Third-party funded projects

Funding
Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre

Principal Investigator
Dr. David Löwenstein

Project Members
Dr. Sebastian Cacean
Dr. Christoph Schamberger
Marion Seiche

Links
Report

Project Describtion
Der konstruktive Umgang mit Kontroversen ist eine wichtige Qualifikation für Studierende. Dieses Projekt soll Lehrinhalte und -konzepte entwickeln, mit denen Studierende Kompetenzen in der konstruktiven Begleitung von Kontroversen erwerben und trainieren können. Sie üben sich darin, relevante Argumente und deren Beziehungen zueinander zu analysieren, sie angemessen darzustellen und solche Darstellungen konstruktiv in den weiteren Verständigungs- und Lösungsprozess einzubringen. Dazu soll die Methode der Argumentlandkarten genutzt werden (Argument Mapping): Grafiken mit Aussagen und Argumenten, die durch grüne Pfeile (Begründung) und rote Pfeile (Kritik) vernetzt sind. Die Studierenden sollen einüben, Argumentlandkarten zu entwerfen, im Dialog mit den Beteiligten zu evaluieren und zu überarbeiten und sie schließlich konstruktiv in die Unterstützung der Entscheidungs- und Lösungsfindung einzubringen. Das Projekt soll dazu (1) allgemeine und transferierbare Open Educational Resources (OER) sowie (2) spezifische Konzepte für deren Einsatz in verschiedenen Lehr- und Lernformaten entwickeln und erproben. Dazu gehören fachliche Veranstaltungen in der Philosophie, Veranstaltungen zu interdisziplinären Themen für Studierende aller Fächer sowie Bürger:innenbeteiligungs-Seminare zu öffentlichen Kontroversen, in denen interessierte Personen im Sinne der partizipativen Wissenschaftskommunikation in Diskussionsrunden eingebunden werden, die Studierende konstruktiv begleiten.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
SFB 1646 “Sprachliche Kreativität in der Kommunikation” (Universität Bielefeld)

Principal Investigators
Prof. Dr. Julia Zakkou
Prof. Dr. Christian Nimtz

Links
Project homepage

Project Describtion
Project B05 investigates the variant of objective interpretative indeterminacy known as 'open texture'. Combining approaches from metasemantics, semantics and pragmatics, the project analyses the nature, grounds, and consequences of open texture in classificatory predicates, and it explores the foundational role of this phenomenon in the emergence of linguistic creativity.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigators
Prof. Dr. Gottfried Vosgerau
Dr. David Löwenstein

Project Members
Dr. Nastasia Müller (2024-2025)
Dr. Felix Kopecky (2025-2027)

Links
Report

Project Describtion
Argumentation theory and applied argument analysis aims at making justifications and justification structures comprehensible. To this end, rational reconstructions of individual arguments and networks of several interrelated arguments are presented and philosophically reflected upon. Implicit elements are made visible, such as implicit premises, implicit conclusions or even entire implicit arguments, which result from the possibly not explicitly mentioned role of a contribution in a more complex discussion situation. The problem, however, is that human belief formation is often subject to "irrational" influences that lead to false beliefs. So far, cognitive biases have played virtually no role in the reconstruction of arguments. One reason for this may be that cognitive distortions are processes that generally occur unconsciously and cannot be consciously controlled. Since they are at least superficially subject to little or no cognitive control, it seems that they cannot be cited as premises or reasons in arguments. Another reason that cognitive biases have not been considered in argument reconstruction so far is that cognitive biases are considered "irrational" by definition. However, the principle of benevolence is central to argument reconstruction. According to this principle, arguments should always be reconstructed as strong, rational and plausible as possible, including implicit and benevolently reformulated elements. Adequate inclusion of the fact that people form beliefs in an "irrational" way is therefore methodologically very demanding, perhaps even impossible, in argument reconstruction. The aim of this project is to integrate cognitive biases and other explanatory strategies, such as information deficits or virtue deficits, into the reconstruction of arguments without violating the principle of benevolence. The existing method of rational argument reconstruction will be supplemented and further developed into the new method of cognitive-rational reconstruction of arguments. This method is intended to make justifications visible even where they were previously not visible. In this way, the effects of cognitive distortions and biases known from psychological research should, as far as possible, become visible as part of the substantive debate instead of remaining invisible as supposedly irrational foreign bodies or evolutionary automatisms. This forms the basis for a fair discussion of justifications that does not remain in the ideal-rational space, but instead connects to the empirical realities of human thought.

Funding
Ministerium für Kultur und Wissenschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen

Principal Investigators
Prof. Dr. Gottfried Vosgerau
Prof. Dr. Michael Schmitt

Project Member
Dr. Maria Sojka

Links
Project homepage

Project Describtion
WP9 combines the perspective of natural sciences with the unique perspective of philosophy of science.  It develops cutting edge, interdisciplinary science communication strategies for ACCeSS. The aim of WP9 is thus twofold. On the one hand, WP9 facilitates the science communication for ACCeSS. Adequate science communication is central to public acceptance of scientific research results. The research done in ACCeSS is of vital interest to the common public and should thus be developed in close cooperation with civil society. Therefore, we seek to strengthen both access to knowledge and participation of scientists and non-scientists in the discussion of the project aims, results and assessment of innovations. Open science bears an additional value for both sides: The public takes part in the process of knowledge acquisition, thus enhancing the understanding of scientific methods and (re)gaining confidence in scientific work in general. Science also benefits from a joint agenda setting with the addressees of the innovations to be developed. Our approach to science communication is guided by three practical principles:

1. Focusing on creating content for people who usually do not seek out science communication-events on their own.
2. Moving away from the conventional top-down approach of science communication. That means actively asking the public what they are interested in and taking this into account when organizing events.
3. Following a holistic approach to science communication that focuses not just on communicating facts, but also more general basic knowledge about how science functions and operates.

On the other hand, the direct collaboration between scientists and philosophers of science in ACCeSS enables us to closely study the challenges and pitfalls of science communication. We are particularly interested in the discrepancies between the public’s expectation and what science actually can achieve. Thus, we investigate how science skepticism is fostered by a widespread oversimplified understanding of how science works and what science can accomplish. We are especially interested in the question where those oversimplified “stories” about science originate and why they are also often told within science. Further, we consider the corresponding epistemic and normative consequences of such oversimplified views.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigators
Dr. Oliver Victor
Prof. Dr. Christoph Kann

Links
Project website
Project presentation Science communication

Project Describtion
The project intends to revise the history of Albert Camus’s development as a philosopher. Against the background of the generally dominant image of Camus as a modern literary classic as well as his self-concept as a creator of art, its main goal is to make Camus’s philosophical works accessible with a focus on still largely unknown juvenilia. Insofar as Camus’s early philosophical work has already been widely received, this has been done by concentrating on his thesis "Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism" (1936) as well as on the central work "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942). In the German-speaking world little or no attention, however, has been paid to the aforementioned juvenilia, which are indispensable for a more complete, coherent picture of Camus’s thought, especially his cultural philosophy with its leitmotifs of the European and the Mediterranean, his anthropology and his aesthetics. In the context of the project, Camus’s "Écrits de jeunesse", written between 1931/32 and 1934, will be edited, translated into German, commented, and made accessible to scholars with regard to their philosophical significance. The aim of the project is to provide further research with an important textual basis, to provide a foundation for a philological and philosophical exploitation of the writings, and to contribute to a more adequate image of Camus through historical and systematic studies of them.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Julia Zakkou

Project Member
Tim Grasshöfer

Project Describtion
We often say explicitly what we think and want. Sometimes, however, we communicate indirectly. We speak in a roundabout way and rely on others to read between the lines. The ways we do that are multifaceted, and the communicative intentions with which we do it can be varied. Not always are they transparent and not always are the communicative aims to everybody’s best interest. On the contrary, as we have all experienced in personal interaction and observed following ongoing political events, the intentions can be opaque and the aims fairly self-serving. In light of this, one would expect indirect communication to be a central topic in philosophy, attracting attention from both theoretical and practical perspectives. So far, however, the focus has been on specific theoretical questions regarding a fairly narrow set of cases. The richness of ways in which we communicate indirectly has not been fully acknowledged, and the connection to practical issues, some of which are of clear moral concern, is underexplored. This project sets out to fill this lacuna. Its aim is to elucidate central aspects and crucial forms of indirect communication and to offer an in-depth analysis both of the reasons that drive, and the challenges caused by, the use and abuse of indirect communication. Special emphasis will be given to the workings of charged expressions, where theoretical and practical questions most clearly interact. The project employs an interdisciplinary approach, bringing in insights from, as well delivering outputs to, debates in linguistics, cognitive science and social science. It widens our view of the phenomena by transgressing the focus on examples from the English-speaking sphere to cases from the German-speaking world, thereby making its results more relevant and accessible to a broader non-academic audience. The project is divided into five specific work packages (WPs). WP1 and WP2 examine classical tests for indirectly communicated contents and investigate entailed and associated contents as two understudied phenomena in the debate on indirect communication. WP3 works towards an account of why indirect communication can come in handy to the speaker, and why it can be challenging to the receiver. WP4 and WP5 address the workings of charged language. They start from the observation that we often not only describe the world around us but also assess the things we refer to. The main question will be how language allows us to do this. WP4 is concerned with sexist and racist slurs, while WP6 focuses on so-called thick and thin adjectives.

Funding
Manchot Stiftung - Manchot Forschungsgruppe

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Frank Dietrich

Links
Project website

Project Describtion
The project investigates whether and, if so, to what extent the established philosophical discourse on discrimination is applicable to new forms of disadvantage caused by artificial intelligence methods. Some problems that arise in the context of AI-assisted decision making, e.g., through the use of biased training data, can be well captured by established discrimination concepts. In addition, however, there are more complicated phenomena that give rise to novel forms of disadvantage. For example, in “redundant encoding,” particularly protected characteristics, such as ethnicity, correlate so closely with supposedly unproblematic data, such as zip code, that use of the supposedly unproblematic data results in protected groups being disadvantaged. Further, the use of AI may lead to a systematic disadvantage of “random groups,” such as people with certain shopping behaviors that correlate with non-payment. Here, it needs to be clarified to what extent the conventional understanding of discrimination can be solved by classical characteristics, such as skin color, gender or age. In all of the phenomenon areas under consideration, we will examine how established concepts of discrimination need to be adapted in order to adequately capture phenomena of AI-based discrimination. The project is part of the “Use Case Law” of the Manchot research group “Decision Making using artificial intelligence methods”.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigators
Dr. Paul Thorn
Dr. Leandra Bucher

Project Describtion
This project addresses unresolved questions concerning the acceptable use of frequency information as an evidential basis for knowledge and as an evidential basis for making unfavorable judgments about individuals, especially within legal proceedings and other public situations, such as airport security screenings. In addition to challenging existing views of why certain sorts of frequency information are defective as evidence, we introduce and defend some previously undescribed epistemic and ethical principles that do place significant limits on the permissible use of frequency information (e.g., in the case of ethnic profiling). We also conduct studies with human subjects in order to (1) show that the reluctance of persons to regard frequency information as a proper evidential basis is often the result of distorted perceptions of probability, and (2) establish techniques that can be used to reduce distorted perceptions of probability. Through further empirical studies, we also test the hypothesis that subjects regard it as problematic to conclude that a person has an undesirable characteristic based upon a particular piece of evidence unless there is a non-negligible probability that the evidence is a causal consequence of the person having the characteristic. The ultimate goals of the project are to develop clear and compelling recommendations concerning the acceptable use of frequency information in forming legal judgments, and to offer public policy recommendations that are informed by a better understanding of the cognitive processes that influence intuitions about the acceptable use of frequency information as evidence.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigators
Prof. Dr. Gottfried Vosgerau
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Members
Dr. Matias Osta-Velez
Dr. Maria Sekatskaya
Sebastian Scholz
Dr. Paul Thorn

Links
Report

Project Describtion
This project grew out of project D01 of the Düsseldorf Collaborative Research Unit 991, whose focus of research was the theory of frames and their application in linguistics, philosophy and cognitive science. In the latter project, the research focused on the investigation of prototype concepts and their role in common-sense reasoning. For this purpose, we developed a conception of prototype frames that consist not only of the general attribute value structures of frames, but carry numeric information about the probability or typicality of the values and the diagnosticity of the attributes. Frames carrying numerical information are called 'parameterised frames'. The cognitive advantage of frames, as compared to simple feature lists, is to offer economical and easily comprehensible representations of complex semantic structures. An alternative method for representing complex concepts, especially prototype concepts, is the modelling by conceptual spaces. Conceptual spaces and frames share a functional structure. Both are based on attributes, i.e., functions X that assign values out of a value space Val to given objects a: X(a)∈Val. For example, the attribute colour assigns a value in the value space Val = {red, green,...} to a given object: colour(myshirt) = red. However, there are also remarkable differences. Frames, on the one hand, consist of bundles of attributes with a recursive structure, which we do not find in conceptual spaces. Conceptual spaces, on the other hand, associate value spaces with topological or geometric structures by means of a distance measure. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches? In particular, to what extent can our frame account benefit from the geometrical structures of conceptual spaces? These questions motivate the major aims of this project, that can be summarized as follows:Aim 1 – Providing a comparison of conceptual spaces and frames, especially parameterised frames. Investigating their commonalities and differences, advantages and limitations.Aim 2 – Embedding conceptual space structures in parameterised frames. Geometrical tools are fruitfully applied within parameterised frames without compromising the general frame modelling (in particular, their recursive structure).Aim 3 – Investigating the ontological and cognitive naturalness of frames and their attribute concepts, by applying criteria of naturality from conceptual spaces theory, such as convexity. It is conjectured that naturalness of frames is strongly correlated with the ease of their learnability and their cognitive usefulness.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Coordinator
Dr. David Löwenstein

Links
Project website
Project presentation Science communication

Project Describtion
It is with good reason that formulating, analyzing and evaluating arguments, as a crucial competence of free and critical citizens, belongs to the core educational goals of universities and secondary schools. These competences form a crucial part of the well-formulated goal of strengthening the holistic capacity of judgment, as articulated in the Dresden Consensus. Philosophy has a special responsibility to foster such argumentative competences. For it harbors the systematic critical reflection of justifying, reasoning and arguing – argumentation theory. But this part of philosophy on the one hand and the didactics of philosophy and ethics on the other hand are so far insufficiently connected with respect to the didactics of argument and reasoning. The aim of the research network „Argumentation at School“ is to systematically investigate the didactics of argument and reasoning and to establish this field as an own area of research at the intersection of philosophy and its didactics.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigators
PD Dr. David Hommen
Prof. Dr. Christoph Kann

Project Member
Dr. Frauke Albersmeier

Links
Project website

Project Describtion
The project intends a systematic and historical reconstruction and evaluation of frame theory as a universal format of knowledge representation. Originally developed for artificial intelligence data structures, increasing numbers of theorists in the fields of psychology, linguistics and philosophy hypothesize that representations at the neurocognitive level, the level of natural language as well as the level of institutionalized scientific classifications are organized into recursive attribute-value structures, so-called frames. The project in particular investigates the relation between type signatures and ontologies in the context of a frame-based approach to conceptual representation. Constituted by a type hierarchy, a set of attributes, and an appropriateness specification, a type signature constrains the implementation of attributes and values in a frame and so defines the space of possible frames. Philosophical questions with regard to type signatures concern the relation between the inferential structure of cognitive and linguistic representations on the one hand and the metaphysical structure of the natural world on the other. A type signature may be considered as a) an adequate model of our conceptual scheme, b) a normative framework for defining concepts, and c) an ontological taxonomy of extra-linguistic and extra-conceptual reality. The project examines the historical and systematic interconnections between these epistemological, methodological and metaphysical perspectives, linking the discussion of classical theories of categorization, in particular of the Aristotelian categorial scheme, to the definition of feature logics and to related approaches in formal ontology. The inquiry is not merely doxographic but should rather supply a deeper understanding of the structures, intentions and prerequisits of frame theory.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
Research Unit “Inductive Metaphysics”

Principat Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Description
Metaphysics of Evolution: Justification and Ontology of Generalized Evolution TheoryIn generalized evolution (GE) theory, the three core principles of the theory of evolution − reproduction, variation and selection − are detached from their biological basis, abstracted and extended to other domains, in particular to the domain of culture in the broad sense (including language, law, science and technology). This project investigates the abductive justifiability and ontological assumptions of GE theory and in particular of cultural evolution (CE) theory, which is the most important subfield of GE theory. The research agenda of project B10 consist of four work packages (WPs). WP1 will investigate the extent to which CE theory can be abductively justified as the best explanation of long-term developments in human culture. Given that CE theory has an abductive justification, the metaphysical notion of generalized evolution can be justified by a second level abduction. The unifying dynamical principles and ontological assumptions of GE theory and their predictive content will be laid down and investigated in WP2. Acquired information structures or 'memes' are crucial for CE theory. The elaboration of their ontology is the task of WP3, based on the leading idea that 'memes' can be identified with neuronal structures in the (human) brain. A further important pair of ontological notions, both for GE theory and CE theory, is that of population and of (quasi-)species. While the biological concept of a population based on interbreeding is too narrow and unsuitable for CE theory, several generalized notions of population have been developed in biological evolution (BE) theory. Their applicability to CE theory will be investigated in WP4.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Coordinators
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz (2020-2025)
Prof. Dr. Andreas Hüttemann (2017-2020)

Principal Investigators and Project Members
See project homepage

Links
Project homepage

Project Describtion
The overall purpose of the research unit is to articulate and elaborate a new understanding of the nature and methodology of metaphysics.  Borrowing a term from late 19th century philosophy, the resulting conception of metaphysics is called Inductive Metaphysics.
We argue that, in general, metaphysical beliefs should not and cannot be adequately justified solely on a conceptual and a priori basis. Empirical sources and inductive or abductive forms of inference should and in fact do play a much more prominent role in metaphysics than is typically acknowledged. An important share of metaphysical beliefs should be justified a posteriori, based on inductive or abduc­tive inferences from empirical data, embedded in a methodology that resembles that of science, except that metaphysical concepts and theories are transdisciplinary and more general than concepts and theories in science.
The research unit aims at developing a systematic account of the methodology and the empirical sources of Inductive Metaphysics. An essential means for achieving this aim is a combination of methodological or A-projects and application-oriented or B-projects. B-projects deal with selected metaphysical issues; they are original contributions to metaphysical research and at the same time they serve as test cases for A-projects. A-projects are concerned with historical and methodological investigations of Inductive Metaphysics; they use the results of B-projects as their input and deliver methodological questions and results to B-projects as their output. All three A-projects of the first three-year period shall be continued in the second period, with themes that are natural follow-ups of the results and open problems that emerged from the work in the first period. All B-projects of the first period are replaced by new B-projects, some of which bear important connections to predecessor projects in the first period and others which bring entirely new thematic areas into the range of application of Inductive Metaphysics.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
Research Unit “Inductive Metaphysics”

Principat Investigator
Prof. Dr. Markus Schrenk
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Description
This project continues the work of project A2 in the first phase, exploring creative abduction (CA) as method of inductive metaphysics (IM) based on a selection of metaphysical questions and on the case studies in the B projects. The project consists of two parts. In the first part, A2.1, the reach of the abductive methodology in metaphysics is tested along the lines of the concepts of nomological necessity and possibility, that play a role in almost all domains of metaphysical explanations. A2.1 investigates whether and to what extent these notions or variants of them (e.g., lawlikeness versus fundamental lawhood, physical versus metaphysical necessity) can themselves be justified by abductive inferences meeting the rationality criteria for scientific abduction, unification and independent testability, in order to yield a notion of necessity that fits the practice of natural science. Particular attention is given to the role of independent evidence for nomological possibility based on assumptions about freedom. Finally, we will systematically investigate the different kinds of explanation employed in the abductive inferences in IM; this latter work package will be undertaken together with A2.2.In the second part, A2.2, it will be investigated how abductive methods that find fruitful application in the sciences but that have not yet been explored by our project in the first phase can be applied to metaphysics. In particular, the role model-building can play in metaphysics conceived as an abductive enterprise will be critically examined. Second, we will examine the extent to which using abductive virtues such as simplicity in metaphysical theorizing can help to improve metaphysical theories by making them more robust and less error-fragile. Third, in light of our foregoing inquiry and together with A2.1, we will answer the question of how abductively inferred metaphysical theories explain. In particular, we explore whether and how grounding explanations can be accounted for within IM.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
Research Unit “Inductive Metaphysics”

Principat Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Description
Project B5 investigates metaphysical questions concerning human action and freedom on the basis of the theory of causal Bayes nets (Spirtes et al. 2000). The answer to such questions depends on the specific theory of causation endorsed (cf. Hitchcock 2012). Using the theory of causal Bayes nets as one's background theory of causation seems promising from the viewpoint of Inductive Metaphysics: The theory's core can be backed up by an inference to the best explanation of certain empirical phenomena and several versions of the theory are empirically testable (Schurz & Gebharter 2016). Project B5 is specifically interested in the following four research questions (RQs). In RQ1 we ask how much freedom and what kinds of freedom are possible in light of a causal Bayes net framework. RQ2 is about how much freedom we have to assume to explain empirical phenomena such as successful cases of causal discovery by means of interventions, especially in experimentation and randomisation. Driven by an inference to the best explanation--one of the most important methods of Inductive Metaphysics--we develop a general and interdisciplinary theory of freedom. In RQ3 we investigate which empirical consequences are implied by different versions of the theory of causal Bayes nets when one adds different assumptions about free human interventions. Finally, in RQ4 we reconstruct prominent arguments from the literature on the freedom of human will and action within the theory of causal Bayes nets and evaluate their validity and the plausibility of their premises from the viewpoint of this particular theory of causation. In doing so, we focus especially on arguments for and against the compatibility of freedom and indeterminism.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
DFG Research Unit 1063 “Causation, Laws, Dispositions and Explanations at the Interface of Science and Metaphysics”

Principal Investigators
Prof. Dr. Markus Schrenk
Prof. Dr. Oliver R. Scholz

Project Description
Traditionell wird die Metaphysik aufgefasst als die Erforschung dessen, was unabhängig von der Erfahrung ist (gleichsam vor oder hinter ihr liegt), was also nicht durch das Studium der Natur selbst entdeckt werden kann, dabei aber dennoch die fundamentale Struktur der Wirklichkeit ausmacht. Gerade deshalb aber ist die Möglichkeit von Metaphysik in der Philosophie oft umstritten gewesen: Ihre Aussagen lassen sich nicht ohne weiteres empirisch überprüfen. Die Kritik an ihr kulminiert im naturwissenschaftsfreundlichen Logischen Empirismus des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts, der alle ihre Aussagen schlichtweg nicht nur als falsch, sondern, weil nicht wissenschaftlich testbar, sogar als gänzlich sinnlos abstempelte.Ironischerweise ist der Logische Empirismus allerdings auch einer der Urväter der heutigen Wissenschaftstheorie, die sich zunehmend wieder metaphysischen Fragen zuwendet und teilweise sogar große spekulative Systeme entwirft. Obwohl die Forschergruppe den letztgenannten Auswüchsen skeptisch gegenübersteht, bekennt sie sich selbst dazu, “am Schnittpunkt von Wissenschaft und Metaphysik” zu stehen und durchaus begründete metaphysische Aussagen zu treffen.Es ist daher für die Gruppe von besonderer Bedeutung, darzulegen, aus welchen Gründen die strenge Ablehnung der Metaphysik der „Urväter“ zurückgewiesen werden kann, und in welcher Form eine behutsame Metaphysik möglich ist. Diesem Desiderat will P0, das als ein Meta- und Rahmenprojekt für die gesamte Gruppe angesehen werden kann, nachkommen.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Coordinators
Prof. Dr. Laura Kallmeyer (2015-2020)
Prof. Dr. Gottfried Vosgerau (2015-2020)
Prof. Dr. Sebastian Löbner (2011-2015)

Principal Investigators and Project Members
See project homepage

Links
Project homepage

Project Describtion
How do we conceive of the world? What is the structure and composition of our concepts? How do we represent in our minds categories, individuals, relations, properties, events, or sentence meanings? The CRC 991 is a foundational research centre that addresses issues of a general theory of conceptual representation such as these. A research focus in linguistics is combined with projects from philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and the philosophy of science. The point of departure is the hypothesis that there is a uniform structure of representations at the neural level, the level of linguistic concepts, and the level of institutionalized conceptions such as those used in science. This uniform structure is frames in the sense introduced by the cognitive psychologist Lawrence Barsalou. Barsalou frames describe what they represent in terms of attributes (for example shape, origin, or function) and the values they take. According to Barsalou’s theory of cognition, frames are grounded in, and interact with, the sensory-motor system. The human system of concepts is not abstract and amodal; rather it is immediately anchored with perception and action.
The central and overarching objective of the CRC is the development of a general frame theory of concepts. The foundations of such a theory were laid in the DFG Research Unit 600 “Functional Concepts and Frames”, where the notoriously vague notion of “frame” received a precise formal definition. The CRC aims at extending this theory by two fundamental innovations that go considerably beyond Barsalou’s original approach: the modeling of dynamic concept components such as temporal developments and causal relationships, and an investigation of the general operations for modifying, deriving, and combining concepts. In the linguistic projects, the approach will be adopted to develop for the first time a principled general theory for decomposing word meanings. This will be the basis for a new theoretical understanding of the grammatical and semantic combination of words into sentences. With this approach, the CRC aims at building a bridge between the formal and the cognitive camps in linguistics. In addition to linguistics, frame theory will be applied in philosophical projects for representing scientific theories, for the analysis of prototype concepts and for examining the relation between individual psychology and public meaning. Moreover, projects belonging to the fields of experimental psychology, psycholinguistics and neuro-cognition empirically test the predictions of the frame approach with respect to social cognition, language processing and the grounding of linguistic concepts in the sensorymotor system..

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Describtion
The background of this project is a dual account of cognition, in which locally adaptive strategies of prediction or inference and general meta-inductive strategies work together. Based on inductive generalizations of observed success rates, meta-inductive strategies attempt to select or to combine locally adapted reasoning methods in ways which perform optimally in a possibly changing environment. Following from insights and questions resulting from work in the 1st phase of this project, the renewal application (years 4-6) focuses on three major objectives. (1) Objective 1: "Meta-inductive prediction strategies between logical generality and local adaptivity." Different meta-inductive prediction strategies shall be investigated in the framework of intermittent prediction games based on online learning, by means of computer simulations with artificial and real-world data, combined with logico-mathematical analysis. We will study the recurrence of local adaptivity at the meta-level and ways to deal with this challenge within our dual account. (2) Objective 2: "Empirical investigation of human learning strategies." We will perform a social learning experiment designed to study the factual role and weight that meta-induction plays in the social learning behavior of individuals.(3) Objective 3: "Cautious and risky reasoning from uncertain conditionals in environments with varying degrees of regularity." Different methods of uncertain reasoning with conditionals will be investigated in environments with different entropy, based on computer simulations of conditional reasoning in artificial and in real-world environments. We intend to develop a system of meta-inductive rules describing the dependence of the performance of different systems of conditional reasoning on the environment's entropy.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Susanne Hahn

Project Describtion
Zielsetzung des Projekts ist die Bereitstellung eines methodisch-argumentativen Instrumentariums, mit dem Wirtschaftssubjekte in die Lage versetzt werden, eigenständig wirtschaftsethische Reflexionen anzustellen. Einerseits soll damit die in der Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik häufig anzutreffende Vorentscheidung für eine ethische Theorie vermieden werden. Andererseits ist dem Theoriedefizit reiner Fallstudien zu begegnen. – In einem redehandlungsorientierten Argumentationsrahmen sind insbesondere allgemeine Normen als wesentliche Bestandteile normativer Argumentation zu untersuchen: Dazu gehört die Struktur von Normen und ihre Rolle in Argumentationen ebenso wie die Rechtfertigung allgemeiner Normen, die Verpflichtung auf allgemeine Normen und das Zusammenspiel von moralischem Urteil, Handlung und Norm. Zudem ist die Einbeziehung empirischer Zusammenhänge in normative Argumentationen zu erörtern, insbesondere die Resultate zum tatsächlichen (ökonomischen) Handeln. Hinzu treten Überlegungen zum Verhältnis verschiedener normativer Systeme, wie sie die politische und rechtliche Rahmenordnung, die Unternehmensordnung und die normativen Überzeugungskonglomerate beteiligter Individuen darstellen. Erkenntnisse zum Verhältnis dieser normativen Systeme des Wirtschaftens sind auf ihre Verallgemeinerbarkeit zu prüfen.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Describtion
Eines der schwierigsten Probleme der theoretischen Philosophie, das vor etwa 250 Jahren von David Hume aufgeworfen wurde, besteht in der Frage, wie induktives Schließen rational gerechtfertigt werden kann. Bislang konnte keine befriedigende Lösung dieses Problems gefunden werden, und nicht wenige Philosophen halten das Induktionsproblem (bzw. Humesche Problem) für theoretisch unlösbar. Ich, der Antragsteller, arbeite seit etlichen Jahren an einem neuen Ansatz zur Lösung dieses Problems, der auf Resultaten der mathematischen Lern- und Spieltheorie sowie auf Computersimulationen von Voraussagespielen basiert. Mein Ansatz unterscheidet sich von früheren Ansätzen darin, dass erstens das Rechtfertigungsziel der Verlässlichkeit durch das bescheidenere Ziel der Optimalität von Induktion ersetzt wird, sowie zweitens nicht die Optimalität von Objektinduktion, sondern die von Metainduktion aufgezeigt wird. Die Optimalität von Metainduktion beruht letztlich darauf, dass es sich dabei um eine universal lernende Strategie handelt, die andere Voraussagemethoden, sofern diese zugänglich und erfolgreich sind, in ihr eigenes Voraussageverfahren einbaut.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
DFG Research Unit 1063 “Causation, Laws, Dispositions and Explanations at the Interface of Science and Metaphysics”

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Description
In dem Projekt soll an den wichtigen Ergebnissen, Problem- und Fragestellungen, die sich bisher auf dem Weg zu einer empirisch gehaltvollen und disziplinenübergreifenden allgemeinen Kausalitätstheorie ergaben, weitergearbeitet werden. Der Schwerpunkt soll dabei vom Thema „Kausalität und Erklärung“ auf das Thema „Kausalität und empirische Anwendung“ verlegt werden. Im Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit stehen die folgenden Punkte:(1) Die in diesem Projekt entwickelte Konzeption des Kausalitätsbegriffs als theoretischer Begriff mit empirischem Gehalt und der Kausalitätstheorie als transdisziplinäre empirisch überprüfbare Theorie soll weiter ausgebaut werden. Als wichtige Teilschritte zu diesem Ziel sind folgende Fragen zu untersuchen: (1.1) Die Bedeutung von Interventionsmöglichkeiten für die Erkenntnis von Kausalität und zur Überprüfung von Parameterstabilität. (1.2) Die meist als problematisch gesehene Anwendung der Kausalitätstheorie auf die Quantenmechanik. (1.3) Das Zusammenspiel von Kausalbeziehungen zwischen Variablen und zwischen Variablenwerten.(2) Gängige für die einzelnen Teilprojekte wichtige Kausalitätstheorien sollen in die entwickelte Kausalitätstheorie eingebettet oder zumindest in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Wir versprechen uns hieraus Aufschluss über deren bisher kaum untersuchte empirische Adäquatheit zu gewinnen.(3) Obwohl Mechanismen eine wichtige Rolle in den Spezialwissenschaften spielen, gibt es bis heute keine allgemein anerkannte formale Explikation des Terms ‚Mechanismus‘. Auf der Basis unserer Kausalitätstheorie soll eine empirisch signifikante Mechanismustheorie entwickelt werden, die die probabilistische Modellierung von Mechanismen erlaubt.(4) Die allgemeine Kausalitätstheorie soll so ausgebaut werden, dass sie fruchtbar auf zyklische Systeme (stationäre Gleichgewichtssysteme, selbstregulative Systeme etc.), die eine zentrale Rolle in vielen Spezialwissenschaften spielen, angewandt werden kann. Der empirische Gehalt der Theorie soll dabei erhalten oder vermehrt werden.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Christoph Kann

Project Describtion
Gegenstand des Projekts ist die Untersuchung zentraler Termini in der Geschichte von Philosophie und Naturwissenschaften, speziell von Metaphysik und Physik. Insbesondere die Termini „Masse“ und „Kraft“, die in beiden Disziplinen von besonderer Relevanz sind, sollen einschließlich angrenzender Termini hinsichtlich ihrer Bedeutungen und ihres Bedeutungswandels fächerübergreifend untersucht werden. Damit intendiert das Projekt neue historische und systematische Erkenntnisse zur Konzeptualisierung und Terminologisierung in Metaphysik und Physik und zu der wissenschaftsgeschichtlich noch relativ wenig erforschten, aber äußerst innovatorischen Übergangszeit vom Spätmittelalter zur frühen Neuzeit. Die Termini „Masse“ und „Kraft“ sollen hinsichtlich ihrer begrifflichen Genese und semantischen Veränderungen, ihrer Vorläuferbegriffe in der aristotelischen Tradition, ihrer Übersetzungsvarianten und ihrer logisch-semantischen Eigenschaften u.a. mittels des Theorieansatzes der Wissensrepräsentation und -systematisierung (Frametheorie) untersucht werden. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit gilt dabei ihrer Analyse anhand moderner Begriffstypenunterscheidungen (Sortal- und Funktionalbegriffe), ihrer terminologischen Vernetzung sowie ihrer Rolle in Theorie- und Paradigmenwechseln.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Integration
DFG Research Unit 1063 “Causation, Laws, Dispositions and Explanations at the Interface of Science and Metaphysics”

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Description
Das Projekt erweitert die Fragestellung der Kausalität von unterlassenen Handlungen auf die Fragestellung einer kausalen und explanatorischen Relevanz von nicht-handlungsartigen negativen Ereignissen und Zuständen, kurz: Abwesenheiten. Abwesenheiten spielen als kausale Faktoren ebenso wie Unterlassungen eine uneliminierbare Rolle nicht nur im Alltagsdenken, sondern auch in den Erklärungen vieler Spezialwissenschaften. Es soll in diesem Projekt eine Konzeption negativer Ereignisse entwickelt werden, die eine kausale Relevanz negativer Faktoren erlaubt, ohne diese metaphysisch zu hypostasieren. Die avisierte Konzeption von Abwesenheiten soll mit einer Konzeption von Mängeln und Dysfunktionen angereichert werden, die möglichst ohne subjektive Kriterien auskommt. Vor diesem Hintergrund soll die Rede von einer kausalen Relevanz negativer und defizitärer Ereignisse und das Verhältnis von kausaler und explanatorischer Relevanz genauer analysiert werden.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Schurz

Project Describtion
The proposal investigates (1) probability logic and nonmonotonic reasoning and its application to human inference, (2) game theoretic evaluations of nonmonotonic reasoning, (3) foundations of causality and causal reasoning, (4) representation of complex knowledge in graphical and nongraphical models, and (5) counterfactual reasoning in children and adults. The relevant dimensions include uncertainty, causality, coherence/consistency, and complexity. They are investigated with respect to their logical and mathematical foundations, their implementation in intelligent systems, and with respect to human reality.

Funding
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Principal Investigator
Dr. Minou Friele

Project Describtion
In einer arbeitsteiligen und zunehmend globalisierten Welt werden wirtschaftliche und auch wissenschaftliche Ziele kaum noch im Alleingang definiert und realisiert. Häufiger werden sie durch grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit ermöglicht - und geprägt. Neben vielfältigen Vorteilen ergeben sich dabei oftmals auch ethische Herausforderungen, die mit interkultureller Kompetenz und Kenntnissen der relevanten Gesetzgebungen allein nicht zu bewältigen sind. Dies gilt v.a., wenn moralische Differenzen zutage treten, die sich trotz intensiver Bemühungen nicht in einem Konsens aufheben lassen. In diesem Fall stellt sich die Frage nach der Möglichkeit von Verhandlungen über moralische Inhalte. Ein mögliches Ziel von Verhandlungen ist die Ausarbeitung von Kompromissen. Sind Kompromisse in moralischen Fragen begrifflich aber überhaupt widerspruchsfrei denkbar? Und falls ja, unter welchen Bedingungen sind sie ethisch legitim? Wo sind die Grenzen des Verhandelbaren und der ethisch legitimen Kooperation zwischen „moralisch Fremden erreicht? Diesen Fragen will das Projekt mit den Mitteln der analytischen Philosophie und unter Einbeziehung wirtschafts- und rechtswissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse mit Ausblick auf aktuelle Fragen internationaler Kooperationsbeziehungen nachgehen.