Tessera
Folgen

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

@thebjps.bsky.social

Latest issue: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/bjps/current BJPS Review of Books: https://www.thebsps.org/reviewofbooks/ BJPS Short Reads: https://www.thebsps.org/short-reads/ Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bjps

401 Posts5950 Follower1022 Folgt
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science@thebjps.bsky.social · 2w ago

If you are at #BSPS2026, join us this afternoon for our Ask the Editors session (dogs not included, alas)...

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science@thebjps.bsky.social · 3w ago

If you are at the #BSPS2026 conference next week, join us for our ask the editors’ session, and learn the one weird trick to getting published* *write good (Pictured: Behind the scenes at BJPS Towers with Matilda from marketing and our newest intern, Archie)

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science@thebjps.bsky.social · 3w ago

If you are at the #BSPS2026 conference next week, join us for our ask the editors’ session, and learn the one weird trick to getting published* *write good (Pictured: Behind the scenes at BJPS Towers with Matilda from marketing and our newest intern, Archie)

One back and white dog and one white and brown dog sit on a couch, with a sign reading ‘ask me anything’ between them
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science@thebjps.bsky.social · 4w ago

If you can't join us at our annual conference, you can at least watch the keynotes, which will be both livestreamed (link below) and later posted on our YouTube channel.  Abstract for the first talk in alt text and link to livestream here: teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-joi... #philsci #philsky

Presidential address Robin Hendry Metaphysics and Science: A Call for History 4pm, Tuesday 21 July (UK time) ABSTRACT. Scientists and philosophers down the ages have argued that there should be no overlap between science and metaphysics. Others have claimed, to the contrary, that science needs a foundation that only metaphysics can provide. I would challenge both these lines of thought, but the first is the main target of this talk. Consider the following claims, which are widely accepted: (1) The Universe was created in a great explosion whose effects remain visible; (2) Biological species are the product of a chancy process involving mutation and natural selection; (3) What happens in our minds is the outcome of neural processes. Not only are these all metaphysical (in a broad sense): scientific research is also relevant to them, even if they aren’t simple to decide. If we understand metaphysics broadly to be concerned with general and abstract questions of existence and reality, science is clearly concerned with metaphysics. But how good is science at answering metaphysical questions like these, and under what conditions? I address that question historically, by looking at two well-known failures (causal determinism and Newtonian mechanics; a claimed refutation of vitalism); and some important but neglected successes (the achievements of 19th-century chemistry). I conclude by arguing that metaphysical claims can be supported by science if they have had an active, intimate and indispensable heuristic and conceptual role in the development of science. Otherwise, it’s too soon to tell.