Human language is a salient example of a neurocognitive system that is specialized to process complex dependencies between sensory events distributed in time, yet how this system evolved and specialized remains unclear. Artificial Grammar Learning (AGL) studies have generated a wealth of insights into how human adults and infants process different types of sequencing dependencies of varying complexity. The AGL paradigm has also been adopted to examine the sequence processing abilities of nonhuman animals. We critically evaluate this growing literature in (...) species ranging from mammals (primates and rats) to birds (pigeons, songbirds, and parrots) considering also cross‐species comparisons. The findings are contrasted with seminal studies in human infants that motivated the work in nonhuman animals. This synopsis identifies advances in knowledge and where uncertainty remains regarding the various strategies that nonhuman animals can adopt for processing sequencing dependencies. The paucity of evidence in the few species studied to date and the need for follow‐up experiments indicate that we do not yet understand the limits of animal sequence processing capacities and thereby the evolutionary pattern. This vibrant, yet still budding, field of research carries substantial promise for advancing knowledge on animal abilities, cognitive substrates, and language evolution. (shrink)

This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve the debate on whether the world is three-dimensional or four-dimensional. The argument advanced in the paper is that if the world were three-dimensional the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly the experiments confirming them would be impossible.

This paper studies the epistemic failures to reach understanding in relation to scientific explanations. We make a distinction between genuine understanding and its negative phenomena—lack of understanding and misunderstanding. We define explanatory understanding as inclusive as possible, as the epistemic success that depends on abilities, skills, and correct explanations. This success, we add, is often supplemented by specific positive phenomenology which plays a part in forming epistemic inclinations—tendencies to receive an insight from familiar types of explanations. We define lack of (...) understanding as the epistemic failure that results from a lack of an explanation or from an incorrect one. This can occur due to insufficient abilities and skills, or to fallacious explanatory information. Finally, we characterize misunderstanding by cases where one’s epistemic inclinations do not align with an otherwise correct explanation. We suggest that it leads to potential debates about the explanatory power of different explanatory strategies. We further illustrate this idea with a short meta-philosophical study on the current debates about distinctively mathematical explanations. (shrink)

There are several important criticisms against the unificationist model of scientific explanation: Unification is a broad and heterogeneous notion and it is hard to see how a model of explanation based exclusively on unification can make a distinction between genuine explanatory unification from cases of ordering or classification. Unification alone cannot solve the asymmetry and irrelevance problems. Unification and explanation pull in different directions and should be decoupled, because for good scientific explanation extra ad explanandum information is often required. I (...) am presenting a possible solution to those problems, by focusing on an often overlooked but important element of how theoretic unification is achieved—the conceptual frameworks of theories. The core conceptual assumptions behind theories are decisive for discriminating between explanatory and non-explanatory unification. The conceptual framework is also flexible enough to balance the tension between informativeness and maximum systematization in constructing explanatory inferences. A short case study of orthogenetic and Darwinian explanations in paleontology is presented as an illustration of how my addition to the unificationist model is applicable to a historical debate between rival explanations. (shrink)

Empirical advances have been made in understanding how human language, in its combinatorial complexity and unbounded expressivity, may have evolved from the communication systems present in our evolutionary ancestors. However, a number of cognitive processes and neurobiological mechanisms that support language may not have evolved specifically for communication, but rather from abilities that support perception and cognition more generally. We review recent evidence from comparative behavioural and neurobiological studies on structured sequence learning in human and nonhuman primates. These studies support (...) the notion that certain sequence learning abilities are evolutionarily conserved and engage corresponding inferior frontal brain regions across the species, regions also involved in processing language in humans. Alongside the cross-species similarities is evidence for human specialisations, illuminating the likely evolutionary pathways towards language in modern humans. We argue that cognitive abilities that were in place for animals to learn combinatorial relationships in the sensory world were available and co-opted for language in humans. (shrink)

An important epistemological lesson can be learned from the impossibility to determine the one-way velocity of light and the immediate implication that simultaneity is conventional. The vicious circle -- to determine whether two distant events are simultaneous we need to know the one-way velocity of light between them, but to determine the one-way velocity of light we need to know that the two events are simultaneous -- is an indication of the need for a profound change of our view on (...) reality. (shrink)

This volume is dedicated to the centennial anniversary of Minkowski's discovery of spacetime.

The present paper pursues two aims. First to show that the experiment proposed by Stolakis [1986] does not lead to absolute synchronization in a single frame of reference and therefore also to the measurement of one-way velocity of light. Second, by consecutively considering the problems of the conventionality of simultaneity and of existence to show that the simultaneity of distant events can be a matter of convention only in a four-dimensional world. * I am grateful to the anonymous referees for (...) their useful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show that the Lorentz contraction of a rod is possible only if the rod’s world path is a real four-dimensional object. This result demonstrates that special relativity does require reality at the microscopic level to be a four-dimensional world represented by Minkowski spacetime.

As there have still been attempts to regard gravity, a 100 years after Einstein's general relativity, not as a manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime, but as a physical field, it is high time to face the ultimate judge -- the experimental evidence -- to settle this issue once and for all. Two rulings of the ultimate judge are reminded -- the experimental fact that falling particles do not resist their fall rules out the option that gravity may be (...) a force, and the experiments that confirmed the relativistic effects are impossible in a three-dimensional world, which also implies that gravity is indeed manifestation of the geometry of the real spacetime. It is also stressed that not only are attempts to impose a kind of scientific democracy in physics doomed to failure, but such attempts might, in the end, hamper the advancement of fundamental physics. (shrink)

Should physicists deal with the question of the reality of Minkowski space (or any relativistic spacetime)? It is argued that they should since this is a question about the dimensionality of the world at the macroscopic level and it is physics that should answer it.

The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the analysis of the kinematical effects of special relativity holds the key to answering the question of the dimensionality of the world. It is shown that these effects and the experiments which confirmed them would be impossible if the world were three-dimensional. Section 2 shows that relativity of simultaneity, conventionality of simultaneity, and the existence of accelerated observers in special relativity would be impossible if the world were three-dimensional. Section 3 (...) deals with the dimensionality of physical objects and demonstrates that the relativistic length contraction and the twin paradox would be impossible if the physical bodies involved in these relativistic effects were three-dimensional objects. (shrink)

Dans cet article, je présente une approche sémantique de l’analyse de la fonction de la métaphore du paysage dans la biologie de l’évolution. Le concept de paysage adaptatif a suscité une attention considérable dans la philosophie de la biologie récente. La plupart des auteurs ont considéré ce concept de l’une des deux manières suivantes: en tant qu’outil heuristique, comme partie intrinsèque de modèles mathématiques robustes, ou comme un ensemble définissable d’analogies sur lesquelles les modèles sont basés et testés. Chacune de (...) ces visions conduit à la conclusion que la valeur de la métaphore du paysage dépend seulement du succès des modèles que sous-tend la métaphore, en vue de représenter adéquatement la dynamique de l’évolution. J’essaie de montrer que cette conclusion, ainsi que les visions qui y conduisent, ne tiennent pas compte d’épisodes importants dans l’histoire de la métaphore du langage. Ces visions proviennent plutôt de thèses générales, en philosophie des sciences, quant au rôle des métaphores dans les théories scientifiques. L’analyse sémantique que je propose met en lumière le fait que la fonction première du concept de relief adaptatif, au cours de la synthèse évolutionniste, a été de servir de cadre général d’unification conceptuelle, qui a rendu possible la conciliation de phénomènes empiriques hétérogènes. De ce point de vue, la métaphore du paysage est un outil linguistique-théorique qui ne doit pas être abandonné (et qui ne l’est de fait pas) suite à la falsification des modèles construits et interprétés au moyen de la métaphore. (shrink)

Over a hundred years ago in his paper "Space and Time" Hermann Minkowski demonstrated the profound meaning of the relativity postulate - the experimental fact that physical phenomena are the same in all inertial reference frames implies that the Universe is an absolute four-dimensional world in which all moments of time have equal existence due to their belonging to the fourth dimension. Since then there has been no consensus on the reality of this absolute world, which we now call Minkowski (...) spacetime or simply spacetime. I will argue that facing the ultimate judge - the experimental evidence - allows us to settle this issue once and for all. (shrink)

The debate between the dynamical and the statistical interpretations of natural selection is centred on the question of whether all explanations that employ the concepts of natural selection and drift are reducible to causal explanations. The proponents of the statistical interpretation answer negatively, but insist on the fact that selection/drift arguments are explanatory. However, they remain unclear on where the explanatory power comes from. The proponents of the dynamical interpretation answer positively and try to reduce selection/drift arguments to some of (...) the most prominent accounts of causal explanation. In turn, they face the criticism raised by statisticalists that current accounts of causation have to be violated in some of their core conditions or otherwise used in a very loose manner in order to account for selection/drift explanations. We propose a reconciliation of both interpretations by conveying evolutionary explanations within the unificationist model of scientific explanation. Therefore, we argue that the explanatory power in natural selection arguments is a result of successful unification of individual- and population-level facts. A short case study based on research on sympatric speciation will be presented as an example of how population- and individual-level facts are unified to explain the morphological mosaic of bill shape in island scrub jays. (shrink)

There are two reasons for asking such an apparently unanswerable question. First, Max Born's recollections of what Minkowski had told him about his research on the physical meaning of the Lorentz transformations and the fact that Minkowski had created the full-blown four-dimensional mathematical formalism of spacetime physics before the end of 1907, both indicate that Minkowski might have arrived at the notion of spacetime independently of Poincare and at a deeper understanding of the basic ideas of special relativity independently of (...) Einstein. So, had he lived longer, Minkowski might have employed successfully his program of regarding four-dimensional physics as spacetime geometry to gravitation as well. Moreover, Hilbert had derived the equations of general relativity simultaneously with Einstein. Second, even if Einstein had arrived at what is today called Einstein's general relativity before Minkowski, Minkowski would have certainly reformulated it in terms of his program of geometrizing physics and might have represented gravitation fully as the manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime exactly like he reformulated Einstein's special relativity in terms of spacetime. [NOTE: The text of two explanations was taken from my previous paper "Is Gravitation Interaction or just Curved-Spacetime Geometry?" because those explanations had to be repeated in the present paper anyway.]. (shrink)

Despite "what has probably been the most vigorous campaign ever waged against the concept of relativistic mass" p. 51) it is argued that the relativistic increase of the mass is an experimental fact.

My aim here is to show that approximate truth as a paraconsistent notion can be successfully incorporated into the analysis of scientific unification, thus advancing towards a more realistic representation of theory development that takes into account the controversies that often loom alongside the progress of research programmes. I support my analysis with a case study of the recent debate in ecology centred around the existence of the paradox of enrichment and the controversy between ecological models of predation that employ (...) prey-dependent and ratio-dependent functional responses. These models were initially proposed as equally good representations of the basic aspects of predator–prey dynamics. However, both models generated inconsistent observational consequences and, therefore, introduced a contradiction within predator–prey theory. I argue that by accepting these models as approximately true representations of predator–prey dynamics we can convey how the available observational data have been successfully systematized in a consistent way under them. This first step in resolving the controversy relied on building a series of contrastive arguments based on both models’ derivations about population dynamics and the available empirical data. The heightening of this contrast between the models, in turn, was also essential in defining a limiting function which can be used to integrate both models and reach a new unified expression of predator–prey dynamics. (shrink)

This paper discusses the polemical question of whether explanations that produce understanding must be true. It argues positively for the role of truth in reaching explanatory understanding, by presenting three lines of criticism of alternative accounts. The first is that by rejecting truth as a criterion for evaluating explanations, any non-factual account thereby effectively cuts ties with the central theories of explanations, which provide at least partial criteria for explanatory understanding. The second line of criticism is that some of the (...) most well-known non-factual accounts implicitly operate over a notion of partial-truth, and as such, they do not provide a valid alternative. The final critical argument is that, in the place of truth evaluations, these accounts often offer a multiplicity of other criteria, and by changing a unitary criterion such as truth for a collection of other requirements, these non-factive theories introduce a level of ad hoc-ness, which diminishes their normative value. (shrink)

Artificial grammar learning (AGL) is used to study how human adults, infants, animals or machines learn various sorts of rules defined over sounds or visual items. Ten Cate et al. introduce the topic and provide a critical synthesis of this important interdisciplinary area of research. They identify the questions that remain open and the challenges that lie ahead, and argue that the limits of human, animal and machine learning abilities have yet to be found.