APA Prominent Philosophers Cartwright and Sober Win 2017 Lebowitz Prize

Prominent Philosophers Cartwright and Sober Win 2017 Lebowitz Prize

Prominent scholars in philosophy Nancy Cartwright, professor of philosophy at UC San Diego and the University of Durham, and Elliott Sober, Hans Reichenbach and William F. Vilas Research Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin–Madison, have won the 2017 Dr. Martin R. Lebowitz and Eve Lewellis Lebowitz Prize for Philosophical Achievement and Contribution. A top honor recognizing outstanding achievement in the field, the Phi Beta Kappa Society (PBK) in conjunction with the American Philosophical Association (APA) awards the prize annually. Each winner will receive an award of $26,000.

The Lebowitz Prize was established in 2012 by a generous bequest from Eve Lewellis Lebowitz in honor of her late husband, Martin R. Lebowitz, a distinguished philosophical critic. Lebowitz Prize winners must be two philosophers who hold contrasting views on a chosen topic of current interest in philosophy. They present their views and engage in rich dialogue at an annual Lebowitz symposium at an APA divisional meeting and at a public lecture.

Both Elliot Sober and Nancy Cartwright are renowned for their work in the philosophy of science, and they secured the 2017 Lebowitz Prize with their topic, “Is there such a thing as the scientific method?” They question if the global and local theories of scientific inference are able to work parsimoniously or if there should be a concern with these theories uniting.

Sober, Ph.D. in philosophy (Harvard) who served as the president of the Central Division of the APA, the Philosophy of Science Association, and the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science from 2012 until 2015, asks, “On the one hand, statistical ideas about model selection suggest that parsimony has a global (subject matter independent) rationale; on the other, the use of cladistic parsimony in evolutionary biology suggests that the principle of parsimony should be understood locally. Can these two approaches be reconciled?”

While Cartwright, Ph.D. in philosophy (University of Illinois) who served as the president of the Philosophy of Science Association, as vice-president and president of the Pacific Division of the APA, Professor Emeritus at the London School of Economics, Fellow of the British Academy, and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, is skeptical: “My concerns are with these inferences. Scientific claims must be supported by success in predicting and intervening. Unity of method? When it comes to using scientific knowledge, the disunity and particularity of method of matter. If the uses made of scientific claims are to be successful, the methods and practices that warrant and interpret our claims must be sufficient to support the inferences drawn from them.”

The winners will present their work at an APA symposium in early 2018 followed by a PBK-sponsored symposium. Dates are to be determined.

The deadline for nominations/applications for the 2018 Lebowitz Prize is November 1, 2017. To apply, contact Jen Horneman.


  1. I’m baffled by the assertion that successful use of scientific claims can only be accomplished when “methods and practices that warrant and interpret our claims” are “sufficient to support the inferences drawn from them.”

    Consider uses of scientific claims from Galileo to the many March for Science events this past month. To the degree that participants’ political goals were successfully achieved seems completely independent from operations related to justification.

    Moon hoax advocates (and other conspiracy theorists) successfully use scientific claims to earn an income, gain fame and influence, etc., while their methods and practices possess what most of us would consider multiple, fatal flaws.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

- Advertisment -


Must Read

Test post Nathan

test test test 

Test Title