New site

After a long time of hard work we can proudly present our new website. With lots of features like:

  • Event integration on Google Calendar
  • IAS-Research member blogs’ feed
  • Automatic integration of publications via Zotero (using the Zotpress plugin)
  • An intranet
  • User profiles
  • Featured content
  • An much more…

Powered by WordPress.org and all content copylefted.

New members into IAS-Research

We want to welcome new members of IAS-Research:

  • Miriam Kyselo, who will hold a postdoc position within the TESIS project working with Ezequiel Di Paolo
  • Omar García Zabaleta, who got a UPV/EHU predoc grant to work with Antonio Casado
  • Sara Murillo, who will hold a UPV/EHU predoc grant to work with Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo

 

XXII SIUCC (San Sebastián, 6-8/09/2012)XXII SIUCC (San Sebastián, 6-8/09/2012)XXII SIUCC (San Sebastián, 6-8/09/2012)

The IAS-Research Center for Life, Mind and Society and the Spanish Society for Analytic Philosophy (SEFA) invite submissions on any aspect of the work of the invited guest for the XXIIth edition of the SIUCC, Jesse Prinz, for presentations at the conference, to be held in San Sebastián on September, 6-8, 2012. Check out all the information about the event at http://siucc2012.ias-research.net.

Continue reading

PostDoc and Doctoral Scholarships

Postdoc and Doctoral Scholarships at the Leo Apostel Center for Interdisciplinary Studies.

The annual call for applications for a Post-Doctoral Fellowship or a Doctoral Scholarship at the Leo Apostel Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies (Brussels Free University, Belgium) has been released. It offers a broad range of research fields including constructivism. More information can be found on http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/apply/call.

Application deadline is 7 January 2012.

“Genotype-phenotype map models and evolution” IAS-Research Talk by Isaac Salazar-Ciudad

Dr. Isaac Salazar-Ciudad will give a talk entitled “Genotype-phenotype map models and evolution”.

Date and time: 10th of November, at 11:00,  Seminar room – Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science

Abstract: It is currently accepted in evolutionary theory that the relationship between genotypic and phenotypic variation is not simple and that that relationship has important consequences for our understanding of evolutionary dynamics. There are, however, highly divergent ways by which this relationship is conceptualized in the different fields within evolutionary biology. These are not mere details of how genetic interactions are implemented but lead to serious common biases and misconceptions that damper advancement in the field. Here I will briefly outline the bases of those problems in the fields of quantitative genetics, gene networks and evo-devo. These have to do with the idealization that adult phenotypic traits arise from individual genes without interaction and with the view that the simplest most ancestral genotype-phenotype maps had this kinds of relationship between individual genes and phenotypic traits. In some fields thus it is accepted that there is a complex relationship between genotype and phenotype but it is implicitly assumed that this arose as a by-product or nuisance from a simple genotype-phenotype map and that selection will ultimately lead back to simple maps again. I will also discuss how a similar kind of reasoning has also an influence in the field of the origins of life. 

 

“The Ethics of Randomized Clinical Trials: The Debate about “So-called Clinical Equipoise” and some underlying issues in philosophy of science” IAS-Research Talk by Fred Gifford

Prof Fred Gifford will give a talk entitled “The Ethics of Randomized Clinical Trials: The Debate about “So-called Clinical Equipoise” and some underlying issues in philosophy of science”.

Date and Venue: 4th of November 201, at 11:00, Seminar room – Dept of Logic and Philosophy of Science

Abstract: Benjamin Freedman’s proposal that we conceptualize the ethics of randomized clinical trials in terms of his concept of “clinical equipoise” has been extremely influential.  One goal of this presentation is to show how the “so-called clinical equipoise” position for justifying and regulating RCTs is in fact, despite its broad popularity, not viable.  Another goal is to indicate how the debate about that criterion connects up with various questions in the philosophy of science and medicine.  These include the nature of clinical judgment, the role of value judgments in science, and the significance of claims about the social nature of science.