Shields Nichols (clefflood3)

I show that using this method for the above purpose is problematic. I present two versions of the Argument from Coincidence Hacking's Coincidence and Cartwright's Reproducibility by which I analyse the EHT experiment. The same estimation of the mass of the black hole is reproduced in four different procedures. The EHT Collaboration concludes the value we have converged upon is robust. I analyse the mass measurements of the black hole with the help of Cartwright's notion of robustness. I show that the EHT Collaboration construe Coincidence/Reproducibility as Technological Agnosticism and I contrast this interpretation with van Fraassen's scientific agnosticism.Philosophical work on values in science is held back by widespread ambiguity about how values bear on scientific choices. Here, I disambiguate several ways in which a choice can be value-laden and show that this disambiguation has the potential to solve and dissolve philosophical problems about values in science. First, I characterize four ways in which values relate to choices values can motivate, justify, cause, or be impacted by the choices we make. Next, I put my proposed taxonomy to work, using it to clarify one version of the argument from inductive risk. The claim that non-epistemic values must play a role in scientific choices that run inductive risk makes most sense as a claim about values being needed to justify such choices. The argument from inductive risk is not unique many philosophical arguments about values in science can be more clearly understood and assessed by paying close attention to how values and choices are related.In this paper I consider the structures that chemists and physicists attribute at the molecular scale to substances and materials of various kinds, and how they relate to structures and processes at other scales. I argue that the structure of a substance is the set of properties and relations which are preserved across all the conditions in which it can be said to exist. In short, structure is abstraction. On the basis of this view, and using concrete examples, I argue that structures, and therefore the chemical substances and other materials to which they are essential, are emergent. Firstly, structures themselves are scale-dependent because they can only exist within certain physical conditions, and a single substance may have different structures at different scales (of length, time and energy). Secondly, the distinctness of both substances and structures is a scale-dependent relationship above a certain point, two distinct possibilities may become one. Thirdly, the necessary conditions for composition, for both substances and molecular species, are scale-dependent. To know whether a group of nuclei and electrons form a molecule it is not enough to consider energy alone one also has to know about their environment and the lifetime over which the group robustly hangs together.In this paper I will outline a worry that citizen science can promote a kind of transparency that is harmful. Selleck Torkinib I argue for the value of secrecy in citizen science. My argument will consist of analysis of a particular community (herpers), a particular citizen science platform (iNaturalist, drawing contrasts with other platforms), and my own travels in citizen science. I aim to avoid a simple distinction between science versus non-science, and instead analyze herping as a rich practice [MacIntyre, 2007]. Herping exemplifies citizen science as functioning simultaneously within and outside the sphere of science. I show that herpers have developed communal systems of transmitting and protecting knowledge. Ethical concerns about secrecy are inherently linked to these systems of knowledge. My over-arching aim is to urge caution in the drive to transparency, as the concepts of transparency and secrecy merit close scrutiny. The concerns I raise are complementary to those suggested by previous philosophical work, and (I argue) resist straightforward sol