Center for Advanced Studies LMU (CAS)

Links and Functions
Language Selection

Breadcrumb Navigation


Prof. Dr. Stephan Hartmann

"Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation": Prof. Dr. Stephan Hartmann, Dr. Benjamin Eva, Dr. Karolina Krzyżanowska, Marko Tešić, M.Sc., und Harry Waterstone (Philosophy)

Academic Year 2016/17

Stephan Hartmann will address the following questions concerning reasoning and argumentation in science during his stay at the CAS:

  1. Which new reasoning and argumentation schemes can we find in contemporary science?
  2. How can these reasoning and argumentation schemes be assessed and justified?
  3. Is it possible to come up with a unified normative theory of reasoning and argumentation in science?

Working Group

Stephan Hartmann's working group during his time at the CAS will consist of Dr. Benjamin Eva, Dr. Karolina Krzyżanowska, Marko Tešić, M.Sc., and Harry Waterstone:

  • Benjamin Eva works on topics at the intersection of the philosophy of physics, formal epistemology and philosophical logic. He is currently working both on using case studies from contemporary physics to find and analyse new forms of scientific reasoning, and on using techniques from formal epistemology and logic to solve conceptual issues surrounding the epistemology of physics (for example, anthropic reasoning, model selection in cosmology, the role of toy models in the foundations of quantum mechanics etc).
  • Karolina Krzyżanowska's main research interests include the semantics and pragmatics of indicative conditionals, and their role in reasoning and argumentation. In particular, she will investigate the question of what it is that people learn when they update on a conditional, how they change their beliefs to accommodate new conditional information, and what are the factors that can influence the result of such learning.
  • Marko Tešić focuses on a particular argumentation scheme – the so-called inference to the best explanation. This argumentation scheme plays an important role in everyday reasoning as well as in scientific reasoning. However, it is not that clear under which conditions inferences to the best explanation constitute good arguments. To address this question, Marko will use a combination of probabilistic and non-probabilistic methods and compare inferences to the best explanation with other argumentation schemes such as the No Alternatives Argument.
  • Harry Waterstone is interested in the question of how the results of scientific research are effectively communicated. How do argumentations that take place in a scientific community differ from the communication of the scientific community with the general public? When are simplified arguments convincing and successful? To address these questions, Harry uses a combination of probabilistic and computational methods (including agent-based simulations).

Visiting Fellows