Minimal logical teleology in artifacts and biology connects the two domains and frames mechanisms via epistemic circularity

The understanding of artifacts and biological phenomena has often influenced each other. This work argues that at the core of these epistemic bridges there are shared teleological notions and explanations manifested in analogies between artifacts and biological phenomena. To this end, I first propose a focus on the logical structure of minimal teleological explanations, which renders said epistemic bridges more evident than an ontological or metaphysical approach to teleology, and which can be used to describe scientific practices in different areas by virtue of formal generality and minimalism (section 2). Second, I show how this approach highlights some epistemic features shared by the understanding of artifacts and biological phenomena, like a specific kind of epistemic circularity, and how functional analogies between artifacts and biological phenomena translate such epistemic circularity from one domain to the other (section 3). Third, I conduct a case study on the scientific practice around the brain's "compass", showing how the understanding of artifacts influences purpose ascription and measurement, and frames mechanisms in biology, especially in areas where purpose ascription is most difficult, like cognitive neuroscience (sections 4 and 5).

Bottoms up: The Standard Model Effective Field Theory from a model perspective

Experiments in particle physics have hitherto failed to produce any significant evidence for the many explicit models of physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) that had been proposed over the past decades. As a result, physicists have increasingly turned to model-independent strategies as tools in searching for a wide range of possible BSM effects. In this paper, we describe the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SM-EFT) and analyse it in the context of the philosophical discussions about models, theories, and (bottom-up) effective field theories. We find that while the SM-EFT is a quantum field theory, assisting experimentalists in searching for deviations from the SM, in its general form it lacks some of the characteristic features of models. Those features only come into play if put in by hand or prompted by empirical evidence for deviations. Employing different philosophical approaches to models, we argue that the case study suggests not to take a view on models that is overly permissive because it blurs the lines between the different stages of the SM-EFT research strategies and glosses over particle physicists' motivations for undertaking this bottom-up approach in the first place. Looking at EFTs from the perspective of modelling does not require taking a stance on some specific brand of realism or taking sides in the debate between reduction and emergence into which EFTs have recently been embedded.

How thin rational choice theory explains choices

The critics of rational choice theory (RCT) frequently build on the contrast between so-called thick and thin applications of RCT to argue that thin RCT lacks the potential to explain the choices of real-world agents. In this paper, I draw on often-cited RCT applications in several decision sciences to demonstrate that despite this prominent critique there are at least two different senses in which thin RCT can explain real-world agents' choices. I then defend this thesis against the most influential objections put forward by the critics of RCT. In doing so, I explicate the implications of my thesis for the ongoing philosophical debate concerning the explanatory potential of RCT and the comparative merits of widely endorsed accounts of explanation.

Transfer and templates in scientific modelling

The notion of template has been advocated by Paul Humphreys and others as an illuminating unit of analysis in the philosophy of scientific modelling. Templates are supposed to have the dual functions of representing target systems and of facilitating quantitative manipulation. A resulting worry is that wide-ranging cross-disciplinary use of templates might compromise their representational function and reduce them to mere formalisms. In this paper, we argue that templates are valuable units of analysis in reconstructing cross-disciplinary modelling. Central to our discussion are the ways in which Lotka-Volterra models are used to analyse processes of technology diffusion. We illuminate both the similarities and differences between contributions to this case of cross-disciplinary modelling by reconstructing them as transfer of a template, without reducing the template to a mere formalism or a computational model. This requires differentiating the interpretation of templates from that of the models based on them. This differentiation allows us to claim that the LV models of technology diffusion that we review are the result of template transfer - conformist in some contributions, creative in others.