Follow us on Bluesky
Bluesky · Hashtag

#philsci

179
posts · 30d
64
users
6
posts / day
2.8
posts / user
+ 2% vs last week

#philsci is an active hashtag on Bluesky. In the last 30 days, 64 people shared 179 posts with it — around 6 a day. Activity is up 2% versus the previous week, peaking on Aug 28 with 14 posts.

#philsci posts per day (last 30 days)

Related tags

Tags most often used together with #philsci.

#philsky 38 #AcademicSky 26 #SciComm 14 #STS 10 #HPBio 9 #hps 9 #Science 7 #AI 7 #philosophy 6 #MetaSci 6 #quantumbiology 5

Posts with #philsci

The HPS Podcast
@hpspodcast.bsky.social
almost 2 years ago
We made another thing! Here is a pretty great 'HPS Starter Pack' so you too can follow all the awesome history, philosophy and social studies of science (and #metasci #histSTM #philsci #philsky #hps #histsci 🧪) accounts on Bluesky. Please share widely #academicsky :)
History & Philosophy of Science (HPS) Starter Pack
The HPS Podcast

History & Philosophy of Science (HPS) Starter Pack

Starter pack by The HPS Podcast

A starter pack focussing on HPS, History of Science and Philosophy of Science, along with relevant STS (science & technology studies), metascience and HistSTM (history of science, technology and medicine) accounts
69 188 341
Alan Richardson
@alanrichardson.bsky.social
over 1 year ago
I regret to information the Bluesky philosophy community that Michael Friedman, noted philosopher of science and ground-breaking historian of Kant, neo-Kantianism, and logical positivism has died. May his memory be a blessing. #philsci
Michael Friedman, Suppes Professor of Philosophy of Science, Stanford University (1947-2025)
7 41 197
@prof-alistair.bsky.social
8 months ago
My old university used to have 'Guides' to systems etc & how they work. My new university, showing the heavy hand of management consultants, now has 'Knowledge base articles'. I think I need to check whether information is the same as knowledge. That would be a philosophical question. #PhilSci
14 20 197
Adrian Currie
@adrian-currie.bsky.social
12 days ago
Methods in the Philosophy of Science: A User's Guide, edited by the inestimable @phieveigl.bsky.social (and me!), has 27 chapters from super-cool philosophers of science explaining how they do their thing, and is now open access! Our baby is free! #philsci direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edi...
Methods in the Philosophy of Science: A User's Guide

direct.mit.edu

Methods in the Philosophy of Science: A User's Guide

A guidebook to methods and methodology, encouraging deeper engagement across the philosophy of science and beyond.The last twenty years have seen multiple
4 70 147
Anne Fausto-Sterling
@birdlady.bsky.social
over 1 year ago
Really? I guess the guys couldn't wait to get rid of this. www.space.com/the-universe... #womeninscience #science #histsci #philsci
Scientists alarmed as Rubin Observatory changes biography of astronomer Vera Rubin amid Trump's push to end DEI efforts

www.space.com

Scientists alarmed as Rubin Observatory changes biography of astronomer Vera Rubin amid Trump's push to end DEI efforts

"The idea that they can somehow obliterate these sources is dead wrong — scientists in general and astronomers in particular are not going to take these threats lying down."
7 92 186
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
about 1 year ago
New study on #BlueSky for #SciComm. “Bluesky posts demonstrate substantially higher levels of interaction (likes, reposts, replies, and quotes) and greater textual originality than previously reported for X, suggesting both stronger interactive and more interpretive engagement.” 🦋🦫🌱🐋🧪 #philsci
Research posts on Bluesky are more original — and get better engagement

www.nature.com

Research posts on Bluesky are more original — and get better engagement

Bluesky posts about science garner more likes and reposts than similar ones on X.
4 61 183
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
over 1 year ago
At long last, my PhD dissertation—Charles Darwin’s Science of History—has been filed and approved. I graduate shortly. The abstract is below. 🌱🐋🦋🦫🗃️🧠🧪 #HistSTM #PhilSci
Abstract The natural sciences and history seem to represent alternative, even antithetical, ways of understanding the world. The natural sciences seek recurring patterns in nature and explain them using general laws. History concerns itself with unique events and explains them using narratives of how they happened as they did. This dichotomy has come to seem natural, even inevitable. But it is neither. Charles Darwin believed that it is possible to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry that can explain stable and recurring patterns in nature using contingent historical processes rather than general laws. And he devoted his career to building such a unified program. In this dissertation, I examine the development and character of this science of history.Darwin did not begin his scientific career pursuing this project. When he first began to build a science of living nature, Darwin’s goal was to discover and characterize the necessary and invariant laws that govern and explain the living world. He had internalized a conception of science that had been formulated by John Herschel, Charles Lyell, and Charles Babbage. They had seen scientific explanation as consisting in showing phenomena to be the necessary results of universal laws, taking as their model Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. Darwin in his turn consecrated himself to the ambition to do for the living world what Newton had done for the heavens: he would discover and characterize the laws of life. Within a decade, however, Darwin would come to abandon his ambition to subsume the living world under a regime of invariant laws. He came to reject the simple, linear conception of causation on which his Newtonian program had been founded in
favor of an understanding of evolutionary causation as ineluctably complex. He also came to realize that history has causal power in the living world, both constraining and creative. Darwin ultimately concluded that, to do justice to the profound complexity and historicity of the living world, he would have to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry. This required him to rethink what laws of nature are and to reconceive the goals of scientific explanation. He came to understand explanation of living nature in more pragmatic terms, as making phenomena intelligible to working naturalists and providing them a conceptual framework to organize and drive their scientific work. Most fundamentally, he concluded that explanations in the sciences of life must take history seriously, not as a fixed stage on which evolution unfolds, but as a critical component of biological explanation. In order to create explanatory tools better adapted to his revised conception of science, Darwin returned to several ideas he had encountered as a young man and reimagined them through a historicizing lens. These included the natural theological notion of contrivance, the biblical and literary image of the tree of life, and the imaginary demon that the mentors of his youth had created to define a regulative ideal for scientific knowledge. Darwin did not merely appropriate these older ideas. He reconceived them by viewing them through a historicizing lens to make tools for making sense of the phenomena of living nature. Darwin’s science of history did not long survive him. His vision of a unified program of inquiry fell into an eclipse after his death, even among scientists who have considered themselves to be his greatest champions. And that eclipse has not yet ended.
20 15 176
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
over 1 year ago
Each year, Stanford’s History Department awards a dissertation prize. The Best Written Dissertation Prize goes to a student whose work “is honorable not simply for originality in research, but also for clarity and elegance in writing.” I just found out that I won. Yea! 🐋🌱🦋🦫🗃️🧠🧪 #HistSTM #PhilSci

At long last, my PhD dissertation—Charles Darwin’s Science of History—has been filed and approved. I graduate shortly. The abstract is below. 🌱🐋🦋🦫🗃️🧠🧪 #HistSTM #PhilSci
Abstract The natural sciences and history seem to represent alternative, even antithetical, ways of understanding the world. The natural sciences seek recurring patterns in nature and explain them using general laws. History concerns itself with unique events and explains them using narratives of how they happened as they did. This dichotomy has come to seem natural, even inevitable. But it is neither. Charles Darwin believed that it is possible to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry that can explain stable and recurring patterns in nature using contingent historical processes rather than general laws. And he devoted his career to building such a unified program. In this dissertation, I examine the development and character of this science of history.Darwin did not begin his scientific career pursuing this project. When he first began to build a science of living nature, Darwin’s goal was to discover and characterize the necessary and invariant laws that govern and explain the living world. He had internalized a conception of science that had been formulated by John Herschel, Charles Lyell, and Charles Babbage. They had seen scientific explanation as consisting in showing phenomena to be the necessary results of universal laws, taking as their model Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. Darwin in his turn consecrated himself to the ambition to do for the living world what Newton had done for the heavens: he would discover and characterize the laws of life. Within a decade, however, Darwin would come to abandon his ambition to subsume the living world under a regime of invariant laws. He came to reject the simple, linear conception of causation on which his Newtonian program had been founded in
favor of an understanding of evolutionary causation as ineluctably complex. He also came to realize that history has causal power in the living world, both constraining and creative. Darwin ultimately concluded that, to do justice to the profound complexity and historicity of the living world, he would have to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry. This required him to rethink what laws of nature are and to reconceive the goals of scientific explanation. He came to understand explanation of living nature in more pragmatic terms, as making phenomena intelligible to working naturalists and providing them a conceptual framework to organize and drive their scientific work. Most fundamentally, he concluded that explanations in the sciences of life must take history seriously, not as a fixed stage on which evolution unfolds, but as a critical component of biological explanation. In order to create explanatory tools better adapted to his revised conception of science, Darwin returned to several ideas he had encountered as a young man and reimagined them through a historicizing lens. These included the natural theological notion of contrivance, the biblical and literary image of the tree of life, and the imaginary demon that the mentors of his youth had created to define a regulative ideal for scientific knowledge. Darwin did not merely appropriate these older ideas. He reconceived them by viewing them through a historicizing lens to make tools for making sense of the phenomena of living nature. Darwin’s science of history did not long survive him. His vision of a unified program of inquiry fell into an eclipse after his death, even among scientists who have considered themselves to be his greatest champions. And that eclipse has not yet ended.
27 8 174

Posts are pulled live from Bluesky and cached briefly. Posts with content labels are hidden.

View all posts on Bluesky

Explore trending tags

#art #oc #nsfw #furry #digitalart #fanart #furryart #AI #photography #gay #illustration #fcf
Back to all tags