Papers by Shahar Avin
Pluralism about scientific method is more-or-less accepted, but the consequences have yet to be d... more Pluralism about scientific method is more-or-less accepted, but the consequences have yet to be drawn out. Scientists adopt different methods in response to different epistemic situations: depending on the system they are interested in, the resources at their disposal, and so forth. If it is right that different methods are appropriate in different situations, then mismatches between methods and situations are possible. This is most likely to occur due to method bias: when we prefer a particular kind of method, despite that method clashing with evidential context or our aims. To explore these ideas, we sketch a kind of method pluralism which turns on two properties of evidence, before using agent-based models to examine the relationship between methods, epistemic situations, and bias. Based on our results, we suggest that although method bias can undermine the efficiency of a scientific community, it can also be productive through preserving a diversity of evidence. We consider circumstances where 2 method bias could be particularly egregious, and those where it is a potential virtue, and argue that consideration of method bias reveals that community standards deserve a central place in the epistemology of science.
Uncovering the neural correlates and evolutionary drivers of behavioral and cognitive traits has ... more Uncovering the neural correlates and evolutionary drivers of behavioral and cognitive traits has been held back by traditional perspectives on which correlations to look for—in particular, anthropocentric conceptions of cognition and coarse-grained brain measurements. We welcome our colleagues' comments on our overview of the field and their suggestions for how to move forward. Here, we counter, clarify, and extend some points, focusing on the merits of looking for the " best " predictor of cognitive ability, the sources and meaning of " noise, " and the ways in which we can deduce and test meaningful conclusions from comparative analyses of complex traits.
Computer simulation of an epistemic landscape model, modified to include explicit representation ... more Computer simulation of an epistemic landscape model, modified to include explicit representation of a centralised funding body, show the method of funding allocation has significant effects on communal trade-off between exploration and exploitation, with consequences for the community's ability to generate significant truths. The results show this effect is contextual, and depends on the size of the landscape being explored, with funding that includes explicit random allocation performing significantly better than peer-review on large landscapes. The paper proposes a way of incorporating external institutional factors in formal social epistemology, and offers a way of bringing such investigations to bear on current research policy questions.
Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki, 2015
Motivated by recent criticisms of the low reliability and high costs of science funding allocatio... more Motivated by recent criticisms of the low reliability and high costs of science funding allocation by grant peer review, the paper investigates the alternative of funding science by lottery, and more generally the possible introduction of a formal random element in the funding process. At first it may seem that randomness will lower expected efficiency, by allocating funds to less meritorious projects. By focusing on the notion that we want funded research projects to ultimately make our lives better, and the observation that the causal effect of research projects is subject to change over time, the paper argues that the introduction of randomness can counteract a bias towards the familiar present in grant peer review, and thus increase the overall efficiency of science funding. The time-dependant nature of scientific merit is exemplified by the historical processes leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA. The argument regarding the relative effectiveness of random allocation is supported by a computer simulation of different funding mechanisms on a hypothetical dynamic epistemic landscape.
The thesis presents a reformative criticism of science funding by peer review. The criticism is
... more The thesis presents a reformative criticism of science funding by peer review. The criticism is
based on epistemological scepticism, regarding the ability of scientific peers, or any other agent, to have access to sufficient information regarding the potential of proposed projects at the time of funding. The scepticism is based on the complexity of factors contributing to the merit of scientific projects, and the rate at which the parameters of this complex system change their values. By constructing models of different science funding mechanisms, a construction supported by historical evidence, computational simulations show that in a significant subset of cases it would be better to select research projects by a lottery mechanism than by selection based on peer review. This last result is used to create a template for an alternative funding mechanism that combines the merits of peer review with the benefits of random allocation, while noting that this alternative is not so far removed from current practice as may first appear.
There are various reasons for favouring ψ-epistemic interpretations of quantum mechanics over ψ-o... more There are various reasons for favouring ψ-epistemic interpretations of quantum mechanics over ψ-ontic interpretations. One such reason is the correlation between quantum mechanics and Liouville dynamics. Another reason is the success of a specific epistemic model , in reproducing a wide range of quantum phenomena. The potential criticism, that Spekkens' restricted knowledge principle is counter-intuitive, is rejected using 'everyday life' examples. It is argued that the dimensionality of spin favours Spekkens' model over ψ-ontic models. van Enk's extension of Spekkens' model can even reproduce Bell Inequality violations, but requires negative probabilities to do so. An epistemic account of negative probabilities is the missing element for deciding the battle between ψ-epistemic and ψ-ontic interpretations in favour of the former. * I owe a special thanks to Dr. Jeremy Butterfield for supervising this paper, generously providing encouragement, comments and advice. I also thank Dr. Alex Broadbent and an anonymous reviewer in the History and Philosophy Department, Cambridge University for helpful comments.
Teaching Documents by Shahar Avin
Outline of the process and tools of contemporary programming that may be relevant to (busy) acade... more Outline of the process and tools of contemporary programming that may be relevant to (busy) academics.
Presentation of an argument for convincing busy academics (especially in history and philosophy o... more Presentation of an argument for convincing busy academics (especially in history and philosophy of science) to learn programming.
Drafts by Shahar Avin
Some thoughts about the future organisation of science in a connected world.
Uploads
Papers by Shahar Avin
based on epistemological scepticism, regarding the ability of scientific peers, or any other agent, to have access to sufficient information regarding the potential of proposed projects at the time of funding. The scepticism is based on the complexity of factors contributing to the merit of scientific projects, and the rate at which the parameters of this complex system change their values. By constructing models of different science funding mechanisms, a construction supported by historical evidence, computational simulations show that in a significant subset of cases it would be better to select research projects by a lottery mechanism than by selection based on peer review. This last result is used to create a template for an alternative funding mechanism that combines the merits of peer review with the benefits of random allocation, while noting that this alternative is not so far removed from current practice as may first appear.
Teaching Documents by Shahar Avin
Drafts by Shahar Avin
based on epistemological scepticism, regarding the ability of scientific peers, or any other agent, to have access to sufficient information regarding the potential of proposed projects at the time of funding. The scepticism is based on the complexity of factors contributing to the merit of scientific projects, and the rate at which the parameters of this complex system change their values. By constructing models of different science funding mechanisms, a construction supported by historical evidence, computational simulations show that in a significant subset of cases it would be better to select research projects by a lottery mechanism than by selection based on peer review. This last result is used to create a template for an alternative funding mechanism that combines the merits of peer review with the benefits of random allocation, while noting that this alternative is not so far removed from current practice as may first appear.