Table of Contents: - PSA Membership and Website
- PSA Around the World 2025
- PSA Election Results
- PSA26 Save the Date and Information
- Karl Jaspers Award (AAPP)
- Short Reads by Grads
-
Upcoming Events
|
|
|
PSA Membership and Website |
|
|
As noted in the previous newsletter, the PSA membership database stopped performing as expected. Thank you to members that have brought their membership current, it was tremendously helpful. We have repaired the database and it is currently up and running smoothly. If you are still experiencing issues with your membership, please reach out to office@philsci.org and we will help you!
The PSA will be changing website platforms around October 1, 2025. At that time, a number of changes will be made to membership tiers including the elimination of one-year memberships and a modest increase in membership rates. You can still take advantage of the current pricing structure until September 30, 2025 and all current members will be transferred to the new database at that point. |
|
|
PSA Around the World 2025 |
|
|
In 2023, the Philosophy of Science Association launched a new initiative called PSA Around the World. The aim of the initiative is to reach out to the global community of philosophers of science and spotlight the rich diversity of practices and traditions in the field of philosophy of science via fully online conferences with a dedicated regional focus, running in the years when the Biennial Meeting of the PSA does not take place.
The second PSA Around the World conference spotlights Eastern and Central Europe and is organized by the East European Network for Philosophy of Science (https://eenps.weebly.com/).
We are excited to announce that registration is now open for PSA Around the World 2025. The conference will take place Thursday, November 6 (3pm - 6:15pm, Central European Time), Friday, November 14 (3pm - 6:15pm, Central European Time), and Saturday, November 22 (3pm - 6:30pm Central European Time).
Following the format of previous PSA Around the Worlds, each day will begin with a 75-minute plenary panel, followed by contributed paper talks.
Panel #1 (Nov.6) - "Central and East European Philosophy of Science Across Borders"
Organized by Marcin Miłkowski, feat. Marta Sznajder, Angela Potochnik, Frederique Janssen Lauret and Artur Koterski
Panel #2 (Nov.14) - "Showcasing Excellent Current Work in the CEE Region"
Organized by Magdalena Małecka, feat. Olesya Bondarenko, Joanna Malinowska, Endla Lõhkivi and Stathis Psillos
Panel #3 (Nov. 22) - "On Scientific Understanding"
Organized by Lilia Gurova, feat. Henk W. de Regt, Borut Trpin, Daniel Kostic, Andrei Mărăşoiu and Lilia Gurova
We look forward to a great conference, for more information and to register, please visit https://www.philsci.org/psa_around_the_world_2025.php |
Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2025 PSA Election. We have elected two new Governing Board members as well as a new Nominating Committee.
New Governing Board Members (2026 - 2029)
|
|
|
|
Angela Potochnik (University of Cincinnati) - I’m excited about the PSA’s trajectory! Through the efforts and leadership of many philosophers over the past several years, the Association is on solid footing with lots of really excellent initiatives to ensure its continuance, relevance, and reach. I’m particularly interested to support: (1) public-facing initiatives and resources for philosophers conducting public engagement, (2) resources and opportunities for early-career philosophers, including postdocs, and philosophers in teaching-focused positions, and (3) engagement and coordination with other professional societies in science and adjacent disciplines (history of science, STS, etc.)
|
|
|
Holly Andersen (Simon Fraser University) - One of my goals is to put my experience to work for the PSA. This will be especially important in the upcoming years, as members encounter new and unpredictable circumstances, and the organization finds new ways to facilitate availability of and members' participation in professional opportunities. I can provide some continuity over time with institutional memory, which helps build the growth into a foundation for decades to come. There have been exciting new initiatives in recent years, and I would make sure those get stabilized and fine-tuned via refinement for the long term.
|
| |
|
New Nominating Committee (2026 - 2028) |
|
|
|
Wendy Parker (Committee Chair, Virginia Tech) - The PSA plays a vital role in building community among philosophers of science in the US and beyond. For many decades, its biennial meetings and its flagship journal have presented opportunities for philosophers of science to share outstanding work and engage in productive dialogue. More recently, innovations like the online PSA Around the World conferences, the UPSS Mentoring Program, and the PSA Office Hour, are helping to make the philosophy of science community even more inclusive. I fully support these innovations. Going forward, I would like to see the PSA consider how our community could play more of a role in mediating public controversies involving science. In addition, I hope we can be more proactive in helping to connect graduate students to opportunities for non-academic career tracks.
|
|
|
Şerife Tekin (SUNY Upstate Medical University) - Her vision for the PSA is to work collaboratively to expand the boundaries of scientific legitimacy, making space for disciplines—like psychiatry—that confront complex human experiences and methodological diversity. She wants to support efforts that foster inclusive, participatory epistemologies—recognizing that scientific knowledge emerges through the shared contributions of researchers, practitioners, and the communities most impacted by scientific inquiry. She is also committed to continuing PSA’s efforts to support emerging scholars and interdisciplinary research, while also strengthening the PSA’s role in advancing public-facing philosophy of science.
|
| |
|
|
Adrian Currie (University of Exeter) - The association has long been at the centre of anglophone philosophy of science and, as such, has obligations both to maintain the rigor of the subdiscipline and its diversity and inclusivity. Due to its base in the US, the PSA’s role in defending academic freedom and vulnerable philosophers against attacks at both local and national levels is especially critical. As such, the DEI caucus has never been more important. I also think efforts to further internationalize the PSA, such as the “PSA around the world” conference, should be encouraged and extended: the more the association can include diverse approaches, perspectives and peoples doing the philosophy of science the stronger it, and the subdiscipline, will be.
|
|
|
PSA26: The 30th Biennial Meeting |
The 30th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association will be held on November 19 - 22, 2026 in San Diego, California. More information coming soon regarding calls, hotel booking and more!
We are proud to announce that Matt Haber (University of Utah) will serve as Program Chair. Additionally, Adina Roskies (University of California, Santa Barbara) will serve as Poster Committee Chair and John Bickle (Mississippi State University) will serve as Cognate Societies Chair.
There are two significant changes to the meeting that were approved by the Governing Board at our last meeting.
1) Program Committee Composition - As both the number and quality of submissions to the PSA continues to increase, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find folks to volunteer to read and review 30+ papers in preparation for the meeting. PSA26 will feature a greatly expanded program committee - in addition to the program chair, there will be 11 area chairs and each area chair will work with a small group of reviewers for decisions regarding symposia and contributed papers. It is anticipated that this will result in a decreased workload for reviewers, as well as better evaluation of submissions.
2) Publication of Contributed Papers - All contributed papers that are accepted for presentation at PSA26 will be published in the conference proceedings edition of Philosophy of Science. |
The Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry (AAPP) holds an annual competition for students and trainees. Eligibility includes undergraduate students, graduate students in philosophy, psychology and related fields, medical students, and residents and fellows in psychiatry. Entrants must meet eligibility requirements as of the dates of authorship and submission. More information regarding both the award and the submission process can be found here: https://aapp.press.jhu.edu/jaspers
|
Enoch Yim is a PhD student in philosophy at UC Santa Cruz. His primary interest is in topics at the intersection of metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, and ethics: rationality, meaning, normativity, and personhood. Specifically, his current research is on Wilfrid Sellars' stereoscopic vision of the world, David Lewis' theory of radical interpretation, and Robert Brandom's inferentialism. In his spare time, Enoch trains various styles of contemporary and traditional martial arts.
Book Review: An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and the Moral Character of Science (2019), Robert T. Pennock Enoch Yim Why should we trust science over religion, literature, or ideology concerning matters of facts? In what ways are facts relevant to cultural values and moral decisions? In An Instinct for Truth, Robert T. Pennock seeks to bridge the gap by providing a virtue-theoretical analysis of science, explicating the normative aspects of practicing science as the pursuit of truth.
Inspired by virtue ethics, the main argument of Pennock’s analysis is that the practice of science has a moral structure because it involves cultivating and exercising certain virtues that stem from the specific telos (purpose) of science which is “to discover truths about the natural world” (p. 21). Pennock begins with Darwin’s reflection that scientific motivations are based on animal instincts that are shaped by natural selection. Accordingly, the vocational virtues of science conducive to the discovery of truths are part of the adaptive strategy for survival. The virtue of curiosity as “an epistemically advantageous trait” plays the central role in sustaining the practice of science; a curious organism is more likely to learn new facts and acquire knowledge (p. 14). Other virtues such as objectivity and intellectual humility form a coherent system in supporting the satisfaction of curiosity, all in service of the instinctual purpose of discovering truths.
The first half of the book articulates the normative significance of vocational virtues of science. If the virtues are in service of some specific purpose, there are right and wrong ways of applying them in practice. In respect to virtue ethics, the norms of science are construed as achieving the middle ground between two extremes. The norms are ideal in the sense that it may not be possible to achieve them in practice. Yet, they provide “aspirational, regulative principles that guide actions” (p. 34). One important implication is that the subject of science is empirical rather than absolute truth, requiring specific methods in order to properly carry out its end. Pennock takes an evidentialist approach in understanding the methods. Taking into consideration several criticisms of the logical analyses of inductive reasoning, viz., verificationism and falsificationism, Pennock suggests construing the evidential relevance of observations as depending on the ontic, causal structure of the world rather than the logical structure within language.
In the second half, Pennock applies the virtue-theoretical analysis to the tension between science and anti-scientific sentiments in both the far-right and the far-left, which he diagnoses as conflicts over values: some scientific discoveries and practices challenge certain theological or political values of these groups. To resolve the tension, Pennock compartmentalizes cultures by their purposes. Science discovers truths while art and religion propose aspirations and possibilities for the future. Since the purpose of science has an evolutionary basis, the values of its virtues are constrained by whether exercising these virtues contributes to human survival. That is, science ought to be pursued in such a way that it should enable human flourishing rather than hamper it, e.g., through environmental pollution, nuclear warfare, etc.
Likewise, Pennock brings to light the moral outlook implicit in practicing science, in respect to which scientists can claim expertise and assist us in making informed decisions about matters of facts. His book elucidates the ethical standing of science in the real world and realigns it around people and values.
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Edwin T. F. Wolf (UC Santa Cruz) for discussing my review with me.
|
|
|
|
