Brad Weslake (NYU-Shanghai) will be giving a talk entitled “Selection, Drift, and Non-Causal Explanation” on Friday, November 7th. The talk will be held from 4:00-6:00pm in Waverly 566B, 24 Waverly Place** (NYU). The abstract for his talk is below. Hope to see you all there!
“Selection, Drift, and Non-Causal Explanation”
Brad Weslake, NYU-Shanghai
Marc Lange has recently argued that selection explanations are causal and drift explanations are non-causal. I argue that the reasons Lange gives for the claim that drift explanations are non-causal also entail that a certain class of selection explanations are non-causal. I then evaluate Lange’s account of the distinction between causal and non-causal explanations, and argue that we should recognise a class of explanations that are partly causal and partly non-causal, in a sense I will describe.
There will be a dinner after the talk. If you are interested, please email nyphilsci@gmail.com as soon as possible so that I can make the reservation for the appropriate number of people (please note that only the speaker’s dinner will be covered). If you have any other questions, please email nyphilsci@gmail.com.
Relativity, Causality and Natural Selection
In this talk I’ll present an alternative causal structure for biological evolution. First the causalist and statisticalist perspectives on evolutionary fitness are analyzed, finding them to implicitly depend on each other, and hence cannot be individually fundamental. I argue that this can be seen as an instance of a relativistic perspective over evolutionary phenomena and, therefore, insoluble. New accounts of fitness, the struggle for life, and Natural Selection are developed under this interpretation. This biological relativism is unique in that it draws from General Relativity in physics, unlike previous theories that drew upon statistical mechanics or Newtonian dynamics. Some consequences of this relativism, like a mathematical law of evolutionary change, as well as new theoretical biological concepts to underpin it, are discussed. The law and theory are then applied to give examples of how cannon and problems within evolutionary theory and biology can be understood using these new methods.
…
People from outside NYU: if this is your *first* time coming to the seminar, let them know so we can make sure you will have access to the building.
*~*~* Beer is $2. Bring CHANGE *~*~*
Spirituality After Darwin: ‘Dark Green’ Nature Religion and the Future of Religion and Nature
New Religions come and go but some persist and become major global forces. In this presentation, Professor Taylor presents evidence that, especially since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, a new, global, earth religion has been rapidly spreading around the world. Whether it involves conventional religious beliefs in non-material divine beings, or is entirely naturalistic and involves no such beliefs, it considers nature to be sacred, imbued with intrinsic value, and worthy of reverent care. Those having affinity with such spirituality generally have strong feelings of belonging to nature, express kinship with non-human organisms, and understand the world to be deeply interconnected.
In a recent book, Taylor labeled such phenomena ‘dark green religion’, noting that its central ethical priority is to defend the earth’s biocultural diversity. Taylor provides a wide variety of examples of new forms of religious (and religion-resembling) cultural innovation among those promoting such nature spirituality, from individuals (including artists, scientists, filmmakers, photographers, surfers, and environmental activists), to institutions (including museums, schools, and the United Nations). By tracking these, Taylor provides an opportunity to consider what such spirituality may portend for the religious and planetary future.
Bron Taylor is Professor of Religion, Nature, and Environmental Ethics at the University of Florida. His research involves both ethnographic and historical methods, and much of it focuses on grassroots environmental movements, their emotional, spiritual, and moral spiritual dimensions, and their environmental, cultural, and political impacts.
This event is sponsored by the India China Institute at The New School.
Refreshments will be provided. Seating is limited – please RSVP here
Louise Hanson (Cambridge) “The Real Problem with Evolutionary Debunking Arguments”
Monday February 1st, 1pm Location: 5 Washington Place, Room 202
http://nyip.as.nyu.edu/page/public-events
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/2016.02.01.Hanson
Tentative Schedule for MAPS, 2016 Spring (more details soon):
Aprili 12. 4:30-6:30pm @ NYU. Laura Franklin-Hall (NYU). Topic: TBA.
Apr 26. 4:30-6:30pm @ NYU Silver 621. Lev Vaidman (Tel Aviv). Topic: Many-Worlds QM.
May 10. 3:00-6:30pm @ NYU. Mini Workshop on Philosophy of Physics: (1) Elizabeth Miller (Yale) & Ned Hall (Harvard), and (2) Angelo Bassi (Trieste). Topics: TBA.
Abstract: Organisms physically transform their environments in ways that affect their downstream evolution. The importance of this fact has been a topic in recent debates in and around evolutionary biology. I’ll discuss this theme in a general way and then extend it. A subset of “niche construction” phenomena work by way of the perceptual, cognitive, and agential properties of organisms. These cases have distinctive features seen on several scales. I’ll look at these in relation to both the large-scale history of life and attempts to give a materialist account of the place of mind in nature.
There will be a dinner after the talk. If you are interested, please send an email with “Dinner” in the heading to nyphilsci@gmail.com (please note that all faculty and grad students are welcome, but only the speaker’s dinner will be covered). If you have any other questions, please email eddy.chen@rutgers.edu
Presented by Metro Area Philosophy of Science Presents
Peter Godfrey-Smith (CUNY Graduate Center)
Title: The Subject as Cause and Effect of Evolution
Abstract: The theory of evolution has evolved, so to speak, a number of times since Darwin and Wallace proposed the original version back in 1858. In this talk, I will explore some of those changes and focus on current proposals to develop a new version of the theory, known as the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. I will also try to address the question of whether these new developments amount to an example of what philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a “paradigm shift” within the biological sciences.
Reception to follow the talk, please join us! There will also be dinner after the reception. If you are interested, please send an email with “Dinner” in the heading to nyphilsci@gmail.com (please note that all are welcome, but only the speaker’s dinner will be covered). If you have any other questions, please email eddy.chen@rutgers.edu
===============================================================
More Upcoming MAPS Talks:
(1) 4:30-6:30 PM Tuesday February 28 at NYU.
Matt Stanley. (Author of Huxley’s Church and Maxwell’s Demon: from Theistic Science to Naturalistic Science, University of Chicago Press);
“The Uniformity of Natural Laws: A Historical Perspective from Victorian Britain”
(2) Jesse Prinz (CUNY). Title TBA. Time TBA.
(3) Alyssa Ney (UC Davis). Title TBA. 4:30-6:30 PM Tuesday May 2 at Columbia.
In a recent dialogue with Sara Ahmed published in Sexualities, Judith Butler had the opportunity to reflect on the reception of Gender Trouble among academic philosophers at the time of its original publication. Describing herself as having attempted to write a book on the “philosophical foundations of gender,” Butler recalls how, in the name of disciplinary purity, philosophy departments at the time dismissed the writings of what would come to be called “queer theory” as non-philosophical. Following Butler, one might say that throughout its history queer theory has been disavowed in both the practice and institutions of philosophy—not unlike the non-normative bodies, genders and sexualities for which it has sought to account, queer theory has often been said to be incoherent, illegible and unintelligible. Nevertheless, as Butler observes, this disavowal also had at least one fortuitous consequence: many queer theorists, having been trained in departments of philosophy or philosophical traditions, but denied the institutional recognition of the titles “philosopher” and “philosophy,” were forced to develop interdisciplinary forms of solidarity, fashioning intellectual identities and traditions of thought that would have been otherwise impossible. Faced with what Butler describes as a kind of “disciplinary power or cruelty in academic life,” one might say that queer theory was forged from the fire of this ambivalent relation-without-relation to what has been called “philosophy.”
Given this state of affairs, while it might be and often has been tempting to disengage queer theorizing from philosophy altogether, the premise of this conference is that what distinguishes queer theory as a tradition for thinking non-normative sex and gender is the implicit claim that queer people have a certain right to philosophy, and that to insist on this right is to insist on the critique and transformation of the practice and institutions of philosophy. In this spirit, the organizers of this conference hope to facilitate a series of conversations surrounding the following questions: What philosophical traditions and resources have made queer theorizing possible? What sorts of blindnesses have characterized the philosophical foundations of queer theory? What new forms of solidarity might be forged among queer theory and other bodies of knowledge on the margins of philosophy (transgender studies, disability studies, the philosophy of race, etc.) What, if anything, should queer people expect from philosophy? Is it possible today (and if so, what does it mean) to be a queer philosopher?
In posing these questions, we hope to not only encourage the submission of papers that will further scholarly reflection on those traditions of philosophy germane to queer theory, but also to provide a space for students, activists, and scholars to critically reflect on the academic institutions in which they (do or do not) find themselves. Needless to say, submissions are encouraged from a diverse array of disciplinary and institutional affiliations.
==========
We invite the submission of papers no longer than 3,000 words prepared for a 20-25 minute presentation. Papers should be submitted as .pdf files and formatted for blind review. Please include as a separate document a cover letter including your name, paper title, institution and contact information.
Submissions should be sent to futuresofqueertheory@gmail.com by January 31, 2017
Possible Topics:
Queer phenomenology
The ethics of queer theory
Queer theory and the philosophy of race
Queer theory and intersectional feminism
Deconstruction and queer theory
Speech act theory and queer theory
Queer theory and disability studies
Queer thought and Black Lives Matter
The teaching of queer theory
The status of queers in philosophy
De-subjugated knowledge
Queer theory outside academia
The place of experience in queer theory
Philosophy, science, and queer theory
Queer theory in relation to postcolonial and decolonial theory
Queer theory and transgender studies
Queer theory and Marxism
Queer theory and French Feminism
Columbia Fall 2018 Colloquium Series
Laura Franklin-Hall (New York University)
Reception to follow
Thursday, November 15th, 2018
Simona Aimar (UCL)
Title: TBA
4:10 PM – 6:00 PM, 716 Philosophy Hall
Reception to follow
When we’re asked to give examples of philosophical questions, we’re likely to think of questions that are very, very old. Is the physical world all there is? How should I live? How do we know what we know? But some philosophical problems are quite new, made possible or urgent by new developments in science and culture. These are often the most exciting problems to think through.
On March 7th at 7:30 PM, Derek Skillings joins Brooklyn Public Philosophers to share his work on the philosophical consequences of the fact that we are holobionts – biological units composed of hosts and their associated swarms of microorganisms. If you’re interested in health, the problem of personal identity, the philosophy of biology in general, or the philosophical consequences of the fact that we’re made up of a bunch of little things which are themselves alive in particular, you’ll want to check this one out. Here’s the abstract:
“I, holobiont. Are you and your microbes a community or a single entity?”
You are a holobiont – a biological unit made up of a host and its associated microbiome (bacteria, protists, viruses and other microscopic entities). What consequences does this have for how we understand ourselves and other similar organisms? What are our spatial and temporal boundaries, and what does it mean to be a healthy holobiont? In this talk I will look at some alternatives for making sense of both holobiont individuality and “healthy holobiont/microbiome” talk. I will argue that existing accounts of human health are not appropriate for microbiomes, and that notions of ecosystem health face similar shortcomings. I will end by looking at some possibilities for understanding overall host health given the importance and ubiquity of microbiomes.
As usual, we meet at the Dweck Center at the Grand Army Plaza branch of the Brooklyn Public Library. Here’s the Facebook event! Tell everyone, please!