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

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-transcriptRelated linksProfile: Professor Gregory Radick | University of LeedsWebsite: Gregory Radick | Personal SiteBook: 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 - AboutResearch - Dan Hicks - ResearchDiscussion - Dan Hicks - philosophy of science, data science, environmental policyRelevant Article - Dan Hicks - Misinformation and trustworthiness: Frenemies in the analysis of public scientific controversiesOther links related to the episode:The Dialectical Biologist | Levins & Lewontin'Sheepfarming after Chernobyl' | Brian WynneImpure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge | Steven EpsteinMerchants 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-transcriptThanks 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 CambridgeBook - A Philosophy for the Science of Well-Being | Oxford Academic (oup.com)Current work - The Many Dimensions of Wellbeing - Bennett Institute for Public PolicyMedia - Interviews and popular writings The transcript for this episode can be found at: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-ep3-anna-alexandrova-transcriptThanks 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 listenCausation and death - ABC listenWhat can genes tell us? - ABC listenOther 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 ExplanationPeter 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: 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 | MPIWGPeter Harrison | University of QueenslandTranscript: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 linksStephen 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 EpisodeTranscriptwww.hpsunimelb.org/post/s3-samara-and-carmelina-transcriptThanks 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

Mauricio Suárez discusses his new book on scientific models and representation, exploring the practical use and valuable inferences enabled by effective models. He defends an inferential conception of representation and explores the connections between scientific representation and aesthetics in philosophy of art. The episode concludes with the speaker's excitement for the book launch and gratitude for the interview.

The hosts reflect on their experience at the AAHPSSS conference, highlighting the inclusive atmosphere and standout talks on biology. They discuss various topics presented at the conference, including history, philosophy, SDS, and technology. Speakers explore mental health law, the vagus nerve, neurodivergence, and disability. Jules Rankin presents on the philosophy of time, and interviewees share their thoughts and reflections on the conference.

"We get this instinct that true science must start from a firm foundation. Time and again, that's what I see NOT happening in the practice of science. We start from where we stand. The foundation is never indubitable, the foundation is provisional."Our very special guest today is Hasok Chang. Hasok is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge and his research focuses on 'taking the most obvious items of scientific knowledge and asking how we came to know such things. Usually, such a line of questioning reveals that even the most mundane piece of knowledge was hard won through the most challenging and fascinating investigations and debates.'As well as being well know for his books, Inventing Temperature, Is Water H2O?, Realism for Realistic People, and his upcoming work How does a Battery Work? Hasok has taken a leading role in HPS, as both a founding member of the Committee for Integrated HPS and the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice. In today’s episode we discuss Hasok’s notion of ‘Epistemic Iteration’ – the idea that we do not start our inquiries from a solid foundation, but rather begin from an imperfect position and then use the outcomes of our inquiry to refine and correct that original starting point. Transcript of the episode available here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/hasok-chang-transcript-s2-ep-11Resources related to the episode:Society for the Philosophy of Science in PracticeThe Committee for Integrated History and Philosophy of ScienceInventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress | Oxford AcademicIs Water H2O?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism | SpringerLinkRealism for Realistic People | Cambridge'Epistemic iteration and natural kinds: Realism and pluralism in taxonomy' Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness | Oxford Academic'The Rising of Chemical Natural Kinds through Epistemic Iteration' Natural Kinds and Classification in Scientific Practice 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

"Philosophers of science are really good about thinking about causation and trying to figure out what the mechanisms are that make something work"Today we welcome Katherine Furman, who talks to Indi about the philosophy of public health. Katherine is a lecturer of Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the University of Liverpool. She is currently on research leave to work with the SOCRATES project in Hanover, Germany.Katherine explores with us the intricacies of implementing public health measures in the face of epidemics. When there is resistance to these programs, the cause is rarely as simple as an information deficit. Katherine draws on her South African background in her focus on the South African AIDS epidemic and how various case studies of rejection of public health programs may be applicable to the wider philosophy of science. Transcript of the episode available here: https://www.hpsunimelb.org/post/katherine-furman-transcript-s2-e10 Resources related to the episode:Katherine's Website: https://katherinefurman.com/SOCRATES Centre: https://www.socrates.uni-hannover.de/en/ Maya Goldenberg's Book: Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on ScienceBenjamin Black's Book: Belly Woman: Birth, Blood & Ebola - the Untold StoryArticle on Ebola: Ebola: failures, flashpoints and focus | | Africa at LSEJonny Steinberg's Book: Three Letter PlagueHeidi Larson's Book: Stuck: How Vaccine Rumors Start - and Why They Don't Go AwayThanks 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