2000 HSS/PSA Program 1 - History of Science Society

PSA Abstracts
alternative presuppositions and connect them to the specific case of the
foundations of geometry. This will show that we can distinguish mathematically
fundamental features of a geometry from the traditional foundations of that
geometry. We will then argue that the same can be done for category theory,
since the latter exhibits the fundamentals of mathematics and that from there,
a philosophically appealing program, currently being developed by many
logicians and mathematicians, can be envisaged.
Glenn Parsons University of Alberta
Patrick McGivern University of Alberta
Can the Bundle Theory save Substantivalism from the Hole Argument?
One of the most serious theoretical obstacles to contemporary space-time
substantivalism is the dilemma produced by the hole argument. We argue that
adopting the bundle of universals theory of substance allows space-time
substantivalists to escape from this dilemma. Several philosophers, however,
have claimed that the bundle of universals theory and substantivalism are
actually incompatible. We argue that these claims are unfounded. However,
we find that although the positions are not logically incompatible, combining
substantivalism with the bundle of universals theory can lead to a commitment
to various problematic theses about the nature of space-time.
P
S
A
Massimo Pigliucci University of Tennessee
Genotype-environment interactions and our understanding of the biological
bases of human cognitive abilities
The debate on the biological bases of human characteristics, and especially of
cognitive abilities, has been raging in philosophy and biology essentially
forever. The two extreme positions maintain that either a) the genes of an
individual causally explain most of her characteristics, with the environment
playing a modifier role, or b) the environments (physical but especially cultural)
to which an individual is exposed during her life are the major determinants of
her behavior, with the genes playing a secondary role. There is indeed
convincing evidence to support both positions, but that does not mean that the
truth lies somewhere in the middle . Where would this middle be? Surely
nobody think it possible to Solomonically divide an individual’s intelligence
or creativity in percentages due to the environment experienced by or to the
genetic makeup of that individual. I will submit that the conceptual solution
to the conundrum has already been provided by the study of genotypeenvironment
interactions as understood in the context of the modern theory of
reaction norms and phenotypic plasticity. However, no relevant data of this
233