Thomas Boyer-Kassem
PoitiersMeet Thomas Boyer-Kassem, Doctor of Philosophy and Senior Lecturer at the University of Poitiers...
Studies, readings, projects... Here is what he has to say!
Could you introduce yourself? What are you currently doing?
I have been fortunate enough to be a lecturer in philosophy of science at the University of Poitiers since this year. I say "fortunate" because I am well aware that recruitment processes are far from perfect. I had been waiting for quite some time: I defended my thesis in 2011 and was only appointed in 2018. In the meantime, I had been through fixed-term teaching posts, postdocs, temporary work, and a spell of unemployment. And it is also a stroke of luck to do this job because it affords genuine freedom in the choice of research and teaching topics.
What memories do you have of your studies and your teachers?
I came to philosophy of science after studying physics. I remember hesitating when I entered the physics department at the ENS de Cachan: what if I were to drop everything and go and study philosophy instead, in search of the meaning of life? Fortunately, I did not do that straight away, and I learnt a great deal in physics. Even so, the pull of philosophy never left me. During a Master's internship, I remember thinking: all this research is great fun, but what I really want is a broader perspective — to think about science rather than within it. Philosophy of science was where I wanted to be.
So I went back to do a philosophy degree, where I was unpleasantly surprised to find that some teachers had little knowledge of contemporary science — and little desire to acquire any. I remember, for instance, a course on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in which the professor was unable to shed any light on the connection between the categories of space and time — central to Kant, as everyone knows — and the equally central role of space and time in the theory of relativity. Above all, he gave the impression of thinking that later developments were of little consequence, and that studying Kant could be confined to Kant — which frustrated me greatly. Another professor remained deaf to my observation that quantum mechanics involves a kind of chance quite different from the chance at work in the chaos he was discussing. What I was really longing for was a philosophy fully informed by science, and that is the direction I eventually took.
Which philosophical book were you particularly passionate about? Is there an author you fell in love with at first sight?
There were several during my studies. I went through a Nietzsche phase. And then, on an entirely different note, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn was a revelation. On quantum mechanics, which I worked on during my thesis, Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Albert was enormously illuminating. He is a remarkable teacher, and his explanations suddenly brought order to what had previously been a great muddle in my mind.
What are your projects and research interests?
I have projects going in quite a few directions — I think it is a matter of temperament: I like switching between problems rather than always working on the same theme. I follow my curiosity, drawn either by the problems themselves or by collaborations that colleagues propose. Because yes, it is fairly unusual in philosophy, but I often work collaboratively, and I thoroughly enjoy it.
One project I have been pursuing since my thesis concerns quantum mechanics and its many interpretations. These offer different pictures of the world — with or without randomness, with one world or infinitely many, and so on — while remaining empirically indistinguishable. Most philosophers working on these interpretations enter the arena and champion one against the others. For my part, I sit in the spectator's stand and try to keep score — or rather, I try to work out how one ought to keep score: what are, and what should be, the criteria for choosing between interpretations? I am continuing this work, building on my book Qu'est-ce que la mécanique quantique ?
I am also continuing work on the precautionary principle — the idea that when an activity could lead to disaster for the environment or human health, it should be restricted or banned even in the absence of scientific certainty about the link between the activity and the harm. This principle is under attack from those who see it as a retreat from rationality or from ordinary scientific standards. I am trying to clarify the arguments being deployed against it and to expose their weaknesses.
Finally, I work at the intersection of philosophy, economics, and psychology, around the question of what causes us to depart from rationality — so-called "biases" — and what might help us to reason better. To do this, I use an experimental approach: we pose questions to volunteers, gather statistics, and attempt to validate philosophical hypotheses. It is fascinating work, and it goes by the name of experimental philosophy. I pursue these topics with Sébastien Duchêne, an economist colleague in Montpellier.
For more information, visit my webpage.
Thank you, Thomas, for sharing your story!
> Explore other philosophical journeys in the agora...