Causal explanations and scientific realism in particle physics

Particle physics studies highly complex processes which cannot be directly observed. Scientific realism claims that we are nevertheless warranted in believing that these processes really occur and that the objects involved in them really exist. This dissertation defends a version of scientific realism, called causal realism, in the context of particle physics. I start by introducing the central theses and arguments in the recent philosophical debate on scientific realism (chapter 1), with a special focus on an important presupposition of the debate, namely common sense realism. Chapter 2 then discusses entity realism, which introduces a crucial element into the debate by emphasizing the importance of experiments in defending scientific realism. Most of the chapter is concerned with Ian Hacking's position, but I also argue that Nancy Cartwright's version of entity realism is ultimately preferable as a basis for further development. In chapter 3,1 take a step back and consider the question whether the realism debate is worth pursuing at all. Arthur Fine has given a negative answer to that question, proposing his natural ontologica! attitude as an alternative to both realism and antirealism. I argue that the debate (in particular the realist side of it) is in fact less vicious than Fine presents it. The second part of my work (chapters 4-6) develops, illustrates and defends causal realism. The key idea is that inference to the best explanation is reliable in some cases, but not in others. Chapter 4 characterizes the difference between these two kinds of cases in terms of three criteria which distinguish causal from theoretical warrant. In order to flesh out this distinction, chapter 5 then applies it to a concrete case from the history of particle physics, the discovery of the neutrino. This case study shows that the distinction between causal and theoretical warrant is crucial for understanding what it means to "directly detect" a new particle. But the distinction is also an effective tool against what I take to be the presently most powerful objection to scientific realism: Kyle Stanford's argument from unconceived alternatives. I respond to this argument in chapter 6, and I illustrate my response with a discussion of Jean Perrin's experimental work concerning the atomic hypothesis. In the final part of the dissertation, I turn to the specific challenges posed to realism by quantum theories. One of these challenges comes from the experimental violations of Bell's inequalities, which indicate a failure of locality in the quantum domain. I show in chapter 7 how causal realism can further our understanding of quantum non-locality by taking account of some recent experimental results. Another challenge to realism in quantum mechanics comes from delayed-choice experiments, which seem to imply that certain aspects of what happens in an experiment can be influenced by later choices of the experimenter. Chapter 8 analyzes these experiments and argues that they do not warrant the antirealist conclusions which some commentators draw from them. It pays particular attention to the case of delayed-choice entanglement swapping and the corresponding question whether entanglement is a real physical relation. In chapter 9,1 finally address relativistic quantum theories. It is often claimed that these theories are incompatible with a particle ontology, and this calls into question causal realism's commitment to localizable and countable entities. I defend the commitments of causal realism against these objections, and I conclude with some remarks connecting the interpretation of quantum field theory to more general metaphysical issues confronting causal realism.

Man Made Black Holes and Big Bangs: Diffusion and Integration of Scientific Information into Everyday Thinking

Drawing on Social Representations Theory, this study investigates focalisation and anchoring during the diffusion of information concerning the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the particle accelerator at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN). We hypothesised that people focus on striking elements of the message, abandoning others, that the nature of the initial information affects diffusion of information, and that information is anchored in prior attitudes toward CERN and science. A serial reproduction experiment with two generations and four chains of reproduction diffusing controversial versus descriptive information about the LHC shows a reduction of information through generations, the persistence of terminology regarding the controversy and a decrease of other elements for participants exposed to polemical information. Concerning anchoring, positive attitudes toward CERN and science increase the use of expert terminology unrelated to the controversy. This research highlights the relevance of a social representational approach in the public understanding of science.

La toxicologie forensique, une discipline scientifique en plein essor [Forensic toxicology, a growing scientific discipline]

La recherche de substances ayant pu jouer un rôle direct ou indirect dans la cause de la mort ou ayant pu modifier le comportement d'un individu constitue la mission première de la toxicologie forensique. L'augmentation de la consommation de substances illégales et de médicaments dans les sociétés modernes a fait connaître à la toxicologie forensique un essor très important ces dernières décennies. D'autre part, les développements technologiques analytiques ont permis d'obtenir des outils très sensibles et spécifiques pour la recherche et le dosage d'une multitude de substances dans une grande variété d'échantillons biologiques, parfois présentes à des concentrations très faibles, conséquence d'une dose équivalente à la prise d'une seule unité galénique. Forensic toxicology has to bring evidence of substances that could have been involved directly or indirectly in the cause of death or that could influence the behaviour of somebody. The increase of the consumption of illegal and legal drugs in modern societies during last decades gave a boost to forensic toxicology. Moreover, improvement with analytical technology gave tools with high degrees of sensitivity and specificity for the screening and quantification of a large amount of substances in various biological specimens, even with very low concentration resulting of a single dose of medication.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION: Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

A festschrift for Roland L. Weinsier: nutrition scientist, educator, and clinician.

Roland L. Weinsier, M.D., Dr.P.H., devoted himself to the fields of nutrition and obesity for more than 35 years. He contributed outstanding work related to the treatment of obesity through dietary and lifestyle change; metabolic/energetic influences on obesity, weight loss, and weight regain; body composition changes accompanying weight loss and regain; the health benefits and risks of weight loss; nutrition education for physicians; and nutrition support of sick patients. He served on the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) National Task Force on Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, as Chair of the University of Alabama at Birmingham's Department of Nutrition Sciences, and as Founder and Director of its NIDDK-funded Clinical Nutrition Research Center. He was a long-time and active member of NAASO, serving in the roles of Councilor, Publications Committee Chair, Continuing Medical Education Course Director, Public Relations Committee Chair, and Membership Committee Co-Chair, to name just a few. He was well respected as a staunch defender of NAASO's scientific integrity in these roles. Sadly, Roland Weinsier died on November 27, 2002. He will be missed and remembered by many as a revered and beloved teacher, mentor, healer, and scholar.

Discovery of the faithfulness gene: a model of transmission and transformation of scientific information.

The purpose of this paper is to study the diffusion and transformation of scientific information in everyday discussions. Based on rumour models and social representations theory, the impact of interpersonal communication and pre-existing beliefs on transmission of the content of a scientific discovery was analysed. In three experiments, a communication chain was simulated to investigate how laypeople make sense of a genetic discovery first published in a scientific outlet, then reported in a mainstream newspaper and finally discussed in groups. Study 1 (N=40) demonstrated a transformation of information when the scientific discovery moved along the communication chain. During successive narratives, scientific expert terminology disappeared while scientific information associated with lay terminology persisted. Moreover, the idea of a discovery of a faithfulness gene emerged. Study 2 (N=70) revealed that transmission of the scientific message varied as a function of attitudes towards genetic explanations of behaviour (pro-genetics vs. anti-genetics). Pro-genetics employed more scientific terminology than anti-genetics. Study 3 (N=75) showed that endorsement of genetic explanations was related to descriptive accounts of the scientific information, whereas rejection of genetic explanations was related to evaluative accounts of the information.

Recherche scientifique en médecine de famille: expériences, barrières et besoins des praticiens [Scientific research in family medicine: practitioners' experience, barriers and needs].

Scientific data from family medicine are relevant for the majority of the population. They are therefore essential from an ethical and public health perspective. We need to promote quality research in family medicine despite methodological, financial and logistic barriers. To highlight the strengths and weaknesses of research in family medicine in the French-speaking part of Switzerland we asked practitioners from this region to share their experience, critics and needs in relation to research. This article summarizes their contribution in light of the international literature.

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.