Today Carmelina is joined by Professor Uljana Feest, Philosopher of Psychology and Chair for Philosophy of Social Science and Social Philosophy at the Leibniz University of Hannover.  

In this episode, Uljana discusses her work on the philosophy and history of psychology as it relates to the replication crisis. In a recent article ‘What is the Replication Crisis a Crisis Of?’ Uljana proposes something is missing from current debates which typically focus on one of two positions. On one hand are those calling for reforms in methods, such as statistical reform, on the other are those calling for a focus on theory building.

Uljana suggests that, while both positions get something right, there is more to the story. We also need to focus on the subject matter of psychology - on what phenomena or object we are interested in studying, in how we conceptualise those objects (‘memory’ or ‘emotion’, for example) and then differentiate between the broader object of study and the narrow effect analysed in our experiments.

The transcript for this episode can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-11-uljana-feest-on-what-is-missing-in-replication-debates

Relevant links

• Uljana's Profile: Prof Uljana Feest | Leibniz University Hannover 
• Article: Uljana Feest | 2024 | 'What is the Replication Crisis a Crisis Of?' | Philosophy of Science

___________________________________________

PhD Positions in HPS at the University of Melbourne.
All are currently open for expressions of interest, with fully funded positions to start in 2025.

• Medical Humanities: PhD position for the Medical Humanities Research Lab
• Metascience: PhD position for the MetaMelb Research Initiative
• Death Technologies: PhD position for the DeathTech Research Initiative 

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

Today we are joined by Miguel Ohnesorge and Aja Watkins to talk about a new subfield of HPS - The Philosophy of the Geosciences. 

Miguel and Aja recently co-authored an article titled 'What is the Philosophy of the Geosciences?'  In today's episode, we discuss many of the themes introduced in the paper, including common problems found across such diverse geoscientific disciplines as palaeontology, seismology and climate science.

Aja and Miguel highlight how the geosciences have had to develop similar strategies for studying such large and often inaccessible phenomena. As global sciences, they also face many common ethical challenges, including rectifying a history of often extractive and exploitative practices, as well as navigating the continued ramifications of their research on human welfare and the environment.

A transcript of the episode can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-10-aja-watkins-miguel-ohnesorge-on-philosophy-of-the-geosciences

Relevant links:

• Aja's Website: Aja Watkins (ajawatkins.org)
• Miguel's Website: Miguel Ohnesorge (mohnesorgehps.com)
• Open Access Paper: What is Philosophy of the Geosciences? | Ohnesorge & Watkins | 2024 Philosophy Compass
• Research Group: Philosophy of the Geosciences Research Group | Alisa Bokulich
• Colloquium: Philosophy of the Geosciences Colloquium | Boston University
• Recording: Aja Watkins | Using Paleoclimate Analogues to Inform Climate Projections 
• Recording: Miguel Ohnesorge | Bringing Gravitation Down to Earth: Severe Testing in Laplace’s Mécanique Céleste
• Recording: Rachel Laudan | Cinderella Science: Intellectual Obstacles Facing History & Philosophy of Geology 
• Recording: Carol Cleland | Rethinking Mineral Taxonomy from a More Historical Perspective 
• Paper: Ahmad Elabbar | Varying Evidential Standards as a Matter of Justice | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

How are we to understand Indigenous biological difference in the twenty-first century?
Is it a racist ruse, a stubborn residue of racial pseudoscience?
Or is it a potentially empowering force that can be unlocked by newly accurate science?
Or by being under Indigenous control?

Today’s guest is Deakin Distinguished Professor Emma Kowal. Emma first trained as a doctor and public health researcher, before turning to cultural and medical anthropology. Now Emma also works across Science and Technology Studies and the History of Science and is the immediate past president of The International Society for Social Studies of Science (4S).

The episode focuses on Emma's recently published monograph Haunting Biology: Science & Indigeneity in Australia. In the book, Emma wrestles with the need to acknowledge the ghosts of science past at the same time as we forge new pathways in Indigenous genomics.

A transcript for the episode can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-9-emma-kowal-on-haunting-biology

Related links:

• The Book - Haunting Biology | Emma Kowal
• The Centre - ANU National Centre for Indigenous Genomics
• The Program - SING Australia | Summer Internship for Indigenous Peoples in Genomics
• Profile - Emma Kowal Profile | Deakin University
• Deakin SSN - Deakin Science and Society Network
•  Earlier Book - Trapped in the Gap: Doing Good in Indigenous Australia | Emma Kowal
• Interview - 'Why Did Scientists Collect the Blood of Indigenous Peoples?' | Time to Eat the Dogs
• Interview - 'Emma Kowal talks Indigenous health care, difference & genomics' | The Familiar Strange

You can also find further links to people and topics mentioned in the podcast via the transcript. 

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

We have a very special episode today with guest host Dr Joshua Eisenthal interviewing fellow philosopher of science, and good friend, Dr Haixin Dang on the fascinating subject of Disagreement in Science.

It might seem like scientists should always aspire to achieve consensus, and therefore any disagreement in science is a mark of failure. However, as Haixin points out, disagreement is in fact a vital part of healthy scientific practice.

Disagreement helps scientists be reflective about their work, challenging each other to consider alternative positions, question assumptions and further their investigations in a variety of ways.

However, exactly how disagreement works in science, and what kind of disagreements are more or less helpful, has not been well-studied. Haixin suggests a better understanding of scientific disagreement may be important for science communication and tackling science scepticism. If we can better explain how scientists actually make progress, perhaps members of the public will be more understanding when the experts disagree.

A transcript of the episode can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-8-haixin-dang-on-disagreement-in-science

Further links:

• Website: Haixin Dang 
• Journal Article: Minority Reports: Registering Dissent in Science | Philosophy of Science | Haixin Dang
• Journal Article: Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree? | Haixin Dang
• Physics Examples Mentioned
  • No more doubts: Two independent studies confirm LIGO’s Nobel discovery | Ars Technica
  • Fermilab Says Particle Is Heavy Enough to Break the Standard Model | Quanta Magazine
  • James Webb Space Telescope deepens major debate over universe's expansion rate | Space
  • Faster Than Lightspeed: These Neutrinos Were Faster Than The Speed Of Light—Until They Weren’t | Yale Scientific Magazine

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

Today's episode features one of our favourite philosophers of physics, Dr Sophie Ritson. Sophie's research focuses on the way contemporary physicists – of both the experimental and theoretical kind – work together to develop reliable knowledge and find creative ways to expand our fundamental understanding of the universe.

Sophie is unafraid to dig in where others fear to tread. She began her career examining the string theory controversy and, more recently, has studied first-hand the high stakes  experimental particle physics happening at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland.

In this week’s episode, Sophie discusses her fascinating research on these topics, as well as on the larger question of ‘how do large scale research collaboration’s generate knowledge?’

A transcript of the episode can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-7-sophie-ritson-transcript 

Further links:

• Website: Sophie Ritson | Philosopher of Physics
• Profile Article: Philosophy at the Large Hadron Collider: An Interview with Sophie Ritson | Forum
• PhD Thesis: The Many Dimensions of the String Theory Wars | Sophie Ritson | PhilSci-Archive
• Journal Article: ‘Crackpots’ and ‘active researchers’: The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere | Sophie Ritson, 2016 

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

Today's guest is Dr Kirsten Walsh, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter.

Kirsten’s research primarily focuses on Isaac Newton and his methodology, but she is careful to consider philosophical issues alongside a sensitivity and consideration for historical contexts.

In today’s episode Kirsten gives us a sense of how our historical understanding of Newton has changed over time, and the role various archival practices have played in what knowledge is developed.

Kirsten’s lively discussion gives us a wonderful insight into the detailed, everyday practices of Newton, but also of the archivists who decide what records are to be kept, and the historians who interrogate those documents in varying ways.

A transcript of the interview can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep-6-kirsten-walsh-transcript

Related links

• Website: Philosopher | Kirsten Walsh
• Paper: 'The Unknown Newton' | Kirsten Walsh
• Paper: 'Frameworks for Historians and Philosophers' | Currie & Walsh
• Book: The Newton Papers | Sarah Dry
• Archive: Newton Papers | Cambridge Digital Library 
• Website: The Newton Project
• Archive: The Royal Society | Science in the Making
• Article: 'Newton goes digital' | Royal Society

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

This week the team at The HPS Podcast are taking a mid-semester break!

To celebrate we are reposting one of our favourite episodes from Season 1 featuring Professor Greg Radick, a leading historian of biology at the University of Leeds.

In the podcast Greg discusses the use of counterfactuals in history of science - the term we use for asking ‘What if?’ questions about history - and their potential to subvert our conventional thinking. 

In Greg’s research, a central counterfactual question is: “What might biology be like now if a different side had triumphed in early debates on genetics?”

For example, might we be a little less deterministic about genetic inheritance and a little more embracing of contextual effects on human development?

By asking such seemingly simple ‘what if’ questions, fruitful new lines of investigation and alternative perspectives can open up.

A transcript of the interview can be found here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/episode-5-transcript

Related links

• Profile: Professor Gregory Radick | University of Leeds
• Website: Gregory Radick | Personal Site
• Book: Disputed Inheritance: The Battle over Mendel and the Future of Biology 
• Article: Teach students the biology of their time | Nature 

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

In today’s episode we have assistant professor and philosopher of science, Dan Hicks, taking us through better understanding public scientific controversies.

‘Public scientific controversies’ is a term Dan uses to capture a broad variety of controversies that involve both science and the public. This would include controversies around vaccines, genetically modified foods, medical research and climate change.

In studying why controversies like these arise and persist, Dan has found our common explanations are not always fit for purpose. Controversies aren’t all of one type, so a blanket diagnosis like, "it is all due to the public not properly understanding the science" or alternatively "the problem is widespread distrust of science," is  not helpful.

Instead, Dan argues that what is required is more careful consideration of the specific processes and mechanisms at play in each case. Better diagnoses can then help us better determine appropriate and effective interventions.

Relevant links for Dan:

• Profile - Dan Hicks - About
• Research - Dan Hicks - Research
• Discussion - Dan Hicks - philosophy of science, data science, environmental policy
• Relevant Article - Dan Hicks - Misinformation and trustworthiness: Frenemies in the analysis of public scientific controversies

Other links related to the episode:

• The Dialectical Biologist | Levins & Lewontin
• 'Sheepfarming after Chernobyl' | Brian Wynne
• Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge | Steven Epstein
• Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change | Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway
• 'The Green New Deal is already changing the terms of the climate action debate' (theconversation.com)

The transcript for this episode can be found at: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep4-dan-hicks-transcript

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

Today's episode features Professor Anna Alexandrova from the University of Cambridge discussing a field she has pioneered - the Philosophy of Well-Being Science.

As Anna points out, well-being and happiness are now established phenomena for scientific research, particularly in the disciplines of psychology and economics. But does current scientific research produce knowledge that is properly about well-being? What kind of well-being? Should the goal be a single concept and single theory of well-being?

Anna persuasively argues that a ‘one-concept-or-one-theory-fits-all’ attitude is wrong-headed.

Instead, Anna suggests researchers should invest in tailoring the concept of ‘well-being’ for specific people in specific contexts. Furthermore, we must take into consideration the components of well-being, or better put – of human flourishing - that are meaningful to the people within those groups.

Relevant links for Anna:

• Profile - Anna Alexandrova | HPS | University of Cambridge
• Book - A Philosophy for the Science of Well-Being | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
• Current work - The Many Dimensions of Wellbeing - Bennett Institute for Public Policy
• Media - Interviews and popular writings 

The transcript for this episode can be found at: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep3-anna-alexandrova-transcript

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

Today's guest is Dr Kate Lynch, who will discuss the topic of 'causal explanation in science'. Kate is a philosopher of biology and a lecturer in HPS at the University of Melbourne.

In this episode Kate introduces us to the difference between 'causation' and 'causal explanation', as well as difficulties involved in assessing what makes a good causal explanation. 

Some of Kate's research looks at medical explanations of death, including the complications that can be involved in deciding what cause of death will be officially documented. We were fascinated to learn of the varied practical, political, and even social considerations that can shape what cause a physician ends up recording on a death certificate. We also appreciated the way Kate used concrete examples like this to draw us into further discussion of the role social values play in science, all the way  down to the core scientific task of articulating causal explanations for natural phenomena.

You can find more interviews with and by Kate on the ABC's Philosophers Zone below:

• The philosophy of biology - ABC listen
• Causation and death - ABC listen
• What can genes tell us? - ABC listen

Other relevant links:

• Kate Lynch, Emily Parke & Maureen O'Malley 'How Causal are Microbiomes?'
• Kate Lynch '‘Gay gene’ testing apps aren’t just misleading – they’re dangerous'
• Kate Lynch 'Genes are not destiny: environment and education still matter when it comes to intelligence'
• James Woodward on Causal Explanation
• Peter Menzies 'Difference Maker'
• Tania Lombrozo 'Simplicity and Probability in Causal Explanation'
• Knobe & Fraser 'Causal Judgement & Moral Judgement: Two Experiments'

The transcript for this episode can be found at:

Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.

This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.

Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org