Matt Haber

@profmatthaber.bsky.social

Philosopher of Biology @ University of Utah https://sites.google.com/view/matt-haber

Excited to share that "Common Ancestry, Contemporary Phylogenetics, and Process Ontology" is posted at Systematic Biology. @maureenmkearney.bsky.social and I argue that GCD Griffiths' process view of systematics provides a powerful foundation for contemporary systematics. doi.org/10.1093/sysb....

Common Ancestry, Contemporary Phylogenetics, and Process Ontology

Abstract. Recent advances in systematics and evolutionary biology have revealed extraordinary complexity in phylogenetic diversification, challenged our tr

academic.oup.com

"A Conventional View" is now online at B&P. We describe how pragmatic conventions help retain the utility of scientific tools when they outrun their theoretical and conceptual justifications, by unpacking what it means to treat higher taxonomic ranks as 'mere conventions'. doi.org/10.1007/s105...

A conventional view - Biology & Philosophy

A widely held view in biology is that higher Linnaean categories or ranks (genera, families, etc.) ought to be regarded as ‘mere conventions’. That is typically understood to mean that their utility and application stem from (relatively) recent conventions that have been adopted for their usage in biological classification. There are no underlying theories or robust ontological concepts of these higher ranks, in contrast to taxonomic groupings like species or populations (disputed as those underlying concepts or theories may be). Absent these conventions, the application of higher ranks are in important ways arbitrary, reflecting their lack of theoretical and conceptual grounding. Indeed, some taxonomists have argued that this lack of grounding justifies adopting rank-free taxonomies. Michael Devitt (2023a) challenges this entrenched view, calling it an exaggerated skepticism. Instead, he takes the continued use of higher Linnaean ranks as evidence that they reflect “minimal category concepts,” which do genuine theoretical and explanatory work by marking out a relative level of taxonomic hierarchy. We disagree. Here, we unpack what it means to treat Linnaean categories as mere conventions, arguing they are better understood as informational proxies for phylogenetic hierarchies. Yet, Devitt is right to focus on this case, as it provides an exemplar of how scientists retain the utility of scientific practices that outlive their underlying initial theoretical and conceptual justification. We conclude by offering an alternative explanation for this in the context of a pragmatic account of science that treats Linnaean classification as a biological formalization.

doi.org

Loving Porto #ISHPSSB2025. Looking forward to catching up with folks. If anyone wants to catch my talk it’s on Friday afternoon, in a session with (the always great) Joeri Witteveen. My talk is on rogue taxonomy, taxonomic vandalism and a surprising analog version of bad AI science. Should be fun!

Excited to share that "Scaffolding: Selected Contributions of James R. Griesemer to History, Philosophy, and Biology" is out. I introduce Jim's chapter on formalization. (My original title, "Undermining Dichotomies and the Friends You Make Along the Way." doi.org/10.1007/978-...

Introduction to “Formalization and the Meaning of ‘Theory’ in the Inexact Biological Sciences”

Jim Griesemer papers are typically rich, creative, and challenging. One of my favorite things about a Griesemer paper is that some of the best bits are doing double duty as framing. That is well on di...

doi.org

Call for Papers - AAHPSSS Conference 2025 Submissions are now open! The 2025 AAHPSSS conference will be held in a hybrid format at the University of Queensland from Wednesday 3rd December to Friday 5th December. Further details can be found on our website: aahpsss.net.au/conference/2...

2025 Conference

Submissions are now open and will be due by mid-July. Abstracts can be submitted here. We are pleased to announce that the 2025 conference of the Australasian Association for the History, Ph…

aahpsss.net.au

Very happy to see my "Positively Misleading Errors" finally published (it's been a long road). It generalizes an error of statistical reasoning discovered by Joe Felsenstein in 1978. Really happy with how it turned out. Currently free to access and download, so go for it! doi.org/10.1007/s112...

Positively misleading errors - Synthese

Positively misleading errors are errors of statistical reasoning in which adding data to an analysis will systematically and reliably strengthen support for an erroneous hypothesis over a correct one....

doi.org