenta um padrão pulsante semelhante à LH. A GnRH tem duas formas de secreção: a primeira é pulsante ou tônica, regulada por estímulos externos (fotoperíodo, bioestimulação, amamentação) e por estímulos internos (metabolitos, hormonas metabólicas, hormonas sexuais); a segunda forma é pré-ovulatória ou cíclica e é estimulada pelos estrogênios durante o estro e inibida pela progesterona. A secreção de alguns hormônios, bem como diversos processos fisiológicos, são sincronizados com a duração do dia e da noite (ritmos endógenos). A luz é percebida pelos fotorreceptores da retina e o sinal luminoso chega à glândula pineal através de conexões neuronais (trato retino-hipotalâmico). Na glândula pineal, o estímulo produzido pela luz inibe a síntese da melatonina. Desta forma, a duração do dia e da noite (fotoperíodo) é registada pelas variações nas concentrações da melatonina. Na vaca, sabe-se que o fotoperíodo influencia alguns processos reprodutivos, embora não seja, em sentido estrito, uma espécie com um padrão reprodutivo sazonal. Os feromônios sexuais são excretados através da urina, fezes e fluidos corporais; eles são percebidos pelo epitélio olfatório e órgão vomeronasal. Posteriormente, algumas vias nervosas, estimulam no hipotálamo a frequência dos pulsos de secreção da GnRH. A exposição a feromonas femininas provoca no macho um aumento na frequência de secreção do LH e isto por sua vez aumenta as concentrações de testosterona. Os feromônios masculinos induzem na fêmea um aumento da frequência de secreção do LH, estimulando o crescimento folicular e a secreção de estradiol. A estimulação sexual provocada pelo macho ou pela fêmea é denominada bioestimulação. As alterações na condição corporal estão positivamente correlacionadas com as concentrações séricas de insulina, fator de crescimento semelhante à insulina tipo I (IGF- I) e leptina. Assim, quanto maior a classificação da condição corporal, maior é a concentração sérica destas hormonas, que atuam como sinais que chegam ao hipotálamo e modificam a frequência de secreção da GnRH. Por exemplo, a transição do anestro para a ciclicidade coincide com um aumento da condição corporal e das concentrações de insulina, IGF- I e leptina (figura 1). Figura 1. A transição do anestro para a ciclicidade coincide com um aumento da condição corporal e das concentrações de insulina, IGF- I e leptina. Estas hormonas atuam como sinais que chegam ao hipotálamo e aumentam a frequência de secreção da GnRH. Fonte: GALINA, et al. 2008. Os estrogênios podem ter um feedback positivo ou negativo sobre a secreção da GnRH, o que depende da fase do ciclo reprodutivo. Em animais pré-púberes e em anestro pós-parto, os estrogênios inibem a secreção de GnRH, mas durante o período de proestro e estro há uma estimulação para a secreção de GnRH. A progesterona reduz a secreção da GnRH, bem como a resposta da hipófise à GnRH, inibindo assim a maturação folicular e a ovulação. Por esta razão, a progesterona foi utilizada com sucesso como contraceptivo em humanos e para o controle artificial da reprodução em animais domésticos (figura 2). Figura 2. Retroalimentação entre o hipotálamo, hipófise e o ovário. A GnRH estimula na hipófise a síntese e secreção de LH e FSH. Na fase pré-púbere e no anestro pós-parto, os estrogênios inibem a secreção de GnRH, enquanto no proestro e estro, estimulam-na. A progesterona inibe a secreção da GnRH e diminui a resposta da hipófise à GnRH. Os estrogênios e a inibina suprimem a secreção de FSH diretamente na hipófise. Fonte: GALINA, et al. 2008. Os neurônios secretores da GnRH não têm receptores para estrogênios nem progesterona, pelo que estas hormonas não têm forma de regular diretamente a secreção da GnRH. Existe um grupo de neurônios hipotalâmicos que exprimem o gene Kiss-1 que codifica o peptídeo kisspeptina. Os neurônios secretores da GnRH têm receptores para este peptídeo, de modo que a kisspeptina fornece a informação aos neurônios secretores da GnRH em relação às concentrações de hormônios sexuais. A kisspeptina é um potente estimulador (secretagogo) da secreção da GnRH e é muito provável que nos próximos anos venha a fazer parte dos recursos hormonais para o controle artificial da reprodução, não só nos bovinos, mas em todas as espécies domésticas. 3. DESENVOLVIMENTO FOLICULAR O ovário é responsável pela produção de ovócitos e pela síntese de hormônios sexuais, estrogênios e progesterona, que promovem e regulam a fertilização do ovócito e a manutenção da gestação. O ovócito encontra-se no interior do folículo ovárico rodeado por células granulosas que participam de forma ativa no seu crescimento e maturação. As experiências in vitro demonstram a dependência dos ovócitos das células da granulosa, assim, quando os ovócitos são induzidos a amadurecer devem estar rodeados por várias camadas de células da granulosa para que este processo seja bem sucedido, caso contrário, não adquirem o potencial para desenvolver um embrião. Embora as células da teca interna não estejam em contato direto com o ovócito, seu papel na maturação deste o exercem mediante a produção de andrógenos, mesmos que são convertidos em estrogênios pelas células da granulosa. Além disso, as células da teca favorecem o estabelecimento da rede capilar que apoia o desenvolvimento folicular. Por outro lado, os novos conhecimentos indicam que o ovócito não é um elemento passivo no desenvolvimento folicular, mas regula a função das células foliculares; o que significa que ele próprio participa na criação de um microambiente ideal para a sua maturação. Além disso, é possível que o ovócito tenha um papel na ativação do desenvolvimento dos folículos primordiais. A fêmea bovina nasce com aproximadamente 200 mil folículos, dos quais muito poucos se ativam e iniciam seu crescimento, e a maior parte deles sofre atresia em diferentes etapas de desenvolvimento. Ao nascimento, os folículos estão na fase mais elementar e são conhecidos como folículos primordiais. Posteriormente estes folículos se ativam e se transformam em folículos primários e secundários; até este momento os folículos não têm antro (etapa pré-antral) e seu desenvolvimento é independente das gonadotropinas. Quando os folículos formam o antro são conhecidos como folículos terciários e seu desenvolvimento é dependente das gonadotropinas (etapa antral). O crescimento folicular no estágio antral ocorre em forma de ondas e cada onda começa com um aumento nos níveis de FSH, o qual promove o crescimento de um grupo de cinco a seis folículos (~4 mm de diâmetro); este processo é conhecido como recrutamento. Subsequentemente, um único folículo continua a crescer (folículo dominante), o que provoca um aumento das concentrações de estrogênios e inibina, uma diminuição das concentrações de FSH e atresia dos folículos subordinados, pois eles dependem totalmente desta hormona, enquanto o folículo dominante continua o seu desenvolvimento estimulado pela LH. O folículo dominante perdura de quatro a seis dias e se não chega a ovular, sofre atresia. Após a atresia do folículo dominante, diminuem-se os níveis de estrogênio e inibina, observa-se um aumento das concentrações de FSH e inicia-se uma nova onda folicular. O folículo dominante que está presente quando o corpo lúteo sofre regressão, continua seu desenvolvimento e ovula, em resposta ao pico pré-ovulatório de LH. Além de promover a liberação do ovócito, a secreção pré-ovulatória de LH regula a formação do corpo lúteo a partir das células foliculares, processo conhecido como luteinização. Durante o ciclo estral são apresentadas de duas a três ondas foliculares. As vacas com três ondas foliculares têm uma fase lútea mais longa e, consequentemente, um ciclo estral mais longo, de 22 a 23 dias; enquanto as vacas com duas ondas apresentam um ciclo estral de 18 a 21 dias. Nas vacas leiteiras, cerca de 70% apresentam duas ondas foliculares, enquanto 30% exibem três ondas (figura 3 e 4). Nas vacas com duas ondas foliculares, o período de dominação folicular é maior do que nas de três ondas. O tempo de dominação influencia o potencial dos ovócitos para desenvolver um embrião viável; assim, a porcentagem de concepção é menor quando ovulam folículos que tiveram mais dias de dominação dos que quando ovulam folículos com menor tempo de dominação (figura 5). Figura 5. O crescimento folicular no estágio antral ocorre na forma de ondas. Cada onda começa com um aumento nas concentrações de FSH, o que promove o recrutamento de cinco a seis folículos (~4 mm de diâmetro). Posteriormente um único folículo continua crescendo (folículo dominante), enquanto seus companheiros (subordinados) sofrem atresia. O folículo dominante perdura de quatro a seis dias e se não chega a ovular, sofre atresia. Após a atresia do folículo dominante observa-se um aumento das concentrações de FSH, iniciando-se uma nova onda folicular. 3.1 Ovulação múltipla Nos últimos anos tem-se observado um aumento na proporção de vacas com ovulação múltipla (20% x 1% em novilhas), o que tem provocado um aumento da proporção de partos gêmeos (8% x 1% em novilhas). A frequência de vacas com ovulação múltipla está associada com a alta produção de leite; de modo que, as vacas que produzem menos de 40 kg mostram 6% de ovulações múltiplas e aquelas que produzem mais de 50 kg alcançam até 50%. A causa deste fenômeno ainda é obscura, contudo, observaram-se diferenças nas concentrações de FSH, de tal forma que as vacas que desenvolvem de dois a três folículos dominantes numa onda folicular, apresentam níveis de FSH mais elevados que as vacas que têm apenas um folículo dominante. Em vacas em lactação, a concentração de progesterona é baixa devido ao aumento do metabolismo hepático, o que aumenta a sua taxa de eliminação. Foi observado que as vacas que tiveram uma fase lútea com níveis de progesterona mais elevados, no ciclo anterior à inseminação, apresentam menos ovulações múltiplas em comparação com as vacas que tiveram níveis de progesterona mais baixos. Propõe-se que as baixas concentrações de progesterona permitam um aumento da frequência de secreção da GnRH e, consequentemente, da LH e da FSH, favorecendo a predominância múltipla e, eventualmente, a ovulação de mais de um folículo. Nos rebanhos leiteiros, as gestações gêmeas não são desejáveis porque aumenta o risco de perda da gestação e, se esta chegar ao término, haverá o risco de perda da gestação e, se esta for concluída, o risco de distorcia é consideravelmente mais elevado (figuras 6, 7, 8 e 9). Figura 6. As baixas concentrações de progesterona sérica nas vacas em lactação permitem um aumento da frequência de secreção da GnRH, bem como o aumento da LH e da FSH. Isto favorece a dominação múltipla e eventualmente a ovulação de mais de um folículo. Esta figura mostra a dominância de dois folículos em cada onda folicular (codominância). Figura 7. Ovários de uma vaca leiteira em diestro com três folículos dominantes. Figura 8. Ovários de uma vaca leiteira com três corpos lúteos. Figura 9. Ovários de uma vaca leiteira com dois corpos hemorrágicos. Fonte: Acervo pessoal do autor. IFPE, 2017-18. 4. DESENVOLVIMENTO E CONTROLE DA FUNÇÃO DO CORPO LÚTEO Quando o folículo dominante completa sua maturação, ele produz níveis de estrogênio suficientes para provocar a liberação máxima da GnRH, o que desencadeia o pico pré-ovulatório da LH. Esta secreção de LH provoca a ovulação e inicia as mudanças para que o folículo se transforme em um corpo lúteo, processo conhecido como luteinização. A luteinização compreende todas as mudanças morfológicas, endócrinas e enzimáticas que ocorrem no folículo ovulatório até que este se transforme num corpo lúteo. O processo de luteinização começa a partir da elevação pré-ovulatória de LH; mesmo antes da ovulação. A luteinização do folículo dominante (≥8 mm de diâmetro) pode ser induzida hormonalmente pela injeção de GnRH ou gonadotropina coriónica humana (hCG). A ovulação ocorre em média 30 horas após o pico pré-ovulatório de LH. A secreção pré-ovulatória de LH desencadeia a liberação de enzimas proteolíticas e de mediadores da inflamação na parede folicular, as quais degradam o tecido conjuntivo e ocasionam morte celular. Posteriormente, a PGF2α induz contrações da teca externa, levando à ruptura folicular e à expulsão do ovócito. Após a ovulação, as células da teca interna e da granulosa migram e distribuem-se nas paredes do folículo. As células da teca interna se diferenciam e se multiplicam em células lúteas pequenas, enquanto que as células da granulosa se hipertrofiam e dão origem às células lúteas grandes. Estas alterações são facilitadas pela ruptura da membrana basal que separa a camada celular da granulosa da teca interna. Em forma paralela começa a formação de uma ampla rede de capilares que se distribuem em todo o corpo lúteo em formação, e chegam a constituir até 20% do volume desta estrutura (figuras 10 e 11). A progesterona é o principal produto de secreção do corpo lúteo. No quinto dia do ciclo estral, as concentrações séricas desta hormona são superiores a 1 ng/ ml, indicando que o corpo lúteo adquiriu a sua plena funcionalidade. A progesterona atua basicamente sobre os órgãos genitais da fêmea, sendo responsável pela preparação do útero para o estabelecimento e manutenção da gestação. Na mucosa do oviduto e do útero, estimula a secreção de substâncias que promovem o desenvolvimento do embrião, até que este comece a nutrir-se através da placenta. A progesterona suprime a resposta imunitária do útero, o que é necessário para tolerar o embrião, já que este é um tecido estranho para a vaca. Além disso, a progesterona evita as contrações do útero, fecha o colo do útero e modifica as características do muco cervical, tornando-o mais viscoso, impedindo a passagem de agentes estranhos para o interior do útero. Na glândula mamária estimula o desenvolvimento do sistema alveolar, preparando-a para a síntese e a secreção de leite. 5. REGRESSÃO DO CORPO LÚTEO A regressão lútea é um processo ativo ocasionado pela secreção uterina da PGF2α. O mecanismo pelo qual se inicia a síntese e secreção da PGF2α depende de uma interação entre o corpo lúteo, os folículos e o útero. Os estrogênios produzidos no folículo dominante desempenham um papel importante no início da secreção de PGF2α, uma vez que promovem a síntese de receptores para oxitocina. Além disso, os estrogénios estimulam no endométrio a produção da fosfolipase A e da ciclooxigenase; enzimas indispensáveis para a síntese da PGF2α. Durante o ciclo estral, a progesterona inibe a síntese da PGF2α através da supressão da formação de receptores para o estradiol. Após um período de 12 a 14 dias de exposição à progesterona, as células endometriais tornam-se insensíveis à progesterona. Quando isso ocorre, as células endometriais sintetizam receptores para estradiol, permitindo que o estradiol produzido no folículo dominante estimule a síntese de receptores para oxitocina. Neste momento, o endométrio está pronto para sintetizar e secretar PGF2α, em resposta ao estímulo da oxitocina. A primeira secreção de oxitocina é de origem hipotalâmica, o que desencadeia o primeiro pulso de PGF2α. Os seguintes episódios de PGF2α são induzidos pela oxitocina produzida no corpo lúteo. A PGF2α é secretada em episódios (pulsos) com intervalos de seis a oito horas, sendo necessários cinco a seis episódios para a luteólise ocorrer. Se a PGF2α não seguir este padrão de secreção, a regressão do corpo lúteo falhará. Além da PGF2α de origem uterina, o corpo lúteo também produz PGF2α, que aumenta o efeito luteolítico. A falta de sensibilidade à PGF2α observada nos corpos lúteos imaturos (primeiros cinco dias após a ovulação) deve-se ao fato de, neste período, o corpo lúteo ainda não produzir PGF2α (figura 12, 13 e 14). 6. ETAPAS DO CICLO ESTRAL O ciclo estral é dividido em quatro etapas bem definidas. 6.1 Estro Neste estágio a fêmea aceita a cópula ou a monta de outra vaca. O estro é provocado pelo aumento significativo das concentrações de estradiol produzido pelo folículo pré-ovulatório e pela ausência de um corpo lúteo. A duração desta etapa é de 8 a 18 horas. 6.2 Metaestro O metaestro é a etapa posterior ao estro, tem uma duração de quatro a cinco dias. Durante esta etapa ocorre a ovulação e se desenvolve o corpo de lúteo. Após a ovulação, observa-se uma depressão no lugar ocupado pelo folículo ovulatório (depressão ovulatória) e, posteriormente, se desenvolve o corpo hemorrágico (corpo lúteo em processo de formação). Durante o metaestro, as concentrações de progesterona começam a aumentar até atingirem níveis superiores a 1 ng/ml, momento a partir da qual considera-se que o corpo lúteo atingiu a maturidade. O momento em que as concentrações de progesterona são superiores a 1 ng/ml toma-se como critério fisiológico a determinação do fim do metaestro e o início do diestro. Um evento hormonal que se destaca neste período consiste na apresentação do pico pós-ovulatório de FSH, o qual desencadeia a primeira onda de desenvolvimento folicular. Algumas vacas apresentam sangramento conhecido como sangramento metaestral (figura 15). 6.3 Diestro O diestro é o estágio de maior duração do ciclo estral, de 12 a 14 dias. Durante este estágio o corpo lúteo mantém sua plena funcionalidade, o que se reflete em concentrações sanguíneas de progesterona, maiores que 1 ng/ml. Além disso, nesta fase, pode-se encontrar folículos de tamanho diferente devido às ondas foliculares. Após 12-14 dias de exposição à progesterona, o endométrio começa a secretar PGF2α em um padrão pulsátil, ao qual termina com a vida do corpo lúteo e com o diestro. Em termos endócrinos, quando o corpo lúteo perde a sua funcionalidade, ou seja, quando as concentrações de progesterona diminuem abaixo de 1 ng/ml, finaliza-se o diestro e começa o proestro. Convém mencionar que durante esta fase, a LH é secretada com uma frequência muito baixa e a FSH tem incrementos responsáveis pelas ondas foliculares. 6.4 Proestro O proestro caracteriza-se pela ausência de um corpo lúteo funcional e pelo desenvolvimento e maturação do folículo ovulatório. O proestro na vaca dura de dois a três dias. Um evento hormonal característico desta etapa é o aumento da frequência dos pulsos de secreção de LH que levam à maturação final do folículo ovulatório e ao aumento do estradiol sérico, que desencadeia o estro. Para além da classificação do ciclo estral acima descrita, existe outra que divide o ciclo em duas fases: progestacional (lútea) e estrogênica (folicular). A fase progestacional inclui o metaestro e o diestro, e a fase estrogênica ao proestro e estro (figura 16). Figura 16. Etapas do ciclo estral. Adaptado e elaborado a partir de FERREIRA, 2010. 7. CONCLUSÕES PRÉVIAS  O ciclo estral dura de 19 a 23 dias.  A vaca é receptiva durante 8 a 18 horas (estro).  Ao nascimento uma bezerra tem cerca de 200 mil folículos primordiais.  Durante o ciclo estral se apresentam de duas a três ondas foliculares.  De cinco a seis folículos são recrutados em cada onda folicular.  Cerca de 70% das vacas têm duas ondas foliculares e 30% apresentam três ondas.  Entre 10 e 20% das vacas têm ovulações múltiplas (dois a três folículos) e 8% têm partos gêmeos.  A ovulação ocorre 30 horas após o pico pré-ovulatório de LH.  A secreção pré-ovulatória de LH é de 15 a 30 ng/ml.  12 a 14 dias são necessários para que o endométrio se torne insensível à progesterona e comece a secretar PGF2α. - São necessários cinco a seis pulsos de PGF2α com um intervalo de oito horas para ocasionar a luteólise.  O corpo lúteo não é sensível à PGF2α nos primeiros cinco dias do ciclo estral. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – Departamento de Zootecnia da UFRPE Recife, 2020. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ALVES, Nadja Gomes; PEREIRA, Marcos Neves; COELHO, Rodrigo Michelini. Nutrição e reprodução em vacas leiteiras. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, p. l1248-l1248, 2009. ARBOLEDA, José Leonardo Ruiz; URIBE-VELÁSQUEZ, Luis Fernando; OSORIO, José Henry. Factor de crecimiento semejante a insulina tipo 1 (IGF-1) en la reproducción de la hembra bovina. Vet. zootec, v. 5, n. 2, p. 68-81, 2011. BARUSELLI, Pietro Sampaio; GIMENES, Lindsay Unno; SALES, José Nélio de Sousa. Fisiologia reprodutiva de fêmeas taurinas e zebuínas. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v. 31, n. 2, p. 205-211, 2007. COLE, H. H.; CUPPS, P. T. Reproduction in domestic animals. 1ª ed. Londres: Academic Press, 1977. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Características Gerais dos Bovinos/General Characteristics of Cattle Bovine. Disponível em: ———. Acesso em: Fevereiro de 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Definição de Conceitos Básicos na Reprodução Animal: Fertilidade, Fecundidade e Prolificidade-Suínos. Philarchive. Disponível em: ———. Acesso em: Fevereiro de 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. REPRODUÇÃO ANIMAL: OVULAÇÃO, CONTROLE E SINCRONIZAÇÃO DO CIO. Disponível em: ———. Acesso em: Fevereiro de 2020. DO VALLE, Ezequlel Rodrigues. O ciclo estral de bovinos e métodos de controle. Campo Grande: EMBRAPA-CNPGC, 1991. FERREIRA, A. M. Reprodução da fêmea bovina: fisiologia aplicada e problemas mais comuns. Juiz de Fora: Editar, 2010. GALINA HIDALGO, Carlos et al. Reproducción de animales domésticos. México: Limusa, 1988. HAFEZ, E. S. E.; HAFEZ, B. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. McDONALD, L.E. Veterinary endocrinology and reproduction. 3.ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1980. MELLO, R. R. C. et al. Desenvolvimento folicular inicial em bovinos. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v. 37, n. 4, p. 328-333, 2013. MELLO, Raquel Rodrigues Costa et al. Aspectos da dinâmica folicular em bovinos. Agropecuária Científica no Semiárido, v. 10, n. 4, p. 01-06, 2015. NEBEL, Ray; DEJARNETTE, M. Anatomía y fisiología de la reproducción bovina. SELECT SIRES INC, v. 6, 2011. PALMA, Gustavo A. Biotecnología de la reproducción. Balcarce: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, 2008. PEREIRA, Elias de Oliveira. Fisiologia da reprodução em vacas leiteiras: REVISÃO DE LITERATURA. TCC Medicina Veterinária. Ituverava: FAFRAM, 2019. PETERS, A. R.; BALL, P. J. H. Reprodução em bovinos. São Paulo: Editora Roca, 2006. PRIETO-GÓMEZ, Bertha; VELÁZQUEZ-PANIAGUA, Mireya. Fisiología de la reproducción: hormona liberadora de gonadotrofinas. Rev Fac Med UNAM, v. 45, n. 6, p. 252-57, 2002. SALISBURY, Glenn Wade; LODGE, J. R.; VANDEMARK, N. L. Fisiología de la reproducción e inseminación artificial de los bóvidos. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1978. VIVEIROS, Ana Tereza de Mendonça. Fisiologia da reprodução de bovinos. Lavras: UFLA, 1997. (shrink)

This chapter provides a historical reconstruction of how Alfred Schutz’s American writings were critically engaged by the feminist sociologists Dorothy E. Smith and Patricia Hill Collins. Schutz’s articulation of a phenomenological sociology in relation to, among others, the sociology of Talcott Parsons and the philosophies of science of Ernest Nagel and Carl G. Hempel proved fruitful to Smith in the development of her feminist standpoint theory in her 1987 The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Collins likewise draws (...) on Schutz’s writing in the development of her own standpoint theory in her 1986 paper “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought,” but in a way that addresses some of her own concerns with Smith’s feminist sociology. As I hope to show with the recovery of this underappreciated history, the critical insights of Smith and Collins with regard to the possible uses and limits of phenomenology for feminist theorizing, are still valuable today. (shrink)

The contrast between the strategies of research employed in reductionism and holism masks a radical contradiction between two different scientific philosophies. We concentrate in particular on an analysis of the key philosophical issues which give structure to holistic thought. A first (non-exhaustive) analysis of the philosophical tradition will dwell upon: a) the theory of emergence: each level of organisation is characterised by properties whose laws cannot be deduced from the laws of the inferior levels of organisation (Engels, Morgan); b) clarification (...) of the relations between the “whole” and the “parts” (Woodger, Needham); c) the ontological or epistemological nature of the emergent properties; are they a phenomenological reality or solely an artefact of the state of our knowledge? (Pepper, Henle, Hempel and Oppenheim); d) the proposition of the holistic theoretical and methodological model ( Novikoff, Feibleman). I then go on to examine the differences that exist between the reductionist and the holistic approaches at various levels of analysis: that is to say, the differences which affect their ontologies, methodologies and epistemologies respectively. I attempt to understand the spirit of a holistic approach to ecology by analyzing the major work of E.P. Odum Fundamentals of ecology (1953, 1959, 1971). I set forward what might be meant by the “holistic approach”, which is implicated in all the different levels of organisation at which the problem of “complexity” is debated. Ecology presents itself as an “holistic science” and Odum’s book offers a vision of the world which dates far back in the history of philosophy. By looking at the three different editions of this fundamental text on ecology, we may become aware of the evolution of Odum’s thought. In fact, only in the third and last edition is there a conscious appropriation of the holistic approach (by using the theoretical models of Feibleman who, for his part, refers to Novikoff). However, even when formally referring to the theory of emergence (that is to say the ontological nucleus of every holistic approach), Odum’s systemic analysis presents the same logical errors, which push him back into the reductionist domain. Above all, in his examination of the main concepts of “population”, “community” and “ecosystem”, there is a misunderstanding of the profound difference between “collective properties” and “emergent properties”. Moreover, the cybernetic models of Odum’s systemic analysis (introduced into ecology by Margalef), allowed him to vastly oversimplify his methodological task: in fact, neither how many levels nor which levels of organization are fundamental for the study of each individual level is clearly marked. Finally, Odum analyses the ecosystem as composed of energetic flux and cycles of matter, referring to the trophic-dynamic vision of Lindeman. That is to say, in my opinion, he juxtaposes a reductionistic methodology and epistemology to an holistic ontology. (shrink)

In this paper we show that the coherence measures of Olsson (J Philos 94:246–272, 2002), Shogenji (Log Anal 59:338–345, 1999), and Fitelson (Log Anal 63:194–199, 2003) satisfy the two most important adequacy requirements for the purpose of assessing theories. Following Hempel (Synthese 12:439–469, 1960), Levi (Gambling with truth, New York, A. A. Knopf, 1967), and recently Huber (Synthese 161:89–118, 2008) we require, as minimal or necessary conditions, that adequate assessment functions favor true theories over false theories and true and (...) informative theories over true but uninformative theories. We then demonstrate that the coherence measures of Olsson, Shogenji, and Fitelson satisfy these minimal conditions if we confront the hypotheses with a separating sequence of observational statements. In the concluding remarks we set out the philosophical relevance, and limitations, of the formal results. Inter alia, we discuss the problematic implications of our precondition that competing hypotheses must be confronted with a separating sequence of observational statements, which also leads us to discuss theory assessment in the context of scientific antirealism. (shrink)

The received view in the history of the philosophy of psychology is that the logical positivists—Carnap and Hempel in particular—endorsed the position commonly known as “logical” or “analytical” behaviourism, according to which the relations between psychological statements and the physical-behavioural statements intended to give their meaning are analytic and knowable a priori. This chapter argues that this is sheer legend: most, if not all, such relations were viewed by the logical positivists as synthetic and knowable only a posteriori. It (...) then traces the origins of the legend to the logical positivists’ idiosyncratic extensional or at best weakly intensional use of what are now considered crucially strongly intensional semantic notions, such as “translation,” “meaning” and their cognates, focussing on a particular instance of this latter phenomenon, arguing that a conflation of explicit definition and analyticity may be the chief source of the legend. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The individual-community relationship has always been one of the most fundamental topics of social sciences. In sociology, this is known as the micro-macro relationship while in economics it refers to the processes, through which, individual actions lead to macroeconomic phenomena. Based on philosophical discourse and systems theory, many sociologists even use the term "emergence" in their understanding of micro-macro relationship, which refers to collective phenomena that are created by the cooperation of individuals, but cannot be reduced to individual actions. (...) "Emergence" theories attempt to explain the nature of society as a complex system by examining how individuals and their relationships lead to the creation of integrated and macro-social phenomena such as markets, educational systems, cultural beliefs, and shared social practices. As a prelude to activity, every researcher has to answer the question from the methodological point of view, how is it possible to study the behavior of social groups and how can we gain knowledge about the laws related to social groups? Anyone who deals with humanities and social sciences or any reality and phenomenon that affects human beings, inevitably deals with the reality that is emerging. In fact, emergence occurs when one level of reality emerges radically from another level. Examples of emergent levels of reality include how the mind emerges from the body; or the way society emerges from human beings. Therefore, when there is an emerging factor, different scientific disciplines should be used, because it is inevitable to talk about social affairs, psychology and neurobiology, as well as physical and even chemical. -/- INTRODUCTION Since its beginning in the 19th century, sociology has faced the fundamental question of what a social phenomena stands for? At a glance, sociologists deal with the study of social groups, collective behavior, institutions, social structures, social networks, and social dynamics, and ultimately all such phenomena are composed of individuals. Therefore, social phenomena seem to have no independent ontological status, and in this case, sociology is ultimately about reducible individuals. Different approaches about the micro-macro relationship, using the concept of "emergence", argue that although collective phenomena are created by individuals, they cannot be reduced to individual action. The term "emergence" is used to distinguish "emergent results" from " Procedural results". Results are called Procedural that can only be calculated by adding or subtracting the causes that act together. On the contrary, they are emergent outcomes that are qualitatively novel compared to the causes from which they originate. An example of such emergent results is mental characteristics that emerge from neural processes, but are not considered among the characteristics of neural processes of components - which are their origin. Philosophical debates about emergentism and reductionism focus on the mind-brain relationship, but as many philosophers have noted, they can be generalized to apply to any hierarchical set of features. The cognitive revolution reactivated a 19th century controversy between theorists of Identity and dualism. The theorists of Identity believe in reductionist materialism and elimination of metaphysics, according to which the mind is nothing more than the biological, while the dualists believe that the mind and the brain are distinct from each other. Emergence has been considered as a third way between the theories of Identity and dualism. -/- METHODOLOGY Interdisciplinarity Is fundamentally indicated by the dominance of open systems as well as social and emerging systems at different levels. Therefore, as long as we are facing a new emergentism, there will necessarily be different fields and an interdisciplinary method. The commonality of social sciences and cognitive sciences on the issue of emergence provides the possibility of interaction and exchange of concepts between these two for deeper research. Therefore, in this research, apart from the concepts of Subvenience and downward causation, we have used multiple realization and wildly disjunctive, which are used to explain the emerging concept in cognitive sciences, including neurobiology, psychology, and philosophy. For analytical and interdisciplinary approaches, after examining the concepts of subvenience, and wildly disjunctive, Individualistic and collectivist emergentism have been reviewed. And then their adequacy is criticized and evaluated in meeting strong emergence conditions. -/- FINDINGS Philosophers of the mind have been able to define the conditions of irreducibility and downward causation, which are essential for strong emergence, by using the principle of subvenience with the help of multiple realization and wildly disjunctive principles. Therefore, by definition, emergentist individualism suffers from the problem of how to explain downward causality and irreducibility, and emergentist collectivism faces the challenge of reification. The analysis of the challenges facing the two methodological approaches of individualism and collectivism leads us to three unresolved issues about the emerging phenomenon, which are realism, downward causality, and mechanism. Despite the differences in the stances of these two approaches regarding the aforementioned triple problems, individualists and collectivists both agree that some social characteristics are reducible; and some others are irreducible due to their complexity, the determination of which, depends on the case study of the mechanism of emergence of each social characteristic. -/- CONCLUSION An emergence that is consistent with reductionism is called a weak emergence. And strong emergence includes the principle of irreducibility and downward causality. According to strong emergence, the characteristics of social phenomena have downward causal power, which cannot be reduced to the causal forces. The principle of subvenience, together with multiple realization and wildly disjunctive, can provide the conditions of irreducibility and downward causality, which are essential conditions of strong emergence. Based on the philosophical analysis of two methodological approaches, individualist and collectivist, it can be concluded that emergentist individualism suffers from the problem of how to explain downward causality and irreducibility, and reification collectivism faces the challenge of reification. The analysis of the problems faced by these two approaches leads us to three unresolved issues, which are realism, downward causality, and mechanism. individualist emergentists acknowledge the existence of emergent social characteristics, but despite this, they believe that these characteristics are not real but merely analytical constructs that require explanation based on individuals and their mutual actions. But collectivists argue that emergentism yields a categorical ontology and supports social realism. They accept the dependence of social characteristics on individuals, but claim that social entities and structures are ontologically independent. Individualists and collectivists both agree that some social characteristics are reducible; and others are irreducible due to their complexity; and the only way to recognize this is to engage in empirical studies of the mechanisms and temporal processes of "emergence" that create social characteristics. -/- NOVELTY The newness of this compact article is as follows: a) Presenting an interdisciplinary approach using the analysis of philosophy of cognitive sciences, including the philosophy of mind, neurobiology and psychology to formulate the issue of social emergence; b) Criticizing individualist and collectivist methodological approaches to the issue of social emergence and explaining the sufficiency and shortcomings of both in providing weak and strong emerging conditions; c) Explaining and categorizing the challenges facing methodological approaches in explaining the phenomenon of social emergence, in three categories: realism, downward causality, and mechanism. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., & Kim, J. (eds.) (1992). Emergence or reduction? Essays on the prospects of nonreductive physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of Naturalism. New York: Routledge. Bhaskar, R., Danermark, B. & Price, L. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and wellbeing: A critical realist general theory of interdisciplinarity. London and New York: Routledge. Blau, P.M. (1981). Introduction: diverse views of social structure and their common denominator. In Blau, P.M. & Merton, R.K. (eds.), Continuity in Structural Inquiry (pp. 1–23). Beverly Hills: Sage. Blau, P.M. (1987). Microprocess and macrostructure. In K.S. Cook (ed.), Social Exchange Theory (pp. 83–100). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brooks, R.A., & Maes, P. (eds). (1994). Artificial life IV; proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Coleman, J. S. (1987). Microfoundations and macrosocial behavior. In: J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Munch, & Neil J. Smelser (Eds.). The Micro-Macro Link (pp. 153–73). Berkeley: University of California. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Elster, J. (1985). Making sense of Marx. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fodor, J.A. (1974). Special sciences (Or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28(2), 97–115. Fodor, J.A. (1989). Making mind matter more. Philosophical Topics, 17, 59-79. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press. Horgan, T. (1993). From supervenience to superdupervenience: meeting the demands of a material world. Mind, 102, 555-586. Humphreys, P. (1997). How properties emerge”. Philosophy of Science, 64, 1-17. Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36. Kincaid, H. (1997). Individualism and the unity of science. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Lewis, D.K. (1986). The plurality of worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nigel, G., & Conte, R. (eds.) (1995). Artificial societies; The computer simulation of social life. London: UCL Press. O’Connor, T. (1994). Emergent properties. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31, 91-104. Popper, K.R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row. Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Emergence in sociology: contemporary philosophy of mind and some implications for sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 551-585. Sawyer, R. K. (2004). The mechanisms of emergence. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 260–282. Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sawyer, R.K. (2003). Nonreductive individualism: Part 2, Social causation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33, 203–224. Winch, P. (1993). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy‭ (SAMT, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: SAMT. (shrink)

Cognitive neuroscience is an interdisciplinary enterprise aimed at explaining cognition and behavior. It appears to be succeeding. What accounts for this apparent explanatory success? According to one prominent philosophical thesis, cognitive neuroscience explains by discovering and describing mechanisms. This "mechanist thesis" is open to at least two interpretations: a strong metaphysical thesis that Carl Craver and David Kaplan defend, and a weaker methodological thesis that William Bechtel defends. I argue that the metaphysical thesis is false and that the methodological thesis (...) is too weak to account for the explanatory promise of cognitive neuroscience. My argument draws support from a representative example of research in this field, namely, the neuroscience of decision-making. The example shows that cognitive neuroscience explains in a variety of ways and that the discovery of mechanisms functions primarily as a way of marshaling evidence in support of the models of cognition that are its principle unit of explanatory significance. -/- The inadequacy of the mechanist program is symptomatic of an implausible but prominent view of scientific understanding. On this view, scientific understanding consists in an accurate and complete description of certain "objective" explanatory relations, that is, relations that hold independently of facts about human psychology. I trace this view to Carl Hempel's logical empiricist reconceptualization of scientific understanding, which then gets extended in Wesley Salmon's causal-mechanistic approach. I argue that the twin objectivist ideals of accuracy and completeness are neither ends we actually value nor ends we ought to value where scientific understanding is concerned. -/- The case against objectivism motivates psychologism about understanding, the view that understanding depends on human psychology. I propose and defend a normative psychologistic framework for investigating the nature of understanding in the mind sciences along three empirically-informed dimensions: 1) What are the ends of understanding? 2) What is the nature of the cognitive strategy that we deploy to achieve those ends; and 3) Under what conditions is our deployment of this strategy effective toward achieving those ends? To articulate and defend this view, I build on the work of Elliot Sober to develop a taxonomy of psychologisms about understanding. Epistemological psychologism, a species of naturalism, is the view that justifying claims about understanding requires appealing to what scientists actually do when they seek understanding. Metaphysical psychologism is the view that the truth-makers for claims about understanding include facts about human psychology. I defend both views against objections. (shrink)

1. Introduction: a look back at the reasons vs. causes debate. 2. The interventionist account of causation. 3. Four objections to interventionism. 4. The counterfactual analysis of event causation. 5. The role of free agency. 6. Causality in the human sciences. -- The reasons vs. causes debate reached its peak about 40 years ago. Hempel and Dray had debated the nature of historical explanation and the broader issue of whether explanations that cite an agent’s reasons are causal or not. (...) Melden, Peters, Winch, Kenny and Anscombe had contributed their anticausal conceptions. The neo-Wittgensteinians seemed to be winning the day when in 1963 Donald Davidson published his seminal paper “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”. Davidson’s paper devastated the Wittgensteinian camp. It contained, among other things, a powerful attack on the logical connection argument. Davidson argued that the existence of a logical or conceptual connection between descriptions can never eliminate a causal relation, which holds between events simpliciter, not between events under certain descriptions. Davidson maintained that in a way, reasons can be causes. When somebody acts for a certain reason, his intentional attitudes, or rather changes in his attitudes, cause his bodily movements. Davidson also argued that rationalization is a species of causal explanation. For the definition of action, he argued that intentional actions are bodily movements caused in the right way by beliefs and desires that rationalize them. Davidson’s paper paved the way for causal theories of action, which superseded neo-Wittgensteinian analyses in the following decades. The causal theory was rapidly adopted by Alvin Goldman, David Armstrong, Paul Churchland, Myles Brand and many others, entering the mainstream and dominating the philosophy of action to this very day. In 1971 Georg Henrik von Wright published his book "Explanation and Understanding". The second chapter did not deal with agency, but with causation. It developed a new account of causation, the interventionist or experimentalist account. Focusing on causation, von Wright remedied a major shortcoming of the reasons vs. causes debate. The concept of causality, and the nature of the causal relation, received little attention in this debate, a fact that holds true for both camps. Mostly it was simply taken for granted that, as Hempel had declared, “causal explanation is a special type of deductive-nomological explanation”. One camp then aligned intentional explanations with D-N explanations, while the other camp insisted on their disparity. So strictly speaking, the label “reasons/causes debate” was a misnomer. The controversy dealt primarily with the question as to whether intentional explanations can take the form of D-N explanations, while the notion of causation, and the metaphysics of the causal relation, were left obscured. With von Wright’s new approach, the situation changed. Von Wright was primarily concerned with causation, but his approach contained an implicit attack on the causal theory of action as well. His core idea was that the notion of causality is intimately linked with, or even derived from, the notion of intentionally making something happen. Other philosophers, even Hume, had considered such a connection before, but often just to reject this view, regarding it as a kind of myth belonging to the infancy of the human mind. Von Wright took the idea seriously. He submitted the analysis that p is the cause of q if and only if by doing p we could bring about q. The causal theory of action was also concerned with the relation between causation and agency, to which its name bears witness. The causal theory of action holds that actions are bodily movements with a certain causal history. This is why von Wright’s account constituted a momentous challenge to the causal theory: it reversed the direction of conceptual dependency between both notions. Davidson and his followers tried to define what an intentional action is by using the notion of causation. The causal condition which the causal theory sets is part of the definition of “doing something intentionally”. Von Wright claimed that the conceptual dependency is the other way round. He used the notions of doing, and bringing about, to explain what causal relations are. So, instead of a causal theory of action, he advocated an agency theory of causation, as it may be dubbed. It is remarkable how seldom this clash of opinions about conceptual primacy is reflected in the literature. There are few exceptions: Fred Stoutland noticed the conflict, and he published a number of papers in which he compared Davidson’s and von Wright’s views. Von Wright’s book "Explanation and Understanding" was widely read and discussed in the seventies, especially in Europe. But it strikes me that especially in North America, where the causal theory of action became the orthodoxy of the day, von Wright’s challenge went largely unnoticed. Even Davidson did not seem to take it seriously. He nowhere takes notice of the interventionist theory of causation, while he does discuss von Wright’s earlier book "Norm and Action". As is well-known, Davidson favoured an alternative account of causation, based on “the principle of the nomological character of causality”, as he somewhat clumsily called it, or, later and less clumsily, “the cause-law thesis”. Davidson’s firm adherence to a nomological theory of causality may explain why he did not take much interest in alternative accounts. [...] -/- . (shrink)

The paper presents a new analysis of Hempel’s conditions of adequacy, differing from the one in Carnap. Hempel, so it is argued, felt the need for two concepts of confirmation: one aiming at true theories, and another aiming at informative theories. However, so the analysis continues, he also realized that these two concepts were conflicting, and so he gave up the concept of confirmation aiming at informative theories. It is then shown that one can have the cake and (...) eat it: There is a logic of confirmation that accounts for both of these two conflicting aspects. (shrink)

The paper applies confirmation theory to a famous statement of economics, the law of demand, which says that ceteris paribus, prices and quantities demanded change in opposite directions. Today's economists do not accept the law unless definite restrictions hold, and have shown little interest in deciding whether or not these restrictions were satisfied empirically. However, Hildenbrand (1994) has provided a new derivation of the law of aggregate demand and used this theoretical advance to devise a test that may be the (...) first rigorous one ever performed on the law. The paper accounts for Hildenbrand's and, in less detail, his predecessors' contributions within the philosophical framework of Hempel (1965) and Glymour (1980). Its salient result is that economists have accepted the "consequence condition", and rejected the "converse consequence condition", and thus implicitly adhered to a Hempelian- Glymourian view of confirmation and testability. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I examine the implications of the problem of mental causation and what David Chalmers has dubbed the “ hard problem of consciousness” for competing accounts of the mind. I begin, in Chapter One, with a critical analysis of Jaegwon Kim’s Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. (2005) There, I maintain that Kim’s ontology cannot adequately address both the problem of mental causation and the “ hard problem of consciousness.” In Chapter Two, I examine the causal pairing problem for (...) substance dualism. I demonstrate both that the substance dualist can respond to the argument at no great cost, and that the pairing problem applies, with equal force, to the irreducible qualia posited on Kim’s account. Chapters Three and Four are devoted to what I take to be the central argument against any kind of dualism: the causal exclusion argument. In Chapter Three, I examine dualistic responses to the exclusion argument that grant the causal closure of the physical world. I note that these responses, though technically adequate, are nevertheless theoretically unpalatable. In addition to requiring the dualist to adopt unconventional attitudes towards causation, responses of this variety also have the unfortunate result of rendering libertarian freedom impossible. Finally, in Chapter Four, I turn my attention to the question of causal closure. I maintain that the causal closure of the physical world, though widely affirmed, is nevertheless extraordinarily difficult to support. In light of Hempel’s Dilemma, causal closure is either false, compatible with dualistic interaction, or unacceptably stipulative. There is, I maintain, no causal closure principle up to the tasks required by the causal exclusion argument. For that reason, I conclude that the dualist ought not to worry about causal closure. (shrink)

(1) In the first part of this paper, I review Chomsky's meandering journey from the formalism/mentalism of Syntactic Structures, through several methodological positions, to the minimalist theory of his latest work. Infected with mentalism from first to last, each and every position vitiates Chomsky's repeated claims that his theories will provide useful guidance to later theories in such fields as cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience. With the guidance of his insights, he claims, psychologists and neuroscientists will be able to avoid (...) costly dead-end lines of research. -/- (2) This never happened. As I have shown, this never could have happened. (See Johnston, 2018). What has happened, instead, is that current neurolinguistic research (with the arguable exception of the now-dated Lemma Model of Willem Levelt) proceeds without reference to Chomsky. It also wholeheartedly rejects the mentalism of the associated Language of Thought theory of Jerry Fodor. (See Johnston, 2018). -/- (3) I make this argument in the first part of this paper. I would also like to point out that most of my argument was developed in 1972, when I was a graduate student. I know of no other sustained criticisms of Chomsky at that time, and certainly none along the lines I had developed back then. -/- (4) In the second part of this paper, I present my own account of the methodology of science. When I was a graduate student, philosophy of science was dominated by an attempt to describe a methodology common to all the specific sciences, i.e. Hempel’s deductive-nomological model. These days, Hempel’s emphasis on the methodological unity of science has been rejected by such “dis-unity” philosophers of science as Ian Hacking, Patrick Suppes and Nancy Cartwright (see Cat, 2021). -/- (5) I view this change as the swing of a pendulum or, to change the metaphor, a journey from one end point of a continuum to another. As the level of abstraction at which one tries to describe scientific method is raised, the descriptions become increasingly general. Whether or not unity-of-science theories become so general as to be vacuous, is ultimately a subjective judgment. And so I expect that philosophers will eventually become tired of increasingly specific “close to the workbench” descriptions of how scientists work, and begin to turn back to methodological “big pictures”, finding in them powerful abstractions rather than empty irrelevancies. -/- (6) In the second part of this paper, I present my own account of the methodology of science, which I would situate somewhere between the “unity” and “dis-unity” accounts. However, I am not a scientist. My own views about scientific method have three origins: -/- (6a) my work as a graduate student from 1966 until I passed my comprehensive exams in 1973 (at a different university); -/- (6b) reading every issue of Scientific American from 1972 until nearly 2000, (at which point I continued to read it only sporadically, since I concluded that, around that time, it had evolved from a serious science magazine to a popular science magazine); and -/- (6c) my three-year immersion in the cognitive neuroscience of language after I retired, based on repeated study of and note-taking for (Banesh & Compton, 2018), (Kemmerer, 2015), several other books and, finally, numerous articles not hidden behind a paywall. -/- So, as always with my writings: caveat emptor. (shrink)

En este artículo abordo críticamente la aseveración de David Papineau según la cual la evidencia fisiológica acumulada es suficiente para adoptar razonablemente el Principio del Cierre Causal de lo Físico y la vía negativa, viz. entender físico como no mental, como solución al dilema de Hempel. Comenzaremos restando fuerza a tal afirmación revisando el trabajo de W. Penfield y J. Eccles, dos importantes neurocientíficos y declarados dualistas. No obstante, luego nos centraremos en el trabajo de B. Libet en el (...) que se demostraría que los movimientos voluntarios están realmente determinados por causas enteramente fisiológicas, lo cual constituiría una pieza fundamental de evidencia a favor de Papineau. Nuestro análisis mostrará que no se siguen tales conclusiones. Esto tendrá consecuencias negativas para el Cierre Causal de lo Físico y con ello para el Argumento Causal para el Fisicalismo del cual el mencionado principio es premisa clave. (shrink)

Dans ce qui suit, je m'attache à présenter les éléments d'une doctrine philosophique, qui peut être définie comme un contextualisme dialectique. Je m'efforce tout d'abord de définir les éléments constitutifs de cette doctrine, à travers les dualités et pôles duaux, le principe d'indifférence dialectique et le biais d'uni-polarisation. Je m'attache ensuite à souligner l'intérêt spécifique de cette doctrine au sein d'un domaine particulier de la méta-philosophie : la méthodologie utilisée pour la résolution des paradoxes philosophiques. Je décris enfin une application (...) de cette dernière aux paradoxes suivants : le paradoxe de Hempel, le paradoxe de l'examen-surprise et l'argument de l'Apocalypse. (shrink)

This paper starts by indicating the analysis of Hempel's conditions of adequacy for any relation of confirmation (Hempel, 1945) as presented in Huber (submitted). There I argue contra Carnap (1962, Section 87) that Hempel felt the need for two concepts of confirmation: one aiming at plausible theories and another aiming at informative theories. However, he also realized that these two concepts are conflicting, and he gave up the concept of confirmation aiming at informative theories. The main part (...) of the paper consists in working out the claim that one can have Hempel's cake and eat it too - in the sense that there is a logic of theory assessment that takes into account both of the two conflicting aspects of plausibility and informativeness. According to the semantics of this logic, a is an acceptable theory for evidence β if and only if a is both sufficiently plausible given β and sufficiently informative about β. This is spelt out in terms of ranking functions (Spohn, 1988) and shown to represent the syntactically specified notion of an assessment relation. The paper then compares these acceptability relations to explanatory and confirmatory consequence relations (Flach, 2000) as well as to nonmonotonic consequence relations (Kraus et al., 1990). It concludes by relating the plausibility-informativeness approach to Carnap's positive relevance account, thereby shedding new light on Carnap's analysis as well as solving another problem of confirmation theory. (shrink)