Prix JCJC

La SPS a le plaisir d’annoncer que le lauréat du Prix Jeunes Chercheurs et Jeunes Chercheuses 2020 est :

Matthias Michel (Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, LSE) pour son article « Consciousness Science Underdetermined » publié dans le journal Ergo, 2019–2020, volume 6 (28), journal en accès libre.

  

Les autres finalistes étaient, par ordre alphabétique :

– Vincent Grandjean (Université de Genève), pour l’article « How is the asymmetry between the open future and the fixed past to be characterized? », publié dans, Synthese, 2019. (en accès ici)

 

– Baptiste Le Bihan (Université de Genève) & Niels Linnemann (Université de Brême), pour l’article « Have We Lost Spacetime on the Way? Narrowing the Gap between General Relativity and Quantum Gravity », publié dans, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics,  2019, volume 65, February: 112-121. (lien vers HAL)

 

– Pietro Milici (Université de Bretagne Occidentale), pour l’article « A differential extension of Descartes’ foundational approach: A new balance between symbolic and analog computation » publié dans, Computability, 2020, vol. 9 (1) : 51-83. (lien vers arXiv)

 

– Joulia Smortchkova (Université d’Oxford) pour l’article « Seeing Goal-Directedness: A Case for Social Perception » publié dans, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2020, volume 71 (3): 855–879. (accessible sur philpapers)

Voir infra pour les résumés

Au total, 32 articles étaient en compétition pour cette 8ème édition du Prix JCJC.

 

Comité de sélection :

Cédric Brun (Université Bordeaux-Montaigne)

Valeria Giardino (Institut Jean Nicod)

Alexandre Guay (Université catholique de Louvain)

Cyrille Imbert (Archives Henri-Poincaré)

Julie Jebeile (Universität Bern)

Francesca Merlin (IHPST)

Ivahn Smadja (Université de Nantes)

Pierre Saint-Germier (Université catholique de Louvain)

 

Comité d’organisation :

 

Vincent Ardourel (IHPST)

Youna Tonnerre (Université de Rennes 1)

avec le soutien régulier de Francesca Merlin (IHPST)

 

Comité scientifique :

 

Daniel Andler (Sorbonne Université)

Andrew Arana (Université de Lorraine)

André Ariew (University of Missouri)

Anouk Barberousse (Sorbonne Université)

Michel Bourdeau (IHPST)

Thomas Boyer-Kassem (Université de Poitiers)

Anastasios Brenner (Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier)

Cédric Brun (Université Bordeaux-Montaigne)

Nicolas Chaigneau (Université Lumière Lyon-2)

Olivier Darrigol (SPHERE)

Nadine De Courtenay (Université de Paris)

Steeves Demazeux (Université Bordeaux Montaigne)

Filipe Drapeau Contim (Université de Rennes 1)

Sébastien Dutreuil (Centre Gilles Gaston Granger)

Michael Esfeld (Université de Lausanne)

Enrica Galazzi (Università Cattolica di Milano)

Valeria Giardino (Institut Jean Nicod)

Yves Gingras (Université du Québec à Montréal)

Alexandre Guay (Université catholique de Louvain)

Thierry Hoquet (Université Paris Nanterre)

Florence Hulak (Université Paris 8 Vincennes – Saint-Denis )

Paul Humphreys (University of Virginia)

Cyrille Imbert (Archives Henri-Poincaré)

Julie Jebeile (Universität Bern)

François Kammerer (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)

Max Kistler (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Vincent Lam (Universität Bern)

Robin Lamarche-Perrin (LIP6)

Lucie Laplane (IHPST)

Céline Lefève (Université de Paris)

Maël Lemoine (Université de Bordeaux)

Tim Lewens (University of Cambridge)

Sacha Loeve (Université Lyon III Jean Moulin)

Christophe Malaterre (Université du Québec à Montréal)

Johannes Martens (SND)

Thierry Martin (Université de Franche-Comté)

Francesca Merlin (IHPST)

Mélika Ouelbani (Université de Tunis)

Françoise Parot (Université de Paris)

Cédric Paternotte (Sorbonne Université)

Annie Petit (Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier)

Stéphanie Ruphy (École Normale Supérieure)

Christian Sachse (Université de Lausanne)

Pierre Saint-Germier (Université catholique de Louvain)

Jutta Schickore (Indiana University)

Ivahn Smadja (Université de Nantes)

Pierre Wagner (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

 

(Si cette liste contient une erreur, veuillez contacter le comité d’organisation)

 

 

Résumés des articles

 

Matthias Michel,  « Consciousness Science Underdetermined: A short history of endless debates »

 

Résumé : Consciousness scientists have not reached consensus on two of the most central questions in their field: first, on whether consciousness overflows reportability; second, on the physical basis of consciousness. I review the scientific literature of the 19th century to provide evidence that disagreement on these questions has been a feature of the scientific study of consciousness for a long time. Based on this historical review, I hypothesize that a unifying explanation of disagreement on these questions, up to this day, is that scientific theories of consciousness are underdetermined by the evidence, namely, that they can be preserved “come what may” in front of (seemingly) disconfirming evidence. Consciousness scientists may have to find a way of solving the persistent underdetermination of theories of consciousness to make further progress.

 

*

*     *

 

Par ordre alphabétique

 

Vincent Grandjean, « How is the asymmetry between the open future and the fixed past to be characterized? »

 

Résumé : A basic intuition we have regarding the nature of time is that the future is open whereas the past is fixed. For example, whereas we think that there are things we can do to affect how the future will unfold (e.g. acting in an environmentally responsible manner), we think that there are not things we can do to affect how the past unfolded (“what is done is done”). However, although this intuition is largely shared, it is not a straightforward matter to determine the nature of the asymmetry it reflects. So, in this paper, I survey various philosophical ways of characterizing the asymmetry between the ‘open future’ and the ‘fixed past’ in order to account for our intuition. In particular, I wonder whether the asymmetry is to be characterized in semantic, epistemic, metaphysical or ontological terms. I conclude that, although many of these characterizations may contribute to a global understanding of the phenomenon, an ontological characterization of the asymmetry is to be preferred, since it is superior to the alternatives in explanatory power, intelligibility, and in how it coheres with interesting senses of openness.

 

 

Baptiste Le Bihan & Niels Linnemann, « Have We Lost Spacetime on the Way?  Narrowing the Gap between General Relativity and Quantum Gravity »

 

Résumé : Important features of space and time are taken to be missing in quantum gravity, allegedly requiring an explanation of the emergence of spacetime from non-spatio-temporal theories. In this paper, we argue that the explanatory gap between general relativity and non-spatio-temporal quantum gravity theories might significantly be reduced with two moves. First, we point out that spacetime is already partially missing in the context of general relativity when understood from a dynamical perspective. Second, we argue that most approaches to quantum gravity already start with an in-built distinction between structures to which the asymmetry between space and time can be traced back.

 

Pietro Milici, « A differential extension of Descartes’ foundational approach: A new balance between symbolic and analog computation »

 

Résumé : In La Géométrie, Descartes proposed a “balance” between geometric constructions and symbolic manipulation with the introduction of suitable ideal machines. In modern terms, that is a balance between analog and symbolic computation. Descartes’ geometric foundational approach (analysis without infinitary objects and synthesis with diagrammatic constructions) has been extended beyond the limits of algebraic polynomials in two different periods: by late 17th century tractional motion and by early 20th century differential algebra. This paper proves that, adopting these extensions, it is possible to define a new convergence of machines (analog computation), algebra (symbolic manipulations) and a well determined class of mathematical objects that gives scope for a constructive foundation of (a part of) infinitesimal calculus without the conceptual need of infinity. To establish this balance, a clear definition of the constructive limits of tractional motion is provided by a differential universality theorem.

 

 

Joulia Smortchkova, « Seeing Goal-Directedness: A Case for Social Perception »

 

Résumé : This paper focuses on social perception, an area of research that lies at the interface between the philosophy of perception and the scientific investigation of human social cognition. Some philosophers and psychologists appeal to resonance mechanisms to show that intentional and goal-directed actions can be perceived. Against these approaches, I show that there is a class of simple goal-directed actions, whose perception does not rely on resonance. I discuss the role of the STS (superior temporal sulcus) as the possible neural correlate of perception of goal-directed actions. My proposal is intermediate between claims according to which we perceive intentional actions and claims according to which we cannot perceive goal-directed actions.

 

 

 

La SPS a le plaisir d’annoncer que le lauréat du Prix Jeunes Chercheurs 2017-18 est :

Antoine Dussault (CIRST & Collège Lionel-Groulx, Montréal), pour son article « Functional Ecology’s Non-Selectionist Understanding of Function » publié dans Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2018, 70, pp.1-9)

2èmes ex-aequo :

Valeriya Chasova (Université Catholique de Louvain), pour son article « Local symmetries with direct empirical status, gauge symmetries, and the empirical approach« ;

Gauvain Leconte (Lycée de l’Europe, Dunkerque) pour son article « Predictive success, partial truth and Duhemian realism » publié dans Synthese (2017, 194, Issue 9, pp 3245–3265)

(voir infra pour les résumés)

Liste des évaluateurs :
– Anouk Barberousse (Université Paris-Sorbonne)
– Anastasios Brenner (Université Montpellier
– Angelo Cei (Università Roma 3)
– Hasok Chang (Université of Cambridge)
– Mikaël Cozik (Université Paris 12)
– Carl Craver (Washington University in St. Louis)
– Denis Couvet (MNHN Paris)
– Olivier Darrigol (SPHERE, CNRS & Université Paris 7)
– Jean-Paul Delahaye (Université Lille 1)
– David Depew (The University of Iowa)
– Richard-Emmanuel Eastes (SEGALLIS)
– Denis Forest (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
– Steven French (University of Leeds)
– Elodie Giroux (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3)
– Alexei Grimbaum (CEA-Saclay)
– Niccolo’ Guicciardini (Università di Bergamo)
– Brice Halimi (Université Paris Nanterre )
– Gerhard Heinzmann (Université de Lorraine)
– Thierry Hoquet (Université Paris Nanterre)
– Paul Humphreys (Université of Virginia)
– Philippe Huneman (IHPST, CNRS & Université Paris 1)
– Max Kistler (IHPST, CNRS & Université Paris 1)
– Cyrille Imbert (Archives Poincaré, CNRS & Université de Lorraine)
– James Ladyman (University of Bristol)
– Guillaum Lecointre (MNHN Paris)
– Maël Lemoine (Université de Bordeaux)
– Laurent Loison (IHPST, CNRS & Université Paris 1)
– Alex Manafu (York University Toronto)
– Virginie Maris (CEFE, CNRS)
– Pierre-Olivier Méthot (Université Laval)
– Matteo Morganti (Università La Sapienza Roma)
– Olivier Morin (MPI-SHH Jena)
– Matteo Mossio (IHPST, CNRS & Université Paris 1)
– Gerd Müller (University of Vienna)
– Antonio Nunziante (Università di Padova)
– Marie-Hélène Parizeau (Université Laval)
– Cédric Paternotte (Université Paris-Sorbonne)
– Thomas Pradeu (CNRS & Université de Bordeaux)
– Sophie Roux (ENS Paris)
– Stéphanie Ruphy (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3)
– Julien Reiss (Durham University)
– Christian Sachse (Université de Lausanne)
– Stéphane Schmitt (SPHERE, CNRS & Université Paris 7)
– Kathryn Tabb (Columbia University)
– Serife Tekin (Daemen College, Buffalo NY)
– Giovanni Valente (Pittsburgh University)
– Mark Van Atten (SND, CNRS)
– Marion Vorms (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
– Pierre Wagner (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
– Denis Walsh (University of Toronto)
– Charles Wolfe (Ghent University)

Jury final :

– Cyrille Imbert (Archives Poincaré, CNRS & Université de Lorraine)
– Maël Lemoine (Université de Bordeaux)
– Francesca Merlin (CNRS & Université Paris 1)

L’organisation du prix et la supervisation de l’évaluation des soumissions sont l’oeuvre de Francesca Merlin.

Résumés des articles primés :

– Antoine DUSSAULT (CIRST & Collège Lionel-Groulx, Montréal), »Functional Ecology’s Non-Selectionist Understanding of Function » publié dans Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2018, 70, pp.1-9)

Résumé. This paper reinforces the current consensus against the applicability of the selected effect theory of function in ecology. It does so by presenting an argument which, in contrast with the usual argument invoked in support of this consensus, is not based on claims about whether ecosystems are customary units of natural selection. Instead, the argument developed here is based on observations about the use of the function concept in functional ecology, and more specifically, research into the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. It is argued that a selected effect account of ecological functions is made implausible by the fact that it would conflict with important aspects of the understanding of function and ecosystem functional organization which underpins functional ecology’s research program. Specifically, it would conflict with (1) Functional ecology’s adoption of a context-based understanding of function and its aim to study the functional equivalence between phylogenetically-divergent organisms; (2) Functional ecology’s attribution to ecosystems of a lower degree of part-whole integration than the one found in paradigm individual organisms; and (3) Functional ecology’s adoption of a physiological or metabolic perspective on ecosystems rather than an evolutionary one.

 

– Valeriya CHASOVA (Université Catholique de Louvain) pour son article « Local symmetries with direct empirical status, gauge symmetries, and the empirical approach »

Résumé. I use the empirical approach to the direct empirical status (DES) to clarify the question of which theoretical symmetries have DES. I prove in particular that if a global symmetry has the identifiable observational DES by virtue of representing observable features of an identifiable empirical symmetry, then using gauge symmetries a local symmetry with the same DES can always be constructed. I explain why this demonstrates that currently we should take local symmetries to be at least as much relevant for the ontology as global symmetries are.

 

– Gauvain LECONTE (Lycée de l’Europe, Dunkerque)
pour son article « Predictive success, partial truth and Duhemian realism » publié dans Synthese (2017, 194, Issue 9, pp 3245–3265)

Résumé. According to a defense of scientific realism known as the “divide et impera move”, mature scientific theories enjoying predictive success are partially true. This paper investigates a paradigmatic historical case: the prediction, based on Fresnel’s wave theory of light, that a bright spot should figure in the shadow of a disc. Two different derivations of this prediction have been given by both Poisson and Fresnel. I argue that the details of these derivations highlight two problems of indispensability arguments, which state that only the indispensable constituents of this success are worthy of belief and retained through theory-change. The first problem is that, contrary to a common claim, Fresnel’s integrals are not needed to predict the bright spot phenomenon. The second problem is that the hypotheses shared by to these two derivations include problematic idealizations. I claim that this example leads us to be skeptical about which aspects of our current theories are worthy of belief.

Le lauréat de l’édition 2015-2016 du prix « Jeunes chercheurs » (doté de 300 € par lauréat) est : 

Rawad EL SKAF (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) pour son article « What notion of possibility should we use in assessing scientific thought experiments? » paru dans Lato Sensu.

Le lauréat de l’édition 2013 du prix « Jeunes chercheurs » (doté de 300 € par lauréat) est : 

Thomas Boyer-Kassem (Université Lille 3) pour son article « Is a bird in the hand two in the bush? Or, whether scientists should publish intermediate results » paru dans Synthese.

La lauréate de l’édition 2012 du prix « Jeunes chercheurs » (doté de 300 € par lauréat) est : 

Marion Vorms (University College London), pour son article « Theorizing and Representational Practices in Classical Genetics » paru dans Biological Theory.

Les deux autres finalistes de cette édition 2012 ont été :

Thomas Boyer (Université Lille 1)

Olivier Sartenaer (Université Catholique de Louvain)