Thomas Boyer-Kassem
PoitiersHere we discover the career of Thomas Boyer-Kassem, Doctor of Philosophy and Senior Lecturer at the University of Poitiers...
Studies, readings, projects... Here's what he has to say!
Can you introduce yourself? What are you currently doing
I have been lucky enough to be a lecturer in philosophy of science at the University of Poitiers since this year. I say "lucky" because I am well aware that recruitment processes are far from perfect. I had been waiting and waiting for some time: I defended my thesis in 2011, and was recruited in 2018. In the meantime, I've been doing ATERs, postdocs, temporary work and a bit of unemployment. And then, it's also a chance to do this job because it provides undeniable freedom in the choice of research and teaching topics.
What memories do you have of your studies? Of 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 instead to go and study philosophy and discover the meaning of life? Fortunately, I didn't do that straight away, and I learnt a lot of interesting things in physics. Nevertheless, the attraction for philosophy never left me. During an internship at my Master's, I thought at one point: all this research work is great fun, but what I'd like is to have a more general perspective, to think about science and not in science! I aspired to philosophy of science.
So I went back for my philosophy degree, but there I was unpleasantly surprised by the fact that some teachers didn't know contemporary science, and didn't want to know about it. For example, I remember a course on Kant's Criticism of Pure Reason, in which the professor was unable to enlighten me on the link between the categories of space and time, which are central in Kant as everyone knows, and the equally central role of the concepts of space and time in the theory of relativity. Above all, he gave me the impression of thinking that later developments mattered little, and that studying Kant could be limited to Kant, which had frustrated me greatly! Another professor remained deaf to my remarks to the effect that quantum mechanics manifested a type of chance that was very different from the chance present in the chaos he was talking about. I think I was really longing for philosophy that was fully informed by science, and that's where I went next.
Which philosophy book were you particularly passionate about? The author you fell in love with at first sight?
There were several during my studies. I had a Nietzsche phase. And then, on a completely different theme, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn was a revelation. Regarding quantum mechanics, which I worked on during my thesis, the book Quantum mechanics and experience by David Albert was extremely enlightening. This man is an incredible teacher, and his explanations suddenly brought order to what was previously a big mess in my head.
What are your projects, your research work?
I have projects in quite a few directions. I think it's a question of character: I like changing problems, not always working on the same theme. I let myself be tempted either by the problems themselves, or by the collaborations that colleagues suggest to me. Because yes, it's quite rare in philosophy, but I often work collaboratively, and I really enjoy it!
One project I've been pursuing since my thesis is about quantum mechanics, and its many interpretations. They provide different images of the world (with randomness, or without randomness, with one world, or an infinity, etc.), while being empirically indistinguishable. Most philosophers who work on these interpretations descend into the arena and defend one interpretation against the others. For my part, I sit on the spectator's bench and keep score, or rather I try to find out how to keep score: what are, and what should be, the criteria for choosing between the different interpretations? I'm continuing to work on this, following on from my book Qu’est-ce que la mécanique quantique ?
I am also continuing work on the precautionary principle, according to which when an activity could lead to a disaster for the environment or human health, it should be restricted or banned even if there is scientific uncertainty about the link between the activity and the disaster. This principle is being attacked by some, who see it as a retreat from rationality or the usual scientific standards. I'm trying to clarify the arguments that are used and to flush out the flaws in them.
Finally, I work at the frontiers of philosophy with economics or psychology, around what causes us to deviate from rationality ('biases'), or what might help us to make better judgements. To do this, I adopt an experimental approach: we ask questions of volunteers, draw up statistics and try to validate philosophical hypotheses! It's fascinating, people call it experimental philosophy. I'm working on these subjects with Sébastien Duchêne, an economist friend of mine in Montpellier.
For more information: visit my webpage.
Thank you Thomas, for this testimonial!
> Discover other philosophical journeys in the agora...