The HPS Seminar Series

Wednesday 11 March,12:00–13:00, 
Arts West North Wing, Room 553

Interdisciplinary and the Modern Paradox: Chaos across history, philosophy and science
Fiona Druitt, University of Melbourne
​
This talk will discuss my forthcoming book (to be published later this year by Palgrave MacMillan) Interdisciplinary and the Modern Paradox: Chaos across history, philosophy and science. It begins by explaining my ‘doubly-diasporic’ relationship to modern disciplinarity, or to science and the humanities, as a student and then scholar belonging to each of these disciplines simultaneously. This situation (or really two distinct, but not unrelated, situations that never quite came together or apart as modern disciplinarity or history promised) led me to a dilemma from which I could neither ‘move on’ from nor ‘back out of’ – in two directions at once. 
The problem of translating ‘chaos’ across the modern disciplines of history, philosophy and mathematics is one example of this kind of dilemma.  By ‘chaos’, here I mean the mathematical phenomena inaptly and colloquially know as ‘chaos’ (or nonlinear dynamics), and which for mathematics, is not just a theory, as it is often called, but a materiality (embodying things).
My research responds to the problem of being modern (and of the modern paradoxes of translating chaos, which I will describe) by reposing the question of being modern (as described, for example, by Foucault in The Order of Things and by Latour, in We have never been Modern). It does this by asking how being modern ruptures, reimagines and recombines space and disciplinarity, just as it does for time and history. This spatiotemporal critique, which I call ‘nonlinear critique’, reposes the problem of being modern as a nonlinear, double-crossing or ‘chiasm’, rather than as a linear crossing or ‘dualism’ of nature and culture (and all other modern binaries). Foucault’s critique of Kant reveals how the problem of being modern can no longer take the form of a dualism or a linear crossing as it did for Descartes in (what Foucault defines as) classical scholarship.
The talk, like the book, then performs nonlinear critique to double-cross chaos across history, philosophy and mathematics, with a view to revealing how these three disciplines of chaos can be understood simultaneously across science and the humanities and the stories they each tell about the past; what the mathematics of chaos is and does; how chaos has never been modern; how complexity theory got the mathematics of chaos and its Newtonian history wrong according to mathematics; how mathematics’ history of mathematics refuses to be modern in some quite delightful ways across time and space; and what being modern does to disciplinarity (or what demarcates ‘science’ from ‘the humanities’ in terms of modern foundationalisms, or questions that drop out of the question).  Oh, and, how to no longer unsee, but no longer be doubly-diasporic – or, in other words, how to no longer be modern.

Fiona Druitt has an entirely circumstantial (but now entirely unwavering) scholarly habit of being in two places at once across modern disciplines, modern histories, and modern binaries. Her research crosses the fields of Australian cultural studies, critical theory, feminist philosophy, queer theory, continental philosophy, STS, sociology, and histories and philosophies of science with modern science (in particular, mathematics, physics and biology). The thread that connects these topics and fields in her research is the question of being modern, and in particular, what being modern does (and what it has never done) to space and disciplinarity, as well as to time and history. Dr Druitt’s work holds important implications for reconceptualising questions of disciplinarity and interdisciplinary methods; for reposing questions of humanism and naturalism, nature and culture, humans and technology, research and practice, identity and difference and science and society (to name only a few modern binaries in what could be a much longer list); for the science wars, history wars and culture wars; and for reframing how critical theory can respond to seemingly intractable problems of modern foundations and modern binaries. Dr Druitt currently holds appointments as a Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education at The University of Melbourne, and as an Adjunct Research Fellow at Victoria University.

Wednesday 18 March,12:00–13:00,
Arts West North Wing, Room 553

Natural classification and the rise of systematics 1735-1900
John Wilkins, University of Melbourne
 
From the first edition of the Systema Nature by Linnaeus in 1735, naturalists have used the term “system” to mean an artificial arrangement of species and genera; or a systematic account of groups of plants of animals; or a natural classification. This term, along with “method” have deep and confusing connotations, which makes debates since then hard to track, and stand in contrast to the twentieth century definitions of “taxonomy” and “systematics”. In this talk I will cover some of the prominent views of naturalists up to the turn of the twentieth century, as a prelude to a later talk and paper on how systematics became a contended term after then. [NB: The research is from a joint paper with Assoc. Prof. Aleta Quinn of the University of Idaho]

John Wilkins did his PhD at the University of Melbourne. He has researched and taught at the University of Queensland, the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Melbourne. He has published several books: Species: A History of the Idea (2009, the first edition of this book, the second of which is Species: The Evolution of the Idea 2018), Defining Species (2009), The Nature of Classification (2013, with Malte C. Ebach), and edited Intelligent design and religion as a natural phenomenon (2010). He co-editied: Species and Beyond for CRC Press (2022) John is currently an Honorary Fellow at the University of Melbourne, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies.

Wednesday 25 March,12:00–13:00, Old Arts, Room 103

Testing the Inference-to-the-Best-Explanation Theory of Theory Building (IBET)
Peter B. Seddon, University of Melbourne
​
This paper presents an empirical test of an inference-to-the-best-explanation-based theory of theory building and testing called IBET. IBET is based heavily on Lipton’s 2004 book Inference to the Best Explanation. The test reported here was conducted using—as data— theory building and/or testing in 41 projects undertaken by recipients of recent Nobel Prizes in Economics and Physics and 15 randomly selected chapters on theory building from Smith & Hitt’s (2005) book, Great Minds in Management.    Conclusions are: (a) that in the samples tested there was very strong empirical support for IBET, and (b) based on sample-representativeness arguments, this support probably generalises to all explanatory theory building in Economics, Physics, and Management, and (with less confidence) to all explanatory theorizing.

Peter B. Seddon is an Honorary Professorial Fellow in the School of Computing and Information Systems at The University of Melbourne, Australia. Now retired, he was an academic at The University of Melbourne for 38 years. He currently has a Google Scholar H-index of 43 and over 17,000 Google Scholar citations to his work. He was a Senior Editor for MIS Quarterly from 2005 to 2008 and Program Co-chair for PACIS 2011. His major research interests are research methodology, evaluating information systems success, packaged enterprise-application software, IT management, strategic decision making, IT outsourcing, and business analytics.

Wednesday 1 April,12:00–13:00, Online

Piratical Knowledge and the Making of the Darwinian Revolution
Henry-James Meiring, University of Queensland
​
This paper explores the category of piratical knowledge in nineteenth-century science by examining the role of the American print industry in the global circulation of Charles Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. Focused on Darwin’s seminal work, Descent of Man (1871), the study traces the book from its birth in John Murray’s London publishing house to New York, and its subsequent mass reprinting at the hands of print pirates during America’s Gilded Age. Between 1871 and 1900, more than a dozen American publishers engaged in the unauthorised printing of Darwin's book in various shapes and sizes. These inexpensive pirated copies reached new and diverse readerships across the country and in turn were—legally as well as illegally—exported all over the world. Moreover, Descent of Man became entangled in the Cheap Books Movement and legal disputes over international copyright laws between Britain and America. By viewing Descent of Man’s reception through its movement as both a material object and cross-cultural transaction, I show that piracy was not peripheral to the “Darwinian Revolution” but rather a central force in the dissemination of Darwinism across the globe. The study of piratical knowledge, therefore, enlarges our picture of the development of science, by fundamentally altering our understanding of how scientific knowledge was produced and consumed on a global scale.   

Henry-James Meiring is a historian of science whose scholarship is situated at the intersection of science and print culture in the nineteenth century. His work in particular focuses on how reading practices and the materiality of texts came to shape readers understanding of what it meant to be human. He is currently a Lecturer in History at The University of Queensland, having previously held visiting fellowships at the University of Cambridge, Uppsala University, and the University of Oklahoma. His research has appeared or is forthcoming in leading journals such as Isis and Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, as well as in public-facing outlets including The Conversation. He is also co-editor of the forthcoming Volume 17 of The Correspondence of John Tyndall (University of Pittsburgh Press).

Wednesday 15 April,12:00–13:00, Old Arts, Room 224

Chance Combinatorics: The Theory that History Forgot
John D. Norton, University of Pittsburgh
​
The chance theorists of the seventeenth century did not work with what we now would call a theory of probability. Theirs was a chance counting theory that differed in significant aspects from the present theory. Writing in the history of probability theory has failed to understand the seventeenth century theorists in their own terms and how their thinking differed from modern thinking.
 
For more, see:
"Chance Combinatorics: The Theory that History Forgot,"  Perspectives on Science  31 (6), (2023), pp. 771–810.
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#L2023

John D. Norton is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of History and History and Philosophy of Science of the University of Pittsburgh.

Wednesday 22 April,12:00–13:00, Online

Epistemic Intimidation: How attacks on science compromise the production of knowledge
Manuela Fernández Pinto, Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)
​
 
Scientists investigating and stressing the importance and recalcitrance of social, health, and environmental problems, such as  anthropogenic climate change, COVID-19, or the issues of sexism and racism, have increasingly come under attack, even in democratic countries. These attacks are regularly framed as nothing  more than normal instances of criticism: populists invoke freedom of  speech and praise the epistemic value of controversies. Indeed, the free exchange of opinions is actually essential for epistemic advancement. However, justifying such attacks on the grounds of free speech seems highly questionable. Rather, under this pseudo-idealistic guise, the attacks appear to be aimed more towards stifling unwanted opinions and manipulating public debates in service of certain political aims. This creates an atmosphere of intimidation in science that affects the dynamics of scientific practice and, thus, epistemic progress. In this talk, I introduce the concept of epistemic intimidation to capture these intimidatory practices, such as coercing, bullying, attacking, threatening, etc., that specifically target scientists in their capacity as knowers. Furthermore, I identify and classify the epistemic effects of systematic intimidation in science. The aim is to provide a better understanding of the negative impacts of the attacks on science and scientists, which are especially prominent today, and contribute to the acknowledgement of the phenomenon in both scientific and public institutions.

Manuela Fernández Pinto is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the head of the Center for Applied Ethics at Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. She received her PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame in 2014, and then had a postdoc at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include social epistemology, the science and values debate, the history and philosophy of economics, and feminist philosophy of science. Among other topics, she has worked on identifying and evaluating the epistemic and social consequences of commercially-driven research today, particularly in clinical research conducted by the pharmaceutical industry.

Wednesday 29 April,12:00–13:00, Old Arts, Room 224

Hybrid Visions: Redefining the analogue-digital divide in image 
​Carl Sciglitano, University of Melbourne 
 
Popular accounts often describe the shift from analogue to digital imaging in astronomy as a straightforward technological revolution, a clean switch from dark rooms and chemicals to electronics and data. This presentation challenges that narrative by showing how, in practice, this transition was anything but simple. Drawing on a range of historical episodes, I reveal a rich mix of methods, tools, and collaborative habits that shaped how images were made, interpreted, and shared. 
This research argues that the categories “analogue” and “digital” can sometimes obscure more than they reveal. When we look closely at what people actually did, we see a landscape of hybrid practices. Instead of choosing between analogue or digital, astronomers and engineers often blended elements of both, improvising new ways to solve problems and respond to the demands of their work. The history of imaging is full of creative combinations, practical workarounds, and flexible uses of whatever materials were at hand. Shifting attention from technological labels to lived practices opens up a new understanding of how technological change happens, highlighting agency, negotiation, and adaptation.
By exploring this messier reality, the presentation questions simple narratives of progress and asks us to value the inventive, often unexpected ways practitioners navigate changes in their tools and environments.

Carl Sciglitano is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne. He holds a Master’s degree in astronomy and has professional experience in technology management. His research explores how scientific knowledge and technological practices are shaped by everyday work, decisions, and interactions. Carl’s work critically examines assumptions about technological progress, questioning narratives that see technology as advancing in a straightforward or inevitable way. He is especially interested in how tools, institutions, and local choices shape what counts as knowledge and how new technologies are adopted or adapted. Rejecting techno-determinism, Carl’s approach highlights the interplay between science, technology, and society, and considers the practical consequences for individuals and communities.

Wednesday 6 May,12:00–13:00, Old Arts, Room 224

“Decontaminating the literature”: Conceptualising the Rise of Forensic Metascience and Scientific Self-Correcting
Fallon Mody, University of Melbourne
​
Forensic Metascience describes the practice of systematically trawling through the published scientific record to detect and correct errors (post-publication review). For Forensic Metascience, an error is broadly construed one or more features of a published study that renders the substantive claim suspect. Forensic metascience is deeply contested within the scientific community, with sustained claims that it represents “methodological terrorism”, “data thuggery”, digital vigilantism, and being exemplary of “bro-open science”. Recent STS scholarship has positioned forensic metascientists (or their self-adopted term, “data sleuth”) as a distinct but problematically unregulated class of actor occupying a gap in research integrity and research monitoring processes (Horbach & Valinciute, 2026). 
 
My current project seeks to critically-engage with and extend this work by tracing the wider historical context through which we can understand the rise of post-publication review as a scientific reform tool; and to undertake deeper analysis of the boundary work prompted by forensic metascience. In particular, the ways in which Forensic Metascience has transformed post-publication review has raised deep debates about the everyday practice of peer review, including: who should correct errors, how should post-publication error correction be performed, and which norms and values should be prioritized when conducting post-publication review.
 
This project is in early conceptual phase, and will form a stream of inquiry in the ARC DP project, Evaluating the Impact of Metascience. The work I will present in this seminar is an introduction to Forensic Metascience, followed by an argument that existing conceptualisations of post-publication error detection fails to capture the complexities of this emerging practice.

Dr Fallon Mody is a Lecturer in History & Philosophy of Science and a member of the MetaMelb lab. Fallon's background is an interdisciplinary qualitative researcher. See more details of her work here.

Wednesday 13 May,12:00–13:00, Old Arts, Room 224

Histories of the Hourglass: Emerging, Making, Using
Matthew Champion, University of Melbourne
​
 
In the early fourteenth century, the sandglass made its debut as the most precise technology of time measurement in Europe to date. Almost immediately its impact was felt: cooks and courtiers, rabbis and scientists, accountants and artisans began to use sandglasses to time their activities, their lives, and to make their livings. Yet for an instrument of precision timing and of such importance, the sandglass’s histories remain startlingly unclear. In this paper, I will introduce the new ARC project ‘The History of the Hourglass’ and present the project’s initial findings relating to the origins of this new technology, and how it was made and used. 

Matthew Champion is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Melbourne, and a chief investigator on the ARC Discovery Project The History of the Hourglass: Temporalities, Material Culture and Science. For further information on his work, see: 
https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/177616-matthew-champion

Wednesday 20 May,12:00–13:00, Old Arts, Room 224

Tracing the History of ‘Obstetric Violence’ in British Medicine, 1700-1885
Paige Donaghy, University of Melbourne

 
Obstetric violence is a form of gendered violence experienced by pregnant and birthing people, particularly women, during pre- and post-natal medical care provided in the hospital, clinic or home. Recent scholarship has explored how obstetric violence and obstetric racism manifested historically, from postwar Canada to colonial and postcolonial Mexico. My current postdoctoral project builds upon this earlier work but turns the focus to harmful and violent midwifery and obstetric care in Britain from the mid-eighteenth to early nineteenth-centuries. It draws on the under-explored records of the Royal Maternity Charity, a philanthropic organisation that provided free midwifery care to poor Londoners, and the work of obstetrician James Blundell, a midwifery lecturer at Guy’s Hospital who is credited with first using the term ‘obstetrical’ or ‘obstetric’ violence in the 1820s.
 
Analysing these materials, the article contends that the framework of ‘obstetric violence’, understood today, helps historians understand harm or violence done towards pregnant and birthing women in the past. In similar ways to historical configurations of familial and sexual violence, historians can trace obstetric violence in earlier time periods to uncover actions or omissions that harmed women, or were considered cruel and inhuman, beyond the limits of expected care. By doing so, scholars can map the interconnection of historical and present-day gender and reproductive inequities.

Dr Paige Donaghy is a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow at The University of Melbourne who studies histories of reproduction, medicine and sexuality in Europe (1550-1850). She has two monographs forthcoming: Pregnant Women’s Sexuality in Early Modern England (Palgrave) and Mola, False Conception and False Pregnancy in British Medicine, 1550–1850 (Durham University).

Wednesday 27 May,12:00–13:00, Babel, Room 305

Repesentations of science in publications on Indigenous Australian astronomy 
Kevin Orrman-Rossiter, University of Melbourne
​
The introduction of Indigenous knowledge into the mainstream education syllabus has in some cases led to strident outcries that it is not science and therefore should not be included in the curriculum. While philosophers of science may claim this demarcation between science and not-science is no longer an interesting debate, this public airing provides an incentive to understand how science is represented in publications on Indigenous knowledge systems. In my research I surveyed some 200 years of publications on Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander astronomy. Recognising that astronomy, in the sense of a comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge about the stars, was an integral component of Aboriginal culture, rather than a discrete academic discipline. Drawing on studies in history and philosophy of science, Imperial science, 19th C folklore, and epistemology I argue that representations of science in this literature were either primitive in nature or quite often naive. Further, I argue while the representations have in some recent cases become more nuanced and some authors employ tools of ‘western science’ to provide some epistemic validation to Indigenous stories, there is still work to be done to avoid divisive debates on whether Indigenous knowledge is or is not science.
NB: This talk corresponds to a MA Completion Seminar

Kevin Orrman-Rossiter is a MA candidate in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne. He holds PhD, Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees in applied physics and is a former ARC Queen Elizabeth II Fellow at RMIT, and Principal Research Scientist with Amcor. Kevin’s research interests are broad, possibly the result of growing up with a geology pick, chemistry set, a telescope, and a curiosity to understand the natural world. Now somewhat older, hopefully a little wiser, Kevin’s probes how scientific knowledge and practices emerge and integrate, or not, into our society. His interests are primarily related to the physical sciences, particularly astronomy. Although he can easily be distracted by, and remains continuously perplexed about, antimatter, consciousness, and a myriad of other topics.