The HPS Podcast - Conversations from History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science

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: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep2-kate-lynch-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 is dedicated to the often complex, sometimes fraught relationship between practicing scientists and the history of science. 

To discuss this topic, we are joined by two of the most distinguished scholars in the history of science, Lorraine Daston and Peter Harrison, who recently co authored an article for Aeon, urging for a fresh dialogue between scientists and historians. In the interview we cover the history of these tensions, tracing them back to the science wars of the 1990s, as well as talking about why and how these relations might be repaired.  

The great joy of this episode is not only its fascinating content, but the pleasure of listening to two HPS luminaries discussing topics so close to their heart. 

Links:

• Aeon Article | 'Science and history cannot afford to be indifferent to each other'
• Lorraine Daston | MPIWG
• Peter Harrison | University of Queensland

Transcript:

• www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep1-lorraine-daston-peter-harrison-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

Welcome to Season 3 of the HPS podcast!

It's so great to be back.

Kicking off our third season, we have a new addition to the team, Carmelina Contarino.
Carmelina is an Honours student in HPS at the University of Melbourne and will be joining Samara in producing the podcast, as well as hosting several of the episodes.

In today's episode, Samara and Carmelina dive into what has become a bit of a theme of the podcast,  'Seeing Science Differently'. Science isn't always as neat or as sterile as we have been lead to expect. Instead, HPS shows science to be far more interesting. It's a little bit messy, sometimes unpredictable and full of unexpected twists.

We particular love this quote from François Jacob's autobiography 'Of Flies, Mice, and Men' featured in this episode:

"When you look more closely at 'what scientists do', you might be surprised to find that research actually comprises both the so-called day science and night science. Day science calls into play arguments that mesh like gears, results that have the force of certainty... Conscious of its progress, proud of its past, sure of its future, day science advances in light and glory.

By contrast, night science wanders blind. It hesitates, stumbles, recoils, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything, it is forever trying to find itself, question itself, pull itself back together. Night science is a sort of workshop of the possible. Where what will become the building material of science is worked out. Where hypotheses remain in the form of vague presentiments and woolly impressions...

Where thought makes its way along meandering paths and twisting lanes, most often leading nowhere."

Further links

• Stephen Shapin's Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as if It Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority.
• Hasok Chang's Podcast Episode

Transcript

• www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-samara-and-carmelina-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