Ad Hoc Hypotheses and the Monsters within

Science is increasingly becoming automated. Tasks yet to be fully automated include the conjecturing, modifying, extending and testing of hypotheses. At present scientists have an array of methods to help them carry out those tasks. These range from the well-articulated, formal and unexceptional rules to the semi-articulated and variously understood rules-of-thumb and intuitive hunches. If we are to hand over at least some of the aforementioned tasks to machines, we need to clarify, refine and make formal, not to mention computable, even the more obscure of the methods scientists successfully employ in their inquiries. The focus of this essay is one such less-than-transparent methodological rule. I am here referring to the rule that ad hoc hypotheses ought to be spurned. This essay begins with a brief examination of some notable conceptions of ad hoc-ness in the philosophical literature. It is pointed out that there is a general problem afflicting most such conceptions, namely the intuitive judgments that are supposed to motivate them are not universally shared. Instead of getting bogged down in what ad hoc-ness exactly means, I shift the focus of the analysis to one undesirable feature often present in alleged cases of ad hoc-ness. I call this feature the ‘monstrousness’ of a hypothesis. A fully articulated formal account of this feature is presented by specifying what it is about the internal constitution of a hypothesis that makes it monstrous. Using this account, a monstrousness measure is then proposed and somewhat sketchily compared with the minimum description length approach

A modular approach to facial feature segmentation on real sequences

In this paper a modular approach of gradual confidence for facial feature extraction over real video frames is presented. The problem is being dealt under general imaging conditions and soft presumptions. The proposed methodology copes with large variations in the appearance ofdiverse subjects, as well as ofthe same subject in various instances within real video sequences. Areas of the face that statistically seem to be outstanding form an initial set of regions that are likely to include information about the features of interest. Enhancement of these regions produces closed objects, which reveal—through the use of a fuzzy system—a dominant angle, i.e. the facial rotation angle. The object set is restricted using the dominant angle. An exhaustive search is performed among all candidate objects, matching a pattern that models the relative position ofthe eyes and the mouth. Labeling ofthe winner features can be used to evaluate the features extracted and provide feedback in an iterative framework. A subset of the MPEG-4 facial definition or facial animation parameter set can be obtained. This gradual feature revelation is performed under optimization for each step, producing a posteriori knowledge about the face and leading to a step-by-step visualization ofthe features in search

A defence of informational structural realism

This is the revised version of an invited keynote lecture delivered at the 1st Australian Computing and Philosophy Conference (CAP@AU; the Australian National University in Canberra, 31 October – 2 November, 2003). The paper is divided into two parts. The first part defends an informational approach to structural realism. It does so in three steps. First, it is shown that, within the debate about structural realism (SR), epistemic (ESR) and ontic (OSR) structural realism are reconcilable. It follows that a version of OSR is defensible from a structuralist-friendly position. Second, it is argued that a version of OSR is also plausible, because not all relata (structured entities) are logically prior to relations (structures). Third, it is shown that a version of OSR is also applicable to both sub-observable (unobservable and instrumentally-only observable) and observable entities, by developing its ontology of structural objects in terms of informational objects. The outcome is informational structural realism, a version of OSR supporting the ontological commitment to a view of the world as the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other. The paper has been discussed by several colleagues and, in the second half, ten objections that have been moved to the proposal are answered in order to clarify it further.Peer reviewe