January 2016 Lunchtime Abstracts & Details

::: How to Fix Inference to the Best Explanation
Nicholas Rescher
University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Philosophy
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
12:05 pm
817R Cathedral of Learning

Abstract: The widely popular procedure of “inference to the best explanation” is deeply flawed. A good case can be made for holding that it should give way to what might be called “inference from the best systematization.”



::: Demarcating Nature, Defining Ecology
Andrew Inkpen
Visiting Fellow, Harvard University
Friday, January 22, 2016
12:05 pm
817R Cathedral of Learning

Abstract: This talk is based on a chapter from a monograph I’m writing. The monograph demonstrates how commitments to the artificial-natural distinction have shaped the content of biological theory and practice from the late-19th century onwards. The talk examines this theme within early 20th-century American ecology through a case study of the Ecological Society of America’s Committee on the Preservation of Natural Conditions (est. 1917). In this case, the artificial-natural distinction takes the form of a distinction between urban landscapes and “natural” landscapes. My argument is that it was common for these biologists to think of humans and human activities as apart from nature—as what philosophers and scientists alike call “disturbing conditions”—and this dictated where they thought proper ecology could be conducted. I situate these views both within scientific discussions of methodology and anxieties surrounding American urbanization. In the end, I tie this history to recent discussions by arguing that the writings of early ecologists can help us understand our own implicit preferences and the consequences of holding onto them.



::: Microbial Life on Earth: Tree or Forest?
Carol Cleland
Visiting Fellow, University of Colorado, Boulder
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
12:05 pm
817R Cathedral of Learning

Abstract: The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology.  I argue that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption.  The possibility that more than one form of life arose on Earth is consistent with our current understanding of conditions on the early Earth and the biochemical and molecular possibilities for life.  Arguments that microbial descendants of an alternative origin of life could not co-exist with familiar life are belied by what we know about the complexity and diversity of microbial communities.  Moreover, the tools that are currently used to explore the microbial world—microscopy, cultivation, and molecular biology (genomic) techniques—could not detect such organisms if they existed.  Thus the fact that we have not discovered such microorganisms cannot be taken as evidence that they don’t exist.  Given the profound philosophical and scientific importance that such a discovery would represent, a dedicated search for ‘shadow microbes’ (heretofore unrecognized microbes descended from an alternative biogenesis) is worthy of scientific investigation.  The best place to start such a search is with puzzling (“anomalous”) phenomena, such as desert varnish, that resist classification as ‘biological’ or ‘non-biological’.