Phenomenology of science is supposed to return to the things themselves by getting as close as possible to the level of scientific practice. In doing so, it engages with a broader landscape of scholarship on science—from sociology and STS to analytic philosophy—that likewise seeks to clarify the epistemic structures of scientific practice. What sets phenomenology apart, however, is its aim of faithfully describing the essential structures of expert experience—the very experience scientists undergo as they engage in their research—by means of a first-person perspective. This paper identifies a central methodological difficulty in this regard: the challenge of expert experience, namely the difficulty of accessing and describing experiences that require domain-specific expertise. While introducing qualitative methods into the phenomenological toolbox seems a promising route for addressing this difficulty, it brings with it its own set of challenges. Although, as I will argue, there is no straightforward solution to the challenge, a potential way forward lies in focusing more on the collaborative interactions between phenomenologists and scientists during interview-based inquiry, with the aim of fostering interactional expertise in Harry Collins’s sense of the term.

In his book, A Phenomenological Approach to Quantum Mechanics: Cutting the Chain of Correlations, Steven French argues that quantum mechanics, understood through the phenomenological lens of London and Bauer, turns physics into a “genuine science”, and thus completes the project Edmund Husserl had started in his last major publication, The Crisis of European Sciences. What makes quantum mechanics a genuine science, according to French, is that it is fully grounded in the “lifeworld and transcendental subjectivity”, just as Husserl dreamt. While we agree with French that London and Bauer’s reading of quantum mechanics is inspired by and thus makes a step towards Husserl’s phenomenology, we argue that a more encompassing phenomenological investigation is still needed if we are to avoid another crisis. More specifically, our claim is that French underestimates the “constitutional history” of the kinds of mathematical idealities that underlie quantum mechanics.Previous article in issue

We take up the challenge of developing an international network with capacity to survey the world’s scientists on an ongoing basis, providing rich datasets regarding the opinions of scientists and scientific sub-communities, both at a time and also over time. The novel methodology employed sees local coordinators, at each institution in the network, sending survey invitation emails internally to scientists at their home institution. The emails link to a ‘10 second survey’, where the participant is presented with a single statement to consider, and a standard five-point Likert scale. In June 2023, a group of 30 philosophers and social scientists invited 20,085 scientists across 30 institutions in 12 countries to participate, gathering 6,807 responses to the statement Science has put it beyond reasonable doubt that COVID-19 is caused by a virus. The study demonstrates that it is possible to establish a global network to quickly ascertain scientific opinion on a large international scale, with high response rate, low opt-out rate, and in a way that allows for significant (perhaps indefinite) repeatability. Measuring scientific opinion in this new way would be a valuable complement to currently available approaches, potentially informing policy decisions and public understanding across diverse fields.

This is the first book exclusively devoted to phenomenology and quantum mechanics. By emphasizing the role of the subject’s experiences, QBism exhibits several interesting parallels with phenomenology. This book elaborates whether and specifies how phenomenology could serve as thephilosophical foundation of QBism. This objective is pursued from the perspective of QBists engaging with phenomenology as well as the perspective of phenomenologists engaging with QBism. These approaches enable us to realize a better understanding of quantum mechanics and the world we live in, achieve a better understanding of QBsim, and introduce the phenomenological foundations of quantum mechanics.

The aim of this chapter is to contribute to two ongoing debates in the philosophy of science: one regarding scientific understanding and the other concerning the nature of thought experiments. By analyzing two significant instances of thought experimental reasoning in physics, I will sketch a theory designed to explain, first, what scientific understanding entails, and second, how thought experiments manage to produce it. I will then argue that, in terms of their ability to generate understanding, thought experiments have much in common with works of science fiction. Finally, I will propose that utilizing science fiction could serve as a tool for promoting a broader understanding of modern science and combating prevalent anti-scientific sentiments.

The objective of this paper is to offer an analysis of several key elements within Niels Bohr’s transcendental interpretation of quantum mechanics. After some stage setting, I will demonstrate that a transcendental perspective on Bohr offers several advantages over alternative interpretations. Specifically, I will argue that some of his most contentious claims become more plausible when viewed through a transcendental lens. However, despite these strengths, Bohr’s approach faces challenges. Following an evaluation of what I consider to be the primary weakness in his framework, the final section of the paper will explore potential avenues for enhancing the viability of the Bohrian project, with a specific focus on the role of phenomenology as a potential solution.