Janella Baxter is a philosopher of science. Her work focuses on epistemological issues in experimental areas of biology. She is beginning to branch out into social, political, and ethical issues regarding science policy. She is currently a lecturer at Washington University’s Philosophy Department. Prior to this, she spent three years as a postdoc researcher.
What excites you about philosophy?
To me, philosophy is about building off what others have done well and finding ways to advance a discussion to the next logical conclusion. I think philosophy of science is doing this very thing at the moment. In the analytical tradition, philosophy of science began by focusing on scientific theories isolated from the many processes by which scientific knowledge is produced. Recently, philosophers of science have begun to engage more seriously with the actual processes by which scientific knowledge is generated. One way to see this is in the development of new organizations like the Society of the Philosophy of Science in Practice and the project From Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics (which I participated on as a postdoc). The community is interpreting questions about how science operates broadly. Philosophers of science are investigating how funding agencies promote some types of epistemic values over others; how the publication reward system steers scientists’ choices in what to research; how the management of large-scale data sets informs conceptual change; and more. I think this new approach has helped develop a more accurate and sophisticated picture of science. It turns out that scientific progress isn’t always guided by universal rules of logic and that the concept of truth is often too crude to capture why a scientific community adopts a theory or set of practices.
Philosophy of science is an inherently interdisciplinary area because interaction with scientists is crucial for our work. However, the community’s shift to questions of how science works has brought philosophers of science into conversation with an even broader range of scholarly disciplines. So, a philosopher of biology might draw from work by historians, anthropologists, sociologists, engineers, lab technicians as well as biologists. I love finding philosophy in places where one might never have expected it. I guess this is why I feel so at home in philosophy of science.
What are you most proud of in your professional life?
Last summer, I co-founded a Biological Engineering Collaboratory (https://www.bioengcoll.org/) with Dominic Berry (a historian of science at London School of Economics) and Rob Smith (a sociologist of science at the University of Edinburgh). The Collaboratory is a network for scholars working at the intersection of biology and engineering. I’m especially proud of the amount of enthusiasm we’ve received from the community. We have a large and incredibly diverse membership! We’re hosting a virtual workshop series beginning in September. Abstracts and Intro videos can be viewed here.
What is your favorite thing that you’ve written?
How Biological Technology Should Inform the Causal Selection Debate
What are you reading right now? Would you recommend it?
I’ve been reading Hasok Chang’s “Is Water H2O?” It’s everything I want in a philosophy book. It challenges one of the most widely accepted narratives about the replacement of phlogiston with Lavoisier’s theory of oxygen. The common story is that Lavoisier’s theory was superior and that Joseph Priestly dogmatically clung the idea of phlogiston. Chang very convincingly argues shows that the turn to Lavoisier’s system was neither sudden nor due to the theory’s obvious superiority. It turns out that the two theories were pretty comparable in terms of explanation and prediction. In fact, the two theories describe subtly different phenomena, which Chang uses to defend scientific pluralism. Even more provocatively, Chang engages in some whiggish history to advance his thesis that phlogiston has in some ways been picked up and developed by other areas of science. What I find most persuasive is that he makes his foray into whiggish thinking justifiable by including evidence that some major scientific figures of the 19th century (like Michael Faraday) thought phlogiston might yet be true!
The book is a treat to read. I often liken it to drinking an excellent cup of coffee. It’s full of rich and fascinating historical detail and the philosophical analysis of each chapter is exquisitely satisfying.
What’s your favorite quote?
At the end of every semester, I love to leave my students with the following quote from the author and YouTube vlogger John Green: “Study broadly and without fear.” John says this in one of his vlog posts where he is giving advice to students entering college. I teach a broad range of majors from the sciences and humanities. I want to encourage students to study whatever piques their curiosity without worry about how a class will affect their GPA or job prospects. This may be the one period in their lives where they are able to hone their critical thinking skills and explore new ideas as an ends in themselves. I think every student deserves to learn without fear of what their performance says about their character and capacities.
This section of the APA Blog is designed to get to know our fellow philosophers a little better. We’re including profiles of APA members that spotlight what captures their interest not only inside the office, but also outside of it. We’d love for you to be a part of it, so please contact us via the interview nomination form here to nominate yourself or a friend.
Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall is an editor at the Blog of the APA who currently teaches philosophy, religion, and education courses solely online for Montclair State University, Three Rivers Community College, and St. John’s University.
