Volume 13 Number 3March 2019

thereasonerorgISSN 1757-0522

Contents

Editorial 19

Features 19

News 21

Whatrsquos Hot in 21

Events 23

Courses and Programmes 23

Jobs and Studentships 24

Editorial

Dear ReasonersThe Joseph B Gittler

Award was established bythe American PhilosophicalAssociation and is given forldquoan outstanding scholarlycontribution in the fieldof the philosophy of oneor more of the social sci-encesrdquo The 2018 winnerwas Francesco Guala forhis (2016 UnderstandingInstitutions The Scienceand Philosophy of Living To-gether Princeton UniversityPress)

A philosopher of science by training Francesco is professorof Political Economy at the Department of Philosophy at theUniversity of Milan He was kind enough to make time to talkabout the main idea behind the book and to share his very inter-esting take on the articulated relation between conomic theoryscience and philosophy

Hykel HosniUniversity of Milan

Features

Interview with Francesco GualaHykel Hosni Can you please tell us something about yourbackgroundFrancesco Guala I grew up in a rather obscure city in theNorth of Italy called Alessandria In high school I studied clas-sics which I didnrsquot particularly like but I had a good teacherthat got me interested in philosophy After high school I wasunsure whether to apply to an economics or a philosophy de-gree (as we shall see this has been a recurrent problem in mycareer) In the end the decision was made irrationally whileI was on holiday my dad called me to say that the selectiontest of my preferred economics programme was scheduled forthe following week Since interrupting my vacation was out ofquestion I told him that I had decided to do philosophy Thatrsquoshow I arrived at the University of Milan where I graduated in1994

HH How did you get into the philosophy of economicsFG As an undergraduate I was exposed to many styles of

philosophy but I was particularly attracted by the philosophyof science because of the entertaining lectures given by GiulioGiorello who held the chair of Philosophy of Science backthen With hindsight I realize that he gave us a very skewedand unrealistic picture of what the philosophy of science is

19

about ndash he was more interested in the history of ideas broadlyconceived But that was probably a good thing had he beenlecturing about the Ravens Paradox or Reichenbachrsquos Principleof the Common Cause I would have run away as fast as possi-ble Anyway a PhD student and TA in philosophy of sciencecalled Matteo Motterlini suggested that I should write my fi-nal dissertation on the philosophy of economics (Matteo andI then became friends colleagues and even co-authors) Tofind some material ndash there were no pdfrsquos at the time ndash I went tothe library of the London School of Economics and I decidedthat I wanted to apply to an MSc in History and Philosophy ofScience (run jointly by Kingrsquos College and the LSE) Duringthat first year in London I was lucky to meet Philippe MonginMary Morgan Nancy Cartwright Dan Hausman among oth-ers who convinced me that there were many interesting philo-sophical problems in economics In 1995 I applied to the PhDprogramme at the LSE with a project on the methodology ofexperimental economics John Worrall would be my main su-pervisor for the next four years

HH What was your thesisall about

FG In my MSc disser-tation I tried to interpretthe development of contem-porary decision theory us-ing Lakatosrsquo philosophy ofmathematics That disser-tation became my first pub-lished article a few yearslater and also the startingpoint for my PhD Soonhowever I realised that themost important methodolog-ical problem in experimentaleconomics is the so-called lsquoproblem of parallelismrsquo or lsquoexter-nal validityrsquo How can experimental results obtained in highlypeculiar circumstances be applied to situations that are quitedifferent from those of the lab This is a crucial question forevery experimental branch of science but for various reasonsphysicists chemists and biologists have worried about it a lotless than social scientists and psychologists Moreover becauseof the perceived authority of natural science philosophers havelargely ignored it too So here was a chance to tackle a keymethodological issue about which very little had been done un-til then I wouldnrsquot say that I cracked the problem but in myPhD dissertation and in the book that followed (The Method-ology of Experimental Economics Cambridge 2005) there is aconceptual framework and (I hope) some hints at possible so-lutions The work on models causation and experiments doneby Nancy Cartwright and the lsquoStanford Schoolrsquo (Ian HackingPat Suppes John Dupre) was a major source of inspiration

HH And thenFG In 1999 I moved to the University of Exeter where John

Dupre and others were resuscitating philosophy teaching andresearch a decade after the department had been shut downfollowing Thatcherrsquos cuts I ended up staying nine years andit was a tremendous experience professionally and intellectu-ally John was a wonderful mentor but I also learned a lot fromBarry Barnes ndash one of the founders of the Strong Programmein sociology of science and an extremely sophisticated philoso-pher ndash Nigel Pleasants Massimo Mazzotti and more generallyfrom the interdisciplinary environment of the School of His-

tory Politics and Sociology at ExeterHH You seem to have predicted BREXIT FG Definitely not The decision to leave the UK resulted

from personal and professional coincidences I felt at home atExeter but at the same time I had the feeling that it was time tolook for new stimuli elsewhere Then my kids were beginningprimary school and we realized that within a few years ourfamily would have become basically unmovable So when theopportunity came up to return to Italy with an lsquoanti-brain-drainrsquoscholarship I took it The department that was happiest to hostme was Economics at the University of Milan It was a fairlydrastic and risky career move but the conditions were also verynice four years almost entirely devoted to research with littleteaching and no admin It was like doing another PhD butwhen you already know how to do research With hindsight itpaid off nicely While working with economists I have devel-oped a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses ofeconomics as a science I have also realised that philosophersand other critics often have an unrealistic uninformed pictureof the work done by social scientists Now I officially hold achair of Political Economy which is weird given my trainingbut I am a member of the Philosophy Department After manyyears I still havenrsquot decided what I want to be

HH Now to your latest achievement You are the recipi-ent of the 2018 Joseph B Gittler Award for your book Under-standing Institutions The Science and Philosophy of LivingTogether Can you tell us the story behind it

FG This is a more recent interest which emerged slowlyover the years While working on methodology in theearly 2000s I started various collaborations with experimen-tal economists because I wanted to learn how experiments areactually done (you canrsquot get that from reading papers alone) Ihave done experiments on cooperation and coordination whichhave convinced me of the importance of institutions in pro-moting and sustaining human sociality There were obvi-ous connections between these experiments and the work ofphilosophers like Brian Skyrms and Cristina Bicchieri or gametheorists like Bob Sugden and Ken Binmore Meanwhile acompletely disjoint philosophical literature on institutions hademerged in a new field called ldquosocial ontologyrdquo mainly thanksto the work of John Searle Raimo Tuomela Margaret Gilbertamong others The fact that these two debates seemed to pro-ceed on completely separate paths puzzled me It took me awhile to realise that the two approaches were in fact comple-mentary the ldquoeurekardquo moment was a seminar given by FrankHindriks in Milan in 2011 in which he explained how Searlersquostheory could be decomposed into simpler elements which arenot unlike those used by David Lewis in his famous theory ofconventions Frank and I started a fruitful collaboration whichhas led to the theory of institutions as ldquorules in equilibriumrdquoand to various joint papers that keep coming out

HH Do you think the philosophy of the science of living to-gether ndash to paraphrase the subtitle of your book ndash has somethingpeculiar to it or is it just philosophy of science in the singular

FG The philosophy of science has become increasingly dis-unified as a field of research since it has become clear thatwe are running out of general truths about science or scientificmethod The devil is in the detail so philosophers must delvedeeply in the theories and practices of the special sciences Butthere is a sense in which what we do is continuous with what theoriginators of the discipline started in the first half of the twen-tieth century I see my current work as belonging to ldquoscientific

20

metaphysicsrdquo which is definitely a traditional part of philoso-phy of science Like physics and biology the social sciencespresent us with a picture of the world that is often perplexingincomplete incoherent and which requires a lot of interpreta-tion Philosophers have an important role to play here Theirjob has become particularly important lately due to the revivalof ldquophilosophicalrdquo metaphysics inspired by influential thinkerslike David Lewis David Armstrong or Peter van Inwagen Iam rather critical of this development which I think is a re-gressive attempt to insulate philosophy from science It haslicenced a lot of scholastic puzzle-solving that lacks any usefulapplication And when it has engaged with science it has doneso superficially This attitude has found a fertile terrain in so-cial ontology because many philosophers think that the socialsciences are not even worth taking seriously But itrsquos a compla-cent and mistaken attitude the work that I have done in the pastten years or so is an attempt to change peoplersquos mind about it

HH We often read in newspapers and political commen-taries that the status of economic theory as a science is veryoften questioned How would you react to such a challenge

FG I have an old-fashioned view economistsrsquo predictionsand interventions sometimes fail because they have to deal withcomplex systems about which we can only have imperfect in-formation If you think about it most of the reliable pre-dictable technology that we use ndash like the computer in frontof me ndash is based on causal knowledge that has been gathered inthe laboratory then turned into a machine that works smoothlyonly as long as it remains isolated from external interferences(If you donrsquot believe me take the hard-drive of your PC out ofits shell and leave it in your garden for a week) When socialscientists can work with simple isolated systems their resultsare not much worse than those of natural scientists This is animportant lesson of experimental economics I think and of so-called ldquomechanism designrdquo ndash the area of economics devoted tothe creation of new mechanisms for the allocation of servicesand commodities In the right conditions economistsrsquo modelswork but you cannot expect them to work always and every-where The problem is that some tricky forecasts like the levelof GDP growth in Italy next year are simply unavoidable Andwhen we get them wrong the consequences may be dreadfulIn contrast if a physicists fails to estimate the size of a far-awaystar nobody cares ndash we donrsquot even get to know about it in factLet me clarify that this does not exculpate economists entirelythere are huge problems of communication between the expertsand the general public exacerbated by the arrogance of someeconomists when they offer policy advice Like many other sci-entists they are terrible at conveying the nuances of scientificknowledge or at distinguishing between solid results and con-troversial ideas After 2008 this has become a major liabilitywhich the profession should better address quickly There isa mature and sophisticated discussion of these issues in DaniRodrikrsquos nice book (2015 Economics Rules Norton amp Co)which I highly recommend

HH What is your advice to postgraduate students with aninterest in the philosophy of economics and the social sciences

FG First of all I would say good choice This may not bethe most prestigious branch of philosophy but it is one of thefew where you deal with important issues and you can makea difference Then the advice make sure that you achieve aproper understanding of the science you are working on Spendtime with social scientists if possible work for a while in one oftheir departments and teach introductory courses to undergrad-

uates But at the same time do not become a social scientist oreconomist philosophers have useful skills that most scientistslack beginning with the capacity to ask general questions Re-main curious read a lot especially outside your area of exper-tise Technical skills are important but they are a only means tounderstand the world and how we get to know the world Whenscholasticism and technicality become ends in themselves bothin science and in philosophy itrsquos time to do something else

HH Is there a paper of yours which you consider to havereceived far less attention than it deserved

FG I have come to the conclusion that as authors we areleast capable to understand the value of our own work Somepapers which I was extremely excited about have flopped mis-erably while others that I thought were of average quality havereceived hundreds of citations I do believe that research is atrial-and-error process we come up with ideas and try to con-vince others that they are worth taking seriously But in the enditrsquos their judgment that counts

HH Can you recommend a book to those readers of TheReasoner who want to delve a bit more in the philosophy ofeconomics

FG The last book that I have read from cover to cover isRobert Sugden (2018 The Community of Advantage A Be-havioural Economistrsquos Defence of the Market Oxford) Bobhas always been an example for me trained as a historian hehas become a leading economic theorist one of the pioneersof experimental economics and he is an impressive philoso-pher too This book is full of surprising ideas but the mostincredible one is that rationality does not matter for normativeanalysis ndash you can do welfare economics even if peoplersquos pref-erences are inconsistent Everybody should read it especiallythose who donrsquot believe it

News

Calls for PapersComputational Modeling in Philosophy special issue of Syn-these deadline 1 MarchThought Experiments in theHistory of Philosophy of Sciencespecial issue of HOPOS deadline 31 MarchHaPoC 2019 5th International Conference on the Historyand Philosophy of Computing deadline 30 AprilFolk Psychology Pluralistic Approaches special issue ofSynthese deadline 15 MayImprecise Probabilities Logic and Rationality special issueof International Journal of Approximate Reasoning deadline 1JuneNancy Cartwrightrsquos Philosophy of Science special issue ofTheoria deadline 1 November

Whatrsquos Hot in

Medieval Reasoning[Continuing ]

Just as with Lady Philosophy ndash or possibly even more sondash several of Logicrsquos more or less committed lovers entertainthe notion that their beloved remains eternally beautiful andtrue ie that there is some unchangeable set of core featuresthat make up Logic Maybe this common attitude in thinking

21

metaphysicsrdquo which is definitely a traditional part of philoso-phy of science Like physics and biology the social sciencespresent us with a picture of the world that is often perplexingincomplete incoherent and which requires a lot of interpreta-tion Philosophers have an important role to play here Theirjob has become particularly important lately due to the revivalof ldquophilosophicalrdquo metaphysics inspired by influential thinkerslike David Lewis David Armstrong or Peter van Inwagen Iam rather critical of this development which I think is a re-gressive attempt to insulate philosophy from science It haslicenced a lot of scholastic puzzle-solving that lacks any usefulapplication And when it has engaged with science it has doneso superficially This attitude has found a fertile terrain in so-cial ontology because many philosophers think that the socialsciences are not even worth taking seriously But itrsquos a compla-cent and mistaken attitude the work that I have done in the pastten years or so is an attempt to change peoplersquos mind about it

HH We often read in newspapers and political commen-taries that the status of economic theory as a science is veryoften questioned How would you react to such a challenge

FG I have an old-fashioned view economistsrsquo predictionsand interventions sometimes fail because they have to deal withcomplex systems about which we can only have imperfect in-formation If you think about it most of the reliable pre-dictable technology that we use ndash like the computer in frontof me ndash is based on causal knowledge that has been gathered inthe laboratory then turned into a machine that works smoothlyonly as long as it remains isolated from external interferences(If you donrsquot believe me take the hard-drive of your PC out ofits shell and leave it in your garden for a week) When socialscientists can work with simple isolated systems their resultsare not much worse than those of natural scientists This is animportant lesson of experimental economics I think and of so-called ldquomechanism designrdquo ndash the area of economics devoted tothe creation of new mechanisms for the allocation of servicesand commodities In the right conditions economistsrsquo modelswork but you cannot expect them to work always and every-where The problem is that some tricky forecasts like the levelof GDP growth in Italy next year are simply unavoidable Andwhen we get them wrong the consequences may be dreadfulIn contrast if a physicists fails to estimate the size of a far-awaystar nobody cares ndash we donrsquot even get to know about it in factLet me clarify that this does not exculpate economists entirelythere are huge problems of communication between the expertsand the general public exacerbated by the arrogance of someeconomists when they offer policy advice Like many other sci-entists they are terrible at conveying the nuances of scientificknowledge or at distinguishing between solid results and con-troversial ideas After 2008 this has become a major liabilitywhich the profession should better address quickly There isa mature and sophisticated discussion of these issues in DaniRodrikrsquos nice book (2015 Economics Rules Norton amp Co)which I highly recommend

HH What is your advice to postgraduate students with aninterest in the philosophy of economics and the social sciences

FG First of all I would say good choice This may not bethe most prestigious branch of philosophy but it is one of thefew where you deal with important issues and you can makea difference Then the advice make sure that you achieve aproper understanding of the science you are working on Spendtime with social scientists if possible work for a while in one oftheir departments and teach introductory courses to undergrad-

uates But at the same time do not become a social scientist oreconomist philosophers have useful skills that most scientistslack beginning with the capacity to ask general questions Re-main curious read a lot especially outside your area of exper-tise Technical skills are important but they are a only means tounderstand the world and how we get to know the world Whenscholasticism and technicality become ends in themselves bothin science and in philosophy itrsquos time to do something else

HH Is there a paper of yours which you consider to havereceived far less attention than it deserved

FG I have come to the conclusion that as authors we areleast capable to understand the value of our own work Somepapers which I was extremely excited about have flopped mis-erably while others that I thought were of average quality havereceived hundreds of citations I do believe that research is atrial-and-error process we come up with ideas and try to con-vince others that they are worth taking seriously But in the enditrsquos their judgment that counts

HH Can you recommend a book to those readers of TheReasoner who want to delve a bit more in the philosophy ofeconomics

FG The last book that I have read from cover to cover isRobert Sugden (2018 The Community of Advantage A Be-havioural Economistrsquos Defence of the Market Oxford) Bobhas always been an example for me trained as a historian hehas become a leading economic theorist one of the pioneersof experimental economics and he is an impressive philoso-pher too This book is full of surprising ideas but the mostincredible one is that rationality does not matter for normativeanalysis ndash you can do welfare economics even if peoplersquos pref-erences are inconsistent Everybody should read it especiallythose who donrsquot believe it

News

Calls for PapersComputational Modeling in Philosophy special issue of Syn-these deadline 1 MarchThought Experiments in theHistory of Philosophy of Sciencespecial issue of HOPOS deadline 31 MarchHaPoC 2019 5th International Conference on the Historyand Philosophy of Computing deadline 30 AprilFolk Psychology Pluralistic Approaches special issue ofSynthese deadline 15 MayImprecise Probabilities Logic and Rationality special issueof International Journal of Approximate Reasoning deadline 1JuneNancy Cartwrightrsquos Philosophy of Science special issue ofTheoria deadline 1 November

Whatrsquos Hot in

Medieval Reasoning[Continuing ]

Just as with Lady Philosophy ndash or possibly even more sondash several of Logicrsquos more or less committed lovers entertainthe notion that their beloved remains eternally beautiful andtrue ie that there is some unchangeable set of core featuresthat make up Logic Maybe this common attitude in thinking

21

about Logic is due at least in part to the normative persua-sion that Logic has always seemed to have Or perhaps itrsquosbecause of the mathematical attire that Logic has put on inher modern incarnation And certainly the fact that those de-voted suitors of Logic often seem to believe her to be a younglady born around 1879 or a handful of years earlier reassuresthem in their belief of her unchanging nature and eternalityndash no matter how said belief is at odds both with Logicrsquos sup-posed young age and with the numerous deep changes that shehas undeniably gone through during her presumedly short life

Philosophy is undeniablya silver fox or a snake whohas shed her skin and rein-vented herself a few timestoo many but as of nowthere arenrsquot many radical on-going disagreements aboutwhat Philosophy is or issupposed to be ndash not somuch about Logic thoughEven without committing toa form of logical pluralism ndashor especially then ndash many may even agree about Logic beingin some sense normative However they disagree a lot aboutwhat the actual norms are and overall about what Logic reallyis At the end of the day paraphrasing Anandi Hattiangadiwe are not even able to provide an adequate account of whatwe disagree about when we disagree about logic (If you arecurious about logical disagreement and want to go through arecent overview go check out her chapter in C McHugh ndash JWay ndash D Whiting (eds) Metaepistemology Oxford 2018) Tocomplicate matters even further if we look back at those longcenturies between roughly Aristotlersquos time and the publicationof Fregersquos Begriffsschrift we find a bunch of folks claimingto be doing logic and debating about what that is as well aswhat itrsquos supposed to be At this point Logicrsquos fashion sense ison a different wavelength she appears draped in a regimentedversion of ordinary language and sometimes she goes a littleheavy on the ontology Yet she is still mainly about figur-ing out what follows validly from what she is conflicted aboutwhat counts as formal as well as what she should be doing withherself Overall traditional Logic is both recognisable enoughfor a modern reader to perceive her as something very muchlike a three-for-one deal combining Logic metalogic and phi-losophy logic or as what we would call reasoning at the veryleast But traditional Logic is also other and different enoughthat sometimes we donrsquot really grasp whatrsquos going on and haveno idea about what to make of it Many historians of medievallogic in particular are quite convinced that the object of theirstudies is not logic at all but something else entirely that hap-pens to be ldquologicrdquo in a merely equivocal sense ndash see for ex-ample Laurent Cessalirsquos ldquoWhat is Medieval Logic After AllTowards a Scientific Use of Natural Languagerdquo and rdquoPostscriptMedieval Logic as Sprachphilosophierdquo in Bulletin de Philoso-phie Medievale 52 (2010) respectively p 49-53 and 117-132Personally I think that there are several historical and philo-sophical reasons to be weary of this kind of approach ndash butthis is a topic for another issue Overall I much prefer PaulVincent Spadersquos way of framing the problem (paraphrasing)ldquoThey called it logic and they were there firstrdquo Taking theself-proclaimed logicians of the past seriously ndash at least insofar

as they claim to be logicians ndash we might actually try to asseswhether Logic is neither as young as she is often made out tobe nor a series of identity thieves stealing one name to carry onvery different lives Over the course of her long existence Phi-losophy has had a few drastic makeovers but has remained ndash forthe most part ndash recognisable in her evolution without any harshbreaks in continuity While it would be unwarranted to claimthat Logic has simply put on a fancy new dress embroideredwith mathematical symbolism she might have gone througha more radical and extreme version of the process Philosophywent through with some breaks in continuity to the point thatshe doesnrsquot look like herself anymore but rather like a distantcousin Who knows maybe reconstructing the details of whatLogic was and her changes over time could help us deal withour own disagreements and figure out what else Logic could beIt would probably still be better than holding onto the convic-tion that Logic is eternal ldquoif logic is eternal then it can waitrdquo(attributed to Oliver Heaviside) but a lady should never be leftwaiting

Graziana CiolaUCLA

Evidence-Based MedicineIn my first whatrsquos hot column exactly a year ago I wrote aboutthe severe 2017-18 flu season one which saw a four-fold in-crease in visits to GPs I also wrote about the effectivenessof flu vaccines and the reasons for why we see variable ef-fectiveness year by year In celebration of my The Reasoneranniversary I return this month to consider the flu the severityof the 2018-19 season and the success of the monitoring andvaccination programme

In contrast to last year the UK flu season has not seen asmany cases Visits to GPs are down on last year Howeverhospitalisations due to the flu have hit similar levels meaninga greater proportion of those who do contract the flu are gettingvery sick This has been confirmed by observations of clini-cians in intensive care units - this year the flu itself seems tobe very severe As a reminder the reason why we see limitedeffectiveness of vaccines and differences in severity of out-breaks year on year is that different strains of influenza virusare circulating and doing so in different proportions year onyear These strains differ in the version of Haemagluttinin (H)or Neuroaminidase (N) protein it has on itrsquos surface hence thefamiliar description of a yearly flu virus as H1N1 H2N2 H3N2etc Vaccines must match the composition of the virus for it tobe effective To achieve this matching the WHO maintains yearlong monitoring of what strains are prevalent As the north-ern and southern hemisphere experience flu season at differenttimes of the year if a new strain becomes prevalent during onehemispherersquos season it can be predicted whether it will becomeprevalent in the other hemisphere This monitoring programmealso uses evidence from virology and genetics to help predictwhat sort of changes in strain composition can be expectedThis synthesis of different kinds of evidence is vital to securethe success of vaccination programmes but is not always suc-cessful Last year the severity of the outbreak was partly at-tributed to not completely matching the strains present duringthe outbreak

Is that the case this year It does not appear to be so Theinfluenza strains predicted to be present in the greatest propor-tions were H1N1pdm09 and H2N3 which have been observed

22

in 72 and 28 of cases respectively Those who have beenvaccinated have a high likelihood of beating the flu Of coursevaccination is not recommended for everyone rather it is re-ocmmended for those most vulnerable to infection - the oldand young the immunocompromised and health workers Butif the vaccination is successful for those people then it is lesslikely that the virus will enter into the wider population Thispredictive success may explain why less people are visiting theGP for the flu So why has the outbreak been so severe for thosewho have caught the virus This can be explained by the partic-ular kinds of strains that have been predominant H1N1pdm09is more commonly known as swine flu - anyone old enough toremember all the way back to 2009 will remember what sort ofscare this kind of flu caused H2N3 is a kind of avian flu Bothswine and avian flu are dangerous as they are recent zoonotictransfers - the virus has mutated sufficiently to be able to crossover from its typical host animal into humans Such transfersare typically associated with an increase in virulence over thestrains that exist normally in humans It should be noted thatthe kind of avian flu presently circulating is not what has beentermed lsquobird flursquo in the popular press Bird flu is H1N5 andpresents a kind of influenza strain not present yet in humansbut comes with promises of extreme virulence if it does crossover So even though the strains in the vaccines match thosein the population quite well if one is unlucky enough to catchthe flu it will be a particularly virulent strain Flu vaccineseven when well matched are never completely effective for anumber of reasons But the nuances of this years flu season dohighlight quite well the importance of both continuing to vacci-nate the most vulnerable and to use all the evidential resourcesavailable to us to predict what the next seasonrsquos strain will beIf we had not matched the vaccines this year a lot more peoplewould be exposed to these virulent viruses and we would haveobserved an increase in number of cases alongside the severityof each case - a mix of epidemic proportions

DJ Auker-HowlettPhilosophy Kent

Events

March

IQM Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Old and New Philo-sophical Problems Politecnico di Milano Italy 11 MarchPhiMet Workshop on Philosophical Methodology Barcelona14ndash15 MarchArgMap Argument Mapping Nova University of Lisbon 15ndash18 MarchBCF Beyond Curve Fitting Causation Counterfactuals andImagination-based AI Stanford California 25ndash27 MarchPTS3 Proof-Theoretic Semantics Assessment and Future Per-spectives Tbingen Germany 27ndash30 MarchM-S PoS Mid-South Philosophy of Science Network Lexing-ton Kentucky 29ndash30 March

April

LoE Workshop on Levels of Explanation University of Birm-ingham 3 AprilResLog Reasoning Argumentation and Logic in Natural Lan-guage Experiments and Models Ruhr University Bochum 3ndash5 AprilFormal Methods and Science in Philosophy III DubrovnikCroatia 11ndash13 April

MA Conference on Mathematical Ability Utrecht Univer-sity 17 April

May

TiPoB Recent Trends in the Philosophy of Biology BilkentUniversity 17ndash18 MayPPoMK Philosophical Perspectives on Medical KnowledgeUniversity of Genoa Italy 28 MayLogiDis Workshop on Logical Disagreements University ofBergen 28ndash29 May

Courses and Programmes

CoursesSSA Summer School on Argumentation Computational andLinguistic Perspectives on Argumentation Warsaw Poland 6ndash10 September

ProgrammesAPhil MAPhD in Analytic Philosophy University ofBarcelonaMaster Programme MA in Pure and Applied Logic Univer-sity of BarcelonaDoctoral Programme in Philosophy Language Mind andPractice Department of Philosophy University of ZurichSwitzerlandDoctoral Programme in Philosophy Department of Philoso-phy University of Milan ItalyLogiCS Joint doctoral program on Logical Methods in Com-puter Science TU Wien TU Graz and JKU Linz AustriaHPSM MA in the History and Philosophy of Science andMedicine Durham UniversityMaster Programme in Statistics University College Dublin

23

LoPhiSC Master in Logic Philosophy of Science and Epis-temology Pantheon-Sorbonne University (Paris 1) and Paris-Sorbonne University (Paris 4)Master Programme in Artificial Intelligence Radboud Uni-versity Nijmegen the NetherlandsMaster Programme Philosophy and Economics Institute ofPhilosophy University of BayreuthMA in Cognitive Science School of Politics InternationalStudies and Philosophy Queenrsquos University BelfastMA in Logic and the Philosophy ofMathematics Departmentof Philosophy University of BristolMA Programmes in Philosophy of Science University ofLeedsMA in Logic and Philosophy of Science Faculty of PhilosophyPhilosophy of Science and Study of Religion LMU MunichMA in Logic and Theory of Science Department of Logic ofthe Eotvos Lorand University Budapest HungaryMA in Metaphysics Language and Mind Department of Phi-losophy University of LiverpoolMA inMind Brain and Learning Westminster Institute of Ed-ucation Oxford Brookes UniversityMA in Philosophy by research Tilburg UniversityMA in Philosophy Science and Society TiLPS Tilburg Uni-versityMA in Philosophy of Biological and Cognitive Sciences De-partment of Philosophy University of BristolMA in Rhetoric School of Journalism Media and Communi-cation University of Central LancashireMA programmes in Philosophy of Language and Linguisticsand Philosophy of Mind and Psychology University of Birm-inghamMRes in Methods and Practices of Philosophical ResearchNorthern Institute of Philosophy University of AberdeenMSc in Applied Statistics Department of Economics Mathe-matics and Statistics Birkbeck University of LondonMSc in Applied Statistics and Datamining School of Mathe-matics and Statistics University of St AndrewsMSc in Artificial Intelligence Faculty of Engineering Uni-versity of LeedsMSc in Cognitiveamp Decision Sciences Psychology UniversityCollege LondonMSc in Cognitive Systems Language Learning and Reason-ing University of PotsdamMSc in Cognitive Science University of Osnabruck GermanyMSc in Cognitive PsychologyNeuropsychology School ofPsychology University of KentMSc in Logic Institute for Logic Language and ComputationUniversity of AmsterdamMSc in Mind Language amp Embodied Cognition School ofPhilosophy Psychology and Language Sciences University ofEdinburghMSc in Philosophy of Science Technology and Society Uni-versity of Twente The NetherlandsMRes in Cognitive Science and Humanities Language Com-munication and Organization Institute for Logic CognitionLanguage and Information University of the Basque Country(Donostia San Sebastian)OpenMind International School of Advanced Studies in Cog-nitive Sciences University of BucharestResearchMaster in Philosophy and Economics Erasmus Uni-versity Rotterdam The Netherlands

Jobs and Studentships

JobsPost doc in Climate Models Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholm deadline 11 MarchResearch Associate in Metaphysics of Science University ofBristol deadline 11 MarchPost doc in Methodology of Modal Modeling Royal Instituteof Technology Stockholm deadline 12 March

StudentshipsPhD in Causal Inference University of Sheffield deadline 1MarchPhD position in Philosophy of Science University of Sofiadeadline 31 March

24