Thursday March 14 at 16:00 in the Sala de Juntas. The talk will be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Philosophers of science have grown increasingly worried about the field’s lost opportunities to make an impact in science and society. Many believe that the field’s institutionalization in the mid-twentieth century sidelined social concerns as irrelevant to philosophical theorization about science. This led to a focus on internal debates over philosophical notions within science. To address this, many have advocated for a philosophy of science that is engaged and relevant to both science and society. This is a pressing issue, as the field’s funding from public governments may depend on its ability to make an impact. However, developing an engaged and relevant philosophy of science should force philosophers to ask two interrelated questions. Firstly, what is the methodology of those philosophical projects? In other words, how should they be done? Lastly, what differentiates engaged and relevant philosophy of science projects from other approaches to philosophy of science?

In this seminar, I will address the relationship between both questions. I will first focus on providing an answer to the second question by analyzing engaged and relevant philosophy of science projects and theories via the notion of normativity. The notion of normativity is present in philosophy of science theories when gathering evidence, analyzing/interpreting, and making evaluations/prescriptions about elements of science. Marie Kaiser has recently argued that ‘philosophy of science in practice’ approaches, which rely on scientific evidence for philosophical theorizing, differ from ‘ex-cathedra’ philosophy of science, which proceeds without considering scientific evidence. The differences are made clear by shifts in their normativity about gathering evidence and making evaluative/prescriptive statements about science. I will show that engaged and relevant projects in philosophy of science also present changes in their normativity regarding similar topics. Those changes in normativity help to conform a general methodology for those kinds of projects. Furthermore, I will consider how these normative shifts, which shape the overall methodology of philosophy of science, are influenced by meta-normative considerations regarding the role of philosophy and of the philosophers.

Thursday February 29 at 18:00 in Centro Carlos Santamaria (room to be announced). The talk will be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

ABSTRACT Free-living microorganisms typically display a wide range of physiological and behavioral features, inhabiting very diverse environments where spontaneous mutations and strong selective pressure make rapid adaptation possible. The coexistence of different species and their interactions provide microbial populations with a great variety of properties and functions, broadening the space of possible phenotypes. Nevertheless, biological diversity can also be observed in less open conditions, where populations of genetically similar individuals thrive in much more homogeneous microenvironments, and still demonstrate a surprisingly high phenotypic variability. This phenomenon reflects the importance of individuality within a collective/multicellular context and has been extensively observed in different species and organizational contexts — not only in artificially cultured bacteria but also in more complex cases, like cancer cells grown in tissue. Microbial phenotypic heterogeneity manifests in different ways, including morphological changes, macromolecular composition, different growth rates, reproductive strategies, motility mechanisms or specific metabolic signatures. So far, analyses performed to study this variability have mostly focused on cell growth rates, which are not sufficient to develop a satisfactory (minimally comprehensive) interpretation of phenotypic heterogeneity.
My PhD project, which I will briefly introduce in this session, focuses on the theoretical modelling of microbial metabolisms, with the aim to compensate for this deficit: i.e., expanding the study of phenotypic diversity beyond growth rates, to include the choice of specific metabolic regimes (derived from fluxomics data analysis), which is at the basis of most additional biological processes. On these lines, a preliminary ‘conceptual map’ will be presented, where we distinguish between metabolic plasticity and metabolic heterogeneity, as properties to be ascribed, respectively, to an individual organism and to the population, which may include cross-feeding (ecological) as well as kinship (phylogenetic) relationships. In this context, the distinction between potential and actual (ontogenic, or developmental) plasticity/heterogeneity will be made, as a bridge to connect the issue with the problem of evolvability. It is important to emphasize here that phenotypic heterogeneity is an evolutionary trait and can, in turn, shape the phylogenetic trajectories within a population. Therefore, one of the main aims of my work would be to correlate phenotypic diversity (understood specifically in terms of metabolic plasticity/heterogeneity) with ecological and evolutionary aspects. Through this “eco-evo-meta” perspective, we will try to contribute to a better understanding of the role of individual organisms in the emergence of population phenotypes and its evolutionary implications at the most fundamental biological level: the microbial world.

Thursday February 15 at 18:00 in Centro Carlos Santamaria room 4. The talk will
be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

ABSTRACT ES: Desde sus inicios, las técnicas de des-extinción han sido objeto de numerosos debates, entre ellos, el relativo a la terminología y formas de divulgación mediante las cuales estas se presentan. En 2016, un informe de evaluación de la IUCN advertía que la terminología utilizada resultaba engañosa, pues parecía prometer, en contraste con las capacidades reales de estas técnicas, la recuperación de especies extintas originales. A su vez, conservacionistas e investigadores críticos con la des-extinción, como Campagna et al. (2017), advertían de los peligros de la terminología y de la desinformación, ideas erróneas y expectativas irreales que podía suscitar. La investigación que llevamos a cabo participa en dicho debate y examina el impacto de la divulgación científica de la des-extinción y su terminología en el público lego, así como sobre los juicios e ideas que generan, destacando las implicaciones de estas en algunos de los temas que más preocupan a conservacionistas y expertos. Para ello, llevamos a cabo un experimento que contó con la participación de 200 sujetos divididos en 3 condiciones experimentales. Se diseñaron 3 textos susceptibles de ser comparados, uno para cada condición, entre los cuales la variable principal era la terminología utilizada. Algunos de los datos obtenidos indicaron (1)- que la terminología típicamente utilizada para presentar las técnicas de des-extinción tiende a desinformar a los sujetos e (2)- influir en el apoyo a la des-extinción; también descubrimos (3)- que existe un optimismo hipertrofiado sobre la des-extinción entre el público lego si comparamos sus opiniones con las de los expertos (Valdez et al., 2019). Finalmente, interpretamos los resultados obtenidos y sus implicaciones epistemológicas y planteamos las hipótesis por las que puedan discurrir futuras investigaciones.

ABSTRACT EN: Since their inception, de-extinction techniques have been the subject of much debate, including the terminology and forms of communication through which they are presented. In 2016, an IUCN report warned that the terminology used was misleading, as it seemed to promise, in contrast to the actual capabilities of these techniques, that the recovery of the original extinct species was possible. At the same time, some conservationists and researchers critical of de-extinction, as Campagna et al. (2017), warned of the dangers of this form of communication and the misinformation, misconceptions and unrealistic expectations it could lead to. The research we are carrying out engages in this debate and examines the impact of scientific communication about de-extinction and its terminology on the lay public, as well as on the judgements they generate, highlighting and examining its epistemological aspects. To this end, we conducted a survey in which 200 subjects were divided into 3 experimental conditions and required to read a text about de-extinction and then answer a questionnaire. We designed 3 similar texts, one for each condition, among which the principal variable was the terminology used. Some of the data obtained indicated (1)- that terminology typically used to present de-extinction techniques tends to misinform subjects and (2)- encourage support for de-extinction; we also found out (3)- that there is a hypertrophied optimism about de-extinction among the lay public if we compare their opinions with those of the experts (Valdez et al., 2019). We will present these results and analyze their epistemological consequences.

Thursday February 8 at 18:00 in Centro Carlos Santamaria room 5. The talk will be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: The idea that the languages we speak exert a differential influence on our cognition and behaviour, also known as the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, has experienced a remarkable resurgence in the last thirty years. There are compelling reasons to expect a theoretical convergence between these new findings and the enactive approach. However, some important theoretical obstacles remain. The argument explores these points of contact and divergence along the two premises into which linguistic relativity (LR) is usually divided: (a) the claim that language affects cognition and (b) the claim that the world’s languages differ in non-trivial ways. On the one hand, the enactive approach articulates an explicit theory of the first claim that goes beyond most contemporary research on LR, which remains highly tentative on this premise and anchored in classical cognitivist assumptions. On the other hand, the enactive approach is still to fully engage with the second claim of LR. Two difficulties are identified: the concept of ‘languaging’, central to post-cognitivist accounts of language, is in tension with the foundations of LR. At the same time, the bodily aspects of cognition have often been regarded as an antirelativistic constraint that seemingly diminishes the import of LR. Our proposal identifies the trade-offs required of both fields to further the interdisciplinary dialogue between them.

Thursday 18 January at 09:00. The event will be online. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Cognition stands as one of the most formidable challenges in scientific inquiry. Living organisms exhibit behaviour teetering on the precipice of chaos. The Free Energy Principle (FEP) has been proposed as a pertinent approach to apprehending cognition. Conventional discourse on the FEP characterises the brain as a predictive apparatus. Instead, I posit that while predictive coding is a valuable tool for deciphering the conduct of complex systems, living systems do not function as detached computational prognosticators. Given their dual status as operationally closed and open systems, they exist in a state of delicacy, fostering an unbroken and pivotal interplay with their surroundings. This state of affairs, amenable to scientific explication through the FEP, provides a nuanced understanding of cognition within living systems.

Thursday January 11 starting at 11:00 in Centro Carlos Santamaria room 5. The workshop will be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

The Free Energy Principle (FEP) and associated approaches such as predictive coding/processing and active inference have grown immensely in popularity in the last decade or so. With a grand unifying ambition, the FEP is said to underlie quantum and classical mechanics, biology, cognitive science, and sociology. But its statistical method and dense mathematics make the philosophical implications often difficult to follow for outsiders. To bring people up to speed on the basics, Thomas van Es and Miguel Aguilera will be presenting introductory materials.

11.00 – 13.00 Philosophical introduction to the FEP by Thomas van Es

13.00 – 15.00 lunch break

15.00 – 17.00 Critical examination of the mathematics of the FEP by Miguel Aguilera

Thursday 14 December at 17:30 in Centro Carlos Santamaría, room 3. The talk will be hybrid. If you want to participate, please contact amontf94@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Este seminario se adentra en la filosofía de la biología reproductiva, presentando un marco organísmico y relacional. Específicamente, se trata el concepto de rasgo reproductivo, discutiendo su relevancia para las ciencias biológicas, los criterios empleados para su individuación y las posibilidades epistémicas que permite. Se expone la conceptualización adaptacionista y funcional de los rasgos reproductivos, entendidas como estrategias reproductivas para incrementar el fitness, señalando algunas de sus problemas y limitaciones a la hora de clasificar y explicar la diversidad en la reproducción. Proponemos, después, el concepto de carácter reproductivo organísmico y relacional, que pone el foco en las relaciones y da cuenta de la dimensión material y de desarrollo al tiempo que integra una visión funcional y reconoce rasgos no meramente morfológicos. Se explora cómo estos caracteres están integrados y su interacción, no solo dentro de un organismo, sino entre organismos, brindando una comprensión más profunda de los procesos reproductivos y sus conexiones en la naturaleza. Finalmente se esbozan los aspectos operacionales de esta propuesta para clasificar y explicar la evolución de los rasgos reproductivos y se discute por qué esta aproximación no es reducible a las anteriormente presentadas.

Thursday 23 November at 17.30 in Room 1 of the Centro Carlos Santamaría The talk will be hybrid, to participate remotely please contact andrea.gambarotto@uclouvain.be

ABSTRACT:

En el campo de la psiquiatría parece haber un amplio acuerdo en defender la tesis según la cual, entre los años 1952 y 1954, con el descubrimiento del primer neuroléptico, la Clorpromazina, se iniciaría un proceso de radical transformación del saber psiquiátrico. En el año 1954, el laboratorio norte americano Smith, Kline & French (SK&F), hoy Glaxo Smith, compró la patente para comercializar esa droga en los Estados Unidos. Analizo la campaña publicitaria dirigida a las mujeres. La publicidad de esta potente droga psiquiátrica, a lo largo de las décadas de 1950 y 1960, permite entender la perspectiva de género existente en la industria farmacéutica y el papel de los neurolépticos en la gestión de la feminidad.

Thursday November 2nd, at 14:30 in Room 4 of the Centro Carlos Santamaría

The talk will be hybrid, to participate remotely please contact andrea.gambarotto@uclouvain.be

ABSTRACT: Cognition stands as one of the most formidable challenges in scientific inquiry. Living organisms exhibit behaviour teetering on the precipice of chaos. The Free Energy Principle (FEP) has been proposed as a pertinent approach to apprehending cognition. Conventional discourse on the FEP characterises the brain as a predictive apparatus. Instead, I posit that while predictive coding is a valuable tool for deciphering the conduct of complex systems, living systems do not function as detached computational prognosticators. Given their dual status as operationally closed and open systems, they exist in a state of delicacy, fostering an unbroken and pivotal interplay with their surroundings. This state of affairs, amenable to scientific explication through the FEP, provides a nuanced understanding of cognition within living systems.