Philosophical metatheories have had a great development in recent times. They have been used to reconstruct theories in many different scientific fields, from physics to biology to the social sciences. However, they lack means to systematically test the adequacy of their products. Most “tests” of reconstructions (and thus, of the metatheories themselves) are carried out by eye, if at all. This talk has two main objectives. The first is to develop a systematic way of testing reconstructions (and metatheories indirectly, through them). The second is to discuss whether these tests resemble those of empirical theories. More specifically, I will show how to use a computer program called Reconstructor, programmed by myself, to carry out tests of formal reconstructions. I will also discuss the extent to which these tests are subject to the phenomenon of holism, by examining the wide variety of knowledge (both empirical and computational) that is presupposed by these procedures.
Ariel Roffé (https://arielroffe.quest) is a PhD Philosophy researcher from Argentina. He is a postdoctoral fellow at CONICET and holds a teaching position at the University of Buenos Aires. He is a member of the CEFHIC, Anfibio and BA-Logic research groups. His areas of specialization are the philosophy of biology (especially of systematics) and the logic of science. He also does software development for academics. Among his software contributions are TAUT, Reconstructor and logics.
Some of his main publications are:
Roffé, A. J. (2020). Dynamic Homology and Circularity in Cladistic Analysis. Biology & Philosophy, 35:21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-9737-4
Roffé, A. J. & Ginnobili, S. (2020). Optimality Models and the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Acta Biotheoretica, 68: 367-385.
Roffé, A. J. (2019). Drift as Constitutive: Conclusions From a Formal Reconstruction of Population Genetics. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 41:55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0294-6
Roffé, A. J. (2019). Reconstructor: A computer program that uses three-valued logics to represent lack of information in empirical scientific contexts. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 30(1): 68-91.
Roffé, A. J., Ginnobili S. & Blanco, D. (2018). Theoricity, Observation and Homology: A Response to Pearson. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 40:42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-018-0208-z
O seminário será realizado presencialmente, no Anfiteatro da FCiências.ID, mas será possível assistir também em videoconferência, via Zoom.
Morada Anfiteatro da FCiências.ID
Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa
Edifício C1, Piso 3
Campo Grande, Lisboa