Ideals of Unity
Scientists often favour theories that unify a greater range of phenomena by means of a smaller set of principles. More generally, we often prefer explanations that elucidate apparently diverse matters of fact by reference to a common theoretical foundation. And yet probing into the details of explanations in the special sciences – for example, in biology, psychology or economics – yields a picture that looks anything but unified or simple: the special sciences appear to be many and diverse, differing in their objects of study as well as in their concepts and principles.
As part of this project, I examine whether the demand for unity can be justified in the face of the apparent disunity of the sciences. I ask what a justifiable conception of unity would look like, and how such a conception would relate to competing accounts of reductionism and pluralism. By assessing a common but controversial assumption, I explore the nature and value of the ideal of unity for scientific research and, more generally, for our understanding of the phenomena around us.
The project was supported by a Pro Futura Sciential Fellowship, affiliated with CRASSH at the University of Cambridge and the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in Uppsala, where I spent the academic year 2016-2017. During the period of the fellowship, I led an international research network on Conceptions of Unity in German Philosophy, funded by the German DAAD.
Publications related to this research include my ‘Laws and Ideal Unity’ (2018) and ‘Pluralism and the Unity of Science’ (2017, with Yoon Choi). See publications.
As part of this project, I examine whether the demand for unity can be justified in the face of the apparent disunity of the sciences. I ask what a justifiable conception of unity would look like, and how such a conception would relate to competing accounts of reductionism and pluralism. By assessing a common but controversial assumption, I explore the nature and value of the ideal of unity for scientific research and, more generally, for our understanding of the phenomena around us.
The project was supported by a Pro Futura Sciential Fellowship, affiliated with CRASSH at the University of Cambridge and the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in Uppsala, where I spent the academic year 2016-2017. During the period of the fellowship, I led an international research network on Conceptions of Unity in German Philosophy, funded by the German DAAD.
Publications related to this research include my ‘Laws and Ideal Unity’ (2018) and ‘Pluralism and the Unity of Science’ (2017, with Yoon Choi). See publications.
Beauty in Science
Many of the greatest natural philosophers and scientists have attached central importance to the aesthetic merit of their proofs and theories. Key figures – ranging in physics from Kepler to Dirac, Einstein, Weyl and Heisenberg, and in biology from Darwin to Watson, Crick and Franklin – were explicitly concerned with the beauty and elegance of their science. Some even went so far as to regard satisfaction of aesthetic criteria as indicative of the truth of scientific theories. This raises a number of difficult questions: How should we understand judgments about the beauty of scientific theories? What bearing do such judgments have on the truth of these theories? What, more generally, is the relationship of aesthetic judgments to knowledge and truth?
I worked on these questions as a Leverhulme Research Fellow (2013-2015) by exploring an alternative to both traditional metaphysical accounts that link beauty and truth and prevailing contemporary conceptions that construe this link as purely contingent. I spelt out a Kantian notion of aesthetic appreciation associated with our contemplating and understanding the results of science. In particular, I argued that it is our intellectual engagement with the claims of science, in formulating and representing them, that elicits in us an experience of aesthetic pleasure. And I suggested that focussing on the aesthetics of science may offer an indirect, heuristic guide in the search for theories that furnish understanding of the world.
As part of this research, I co-organised a conference on Aesthetics in Mathematics funded by a British Society of Aesthetics Connections Grant. The conference brought together specialists in aesthetics, the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of science to think about beauty in maths and the mathematical sciences.
Publications related to this research are my 'One Imagination in Experiences of Beauty and Achievements of Understanding' (2020), 'The Beauty of Science without the Science of Beauty' (2018), 'Beauty in Proofs: Kant on Aesthetics in Mathematics’ (2015), and ‘Aesthetics in Science: A Kantian Proposal’ (2013). With Davide Rizza I have co-edited a special issue of Philosophia Mathematica on Aesthetics in Mathematics (2018). See publications for more details.
You can listen to my talk on this subject at the Aristotelian Society here, and watch a video of a related lecture at the University of Bonn here. I also gave this TedX talk at the University of the Arts London.
I worked on these questions as a Leverhulme Research Fellow (2013-2015) by exploring an alternative to both traditional metaphysical accounts that link beauty and truth and prevailing contemporary conceptions that construe this link as purely contingent. I spelt out a Kantian notion of aesthetic appreciation associated with our contemplating and understanding the results of science. In particular, I argued that it is our intellectual engagement with the claims of science, in formulating and representing them, that elicits in us an experience of aesthetic pleasure. And I suggested that focussing on the aesthetics of science may offer an indirect, heuristic guide in the search for theories that furnish understanding of the world.
As part of this research, I co-organised a conference on Aesthetics in Mathematics funded by a British Society of Aesthetics Connections Grant. The conference brought together specialists in aesthetics, the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of science to think about beauty in maths and the mathematical sciences.
Publications related to this research are my 'One Imagination in Experiences of Beauty and Achievements of Understanding' (2020), 'The Beauty of Science without the Science of Beauty' (2018), 'Beauty in Proofs: Kant on Aesthetics in Mathematics’ (2015), and ‘Aesthetics in Science: A Kantian Proposal’ (2013). With Davide Rizza I have co-edited a special issue of Philosophia Mathematica on Aesthetics in Mathematics (2018). See publications for more details.
You can listen to my talk on this subject at the Aristotelian Society here, and watch a video of a related lecture at the University of Bonn here. I also gave this TedX talk at the University of the Arts London.
Kant and the Laws of Nature – Leverhulme International Network
What is the origin and nature of laws in physics and biology? In the eighteenth century, Kant answered this question by drawing on the physical and life sciences of his time. Kant argued that the laws of nature were, in part, the result of our mind ‘projecting’ an order onto nature.
The Leverhulme International Network (2012-2015) brought together partners from eight national and international institutions and provided an interdisciplinary platform for the investigation of three key research questions. They concerned (i) the nature of laws (e.g. to what extent can they be ‘read off’ from nature, as opposed to being ‘projected’ onto it by the human mind?); (ii) their role in scientific explanation (e.g. was Kant right in thinking that the laws of Newtonian mechanics play a constitutive or foundational role in the explanation of planetary motions, yet wrong in providing a priori grounding for them?); and (iii) the possible unification of physical and life sciences (e.g. can the laws of physics, with their apparent necessity and determinism, be reconciled with the laws of biology, characterised by teleological considerations about living organisms?).
The network partners were Michela Massimi (PI, Edinburgh), Angela Breitenbach (Cambridge), Michael Friedman (Stanford), Frank James (Royal Institution), Anja Jauernig (NYU), Peter McLaughlin (Heidelberg), Eric Watkins (UCSD), and Catherine Wilson (York/CUNY).
A collection of essays on Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Michela Massimi and me has appeared with Cambridge University Press (2017). My paper 'Laws in Biology and the Unity of Nature' appeared in this volume. Michela and I were also guest editors for a special issue of The Monist on 'Laws of Nature: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives' (2017). See publications for details.
The Leverhulme International Network (2012-2015) brought together partners from eight national and international institutions and provided an interdisciplinary platform for the investigation of three key research questions. They concerned (i) the nature of laws (e.g. to what extent can they be ‘read off’ from nature, as opposed to being ‘projected’ onto it by the human mind?); (ii) their role in scientific explanation (e.g. was Kant right in thinking that the laws of Newtonian mechanics play a constitutive or foundational role in the explanation of planetary motions, yet wrong in providing a priori grounding for them?); and (iii) the possible unification of physical and life sciences (e.g. can the laws of physics, with their apparent necessity and determinism, be reconciled with the laws of biology, characterised by teleological considerations about living organisms?).
The network partners were Michela Massimi (PI, Edinburgh), Angela Breitenbach (Cambridge), Michael Friedman (Stanford), Frank James (Royal Institution), Anja Jauernig (NYU), Peter McLaughlin (Heidelberg), Eric Watkins (UCSD), and Catherine Wilson (York/CUNY).
A collection of essays on Kant and the Laws of Nature, edited by Michela Massimi and me has appeared with Cambridge University Press (2017). My paper 'Laws in Biology and the Unity of Nature' appeared in this volume. Michela and I were also guest editors for a special issue of The Monist on 'Laws of Nature: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives' (2017). See publications for details.
