Martin Justin
@martinjustin.bsky.social
phd in philosophy, working on epistemology and philosophy of science
@ university of maribor, slovenia
@ university of maribor, slovenia
Pinned
Martin Justin
@martinjustin.bsky.social
· Jul 26
The Mix Matters: Exploring the Interplay Between Epistemic and Zetetic Norms in Scientific Disagreement | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science: Vol 0, No ja
www.journals.uchicago.edu
Turns out you can remain dogmatic if you also randomize your research strategy.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
Reposted by Martin Justin
Just published: Coherence as a Constraint on Scientific Inquiry, Synthese (with @martinjustin.bsky.social).
TL,DR: coherence considerations can be good or bad in scientific inquiry. Our paper suggests how to determine when it is the former rather than the latter.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
TL,DR: coherence considerations can be good or bad in scientific inquiry. Our paper suggests how to determine when it is the former rather than the latter.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Coherence as a constraint on scientific inquiry - Synthese
We investigate the epistemic role of coherence in scientific reasoning, focusing on its use as a heuristic for filtering evidence. Using a novel computational model based on Bayesian networks, we simulate agents who update their beliefs under varying levels of noise and bias. Some agents treat reductions in coherence as higher-order evidence and interpret such drops as signals that something has gone epistemically awry, even when the source of error is unclear. Our results show that this strategy can improve belief accuracy in noisy environments but tends to mislead when evidence is systematically biased. We explore the implications for the rationality of coherence-based reasoning in science.
link.springer.com
October 7, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Just published: Coherence as a Constraint on Scientific Inquiry, Synthese (with @martinjustin.bsky.social).
TL,DR: coherence considerations can be good or bad in scientific inquiry. Our paper suggests how to determine when it is the former rather than the latter.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
TL,DR: coherence considerations can be good or bad in scientific inquiry. Our paper suggests how to determine when it is the former rather than the latter.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
A nice paper by my friend Matteo about how demagogues lie (and how they don't).
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Why Demagogues Lie Big | Episteme | Cambridge Core
Why Demagogues Lie Big
www.cambridge.org
September 29, 2025 at 8:28 AM
A nice paper by my friend Matteo about how demagogues lie (and how they don't).
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Rewatching Succession for the second time and it still slaps.
September 24, 2025 at 8:16 AM
Rewatching Succession for the second time and it still slaps.
This feels like the correct road–cycling line–tramline–sidewalk ratio.
September 21, 2025 at 2:52 PM
This feels like the correct road–cycling line–tramline–sidewalk ratio.
I've been reading The Bostonians and either Henry James had incredible foresight or the anti-feminists have actually been making the same arguments for circa 150 years.
September 17, 2025 at 6:35 PM
I've been reading The Bostonians and either Henry James had incredible foresight or the anti-feminists have actually been making the same arguments for circa 150 years.
We have a new paper out with Borut! It shows that filtering incoherent evidence might be useful for screening random noise, but a rather bad idea if someone wants to mislead you.
Our paper "Coherence as a Constraint on Scientific Inquiry" (with @martinjustin.bsky.social), has just been accepted in Synthese.
We model when treating drops in coherence as higher-order evidence helps (noisy settings) vs. misleads (biased evidence).
Preprint: philsci-archive.pitt.edu/26685/
We model when treating drops in coherence as higher-order evidence helps (noisy settings) vs. misleads (biased evidence).
Preprint: philsci-archive.pitt.edu/26685/
Coherence as a Constraint on Scientific Inquiry - PhilSci-Archive
philsci-archive.pitt.edu
September 17, 2025 at 3:07 PM
We have a new paper out with Borut! It shows that filtering incoherent evidence might be useful for screening random noise, but a rather bad idea if someone wants to mislead you.
Reposted by Martin Justin
Philosophy is structurally unable to acknowledge that "I dunno, man, maybe?" is objectively speaking the correct answer to most of our questions.
September 3, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Philosophy is structurally unable to acknowledge that "I dunno, man, maybe?" is objectively speaking the correct answer to most of our questions.
I now have a pet theory about Trump doing well among young men: apparently, investing in the stock market makes you more right-wing and young people, especially men, are now much more likely to invest as in 2015.
September 2, 2025 at 8:20 PM
I now have a pet theory about Trump doing well among young men: apparently, investing in the stock market makes you more right-wing and young people, especially men, are now much more likely to invest as in 2015.
I was a bit intimidated for my first @epsaphilsci.bsky.social biennial conference but I'm happy to report that it was genuinely very fun.
September 1, 2025 at 9:00 AM
I was a bit intimidated for my first @epsaphilsci.bsky.social biennial conference but I'm happy to report that it was genuinely very fun.
Reposted by Martin Justin
Gabriel (@gabrieltarziu.bsky.social) and I are guest editing a topical collection for EJPS on Understanding Climate Change. Submissions on the epistemology of climate science, policy, and public reasoning are welcome.
Deadline: 1 Dec 2025 → link.springer.com/collections/...
Deadline: 1 Dec 2025 → link.springer.com/collections/...
Understanding Climate Change: A Multifaceted Inquiry
Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Addressing it requires an unprecedented level of collaboration and engagement between ...
link.springer.com
August 28, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Gabriel (@gabrieltarziu.bsky.social) and I are guest editing a topical collection for EJPS on Understanding Climate Change. Submissions on the epistemology of climate science, policy, and public reasoning are welcome.
Deadline: 1 Dec 2025 → link.springer.com/collections/...
Deadline: 1 Dec 2025 → link.springer.com/collections/...
In November, we are hosting a graduate conference in social epistemology in Maribor. You can send you abstracts till end of August!
philevents.org/event/show/1...
philevents.org/event/show/1...
Philosophy Students’ Symposium 2025
The Department of Philosophy (Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor), its students, and The Slovenian Society for Analytic Philosophy (DAF) are honoured to invite any graduate and PhD students to the...
philevents.org
August 5, 2025 at 6:51 AM
In November, we are hosting a graduate conference in social epistemology in Maribor. You can send you abstracts till end of August!
philevents.org/event/show/1...
philevents.org/event/show/1...
Turns out you can remain dogmatic if you also randomize your research strategy.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
The Mix Matters: Exploring the Interplay Between Epistemic and Zetetic Norms in Scientific Disagreement | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science: Vol 0, No ja
www.journals.uchicago.edu
July 26, 2025 at 7:46 PM
Turns out you can remain dogmatic if you also randomize your research strategy.
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/...
Reposted by Martin Justin
Happy to share that my first PhD student Martin Justin has just published his paper, solo-authored and in his first year, in Episteme! He offers a sharp and timely defense of conciliationism in the peer disagreement debate. See link for details.
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
More Hope for Conciliationism | Episteme | Cambridge Core
More Hope for Conciliationism
www.cambridge.org
June 19, 2025 at 10:41 AM
Happy to share that my first PhD student Martin Justin has just published his paper, solo-authored and in his first year, in Episteme! He offers a sharp and timely defense of conciliationism in the peer disagreement debate. See link for details.
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...