@article{TuckerBoehningGaeseFaganetal.2018, author = {Tucker, Marlee A. and Boehning-Gaese, Katrin and Fagan, William F. and Fryxell, John M. and Van Moorter, Bram and Alberts, Susan C. and Ali, Abdullahi H. and Allen, Andrew M. and Attias, Nina and Avgar, Tal and Bartlam-Brooks, Hattie and Bayarbaatar, Buuveibaatar and Belant, Jerrold L. and Bertassoni, Alessandra and Beyer, Dean and Bidner, Laura and van Beest, Floris M. and Blake, Stephen and Blaum, Niels and Bracis, Chloe and Brown, Danielle and de Bruyn, P. J. Nico and Cagnacci, Francesca and Calabrese, Justin M. and Camilo-Alves, Constanca and Chamaille-Jammes, Simon and Chiaradia, Andre and Davidson, Sarah C. and Dennis, Todd and DeStefano, Stephen and Diefenbach, Duane and Douglas-Hamilton, Iain and Fennessy, Julian and Fichtel, Claudia and Fiedler, Wolfgang and Fischer, Christina and Fischhoff, Ilya and Fleming, Christen H. and Ford, Adam T. and Fritz, Susanne A. and Gehr, Benedikt and Goheen, Jacob R. and Gurarie, Eliezer and Hebblewhite, Mark and Heurich, Marco and Hewison, A. J. Mark and Hof, Christian and Hurme, Edward and Isbell, Lynne A. and Janssen, Rene and Jeltsch, Florian and Kaczensky, Petra and Kane, Adam and Kappeler, Peter M. and Kauffman, Matthew and Kays, Roland and Kimuyu, Duncan and Koch, Flavia and Kranstauber, Bart and LaPoint, Scott and Leimgruber, Peter and Linnell, John D. C. and Lopez-Lopez, Pascual and Markham, A. Catherine and Mattisson, Jenny and Medici, Emilia Patricia and Mellone, Ugo and Merrill, Evelyn and Mourao, Guilherme de Miranda and Morato, Ronaldo G. and Morellet, Nicolas and Morrison, Thomas A. and Diaz-Munoz, Samuel L. and Mysterud, Atle and Nandintsetseg, Dejid and Nathan, Ran and Niamir, Aidin and Odden, John and Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo R. and Olson, Kirk A. and Patterson, Bruce D. and de Paula, Rogerio Cunha and Pedrotti, Luca and Reineking, Bjorn and Rimmler, Martin and Rogers, Tracey L. and Rolandsen, Christer Moe and Rosenberry, Christopher S. and Rubenstein, Daniel I. and Safi, Kamran and Said, Sonia and Sapir, Nir and Sawyer, Hall and Schmidt, Niels Martin and Selva, Nuria and Sergiel, Agnieszka and Shiilegdamba, Enkhtuvshin and Silva, Joao Paulo and Singh, Navinder and Solberg, Erling J. and Spiegel, Orr and Strand, Olav and Sundaresan, Siva and Ullmann, Wiebke and Voigt, Ulrich and Wall, Jake and Wattles, David and Wikelski, Martin and Wilmers, Christopher C. and Wilson, John W. and Wittemyer, George and Zieba, Filip and Zwijacz-Kozica, Tomasz and Mueller, Thomas}, title = {Moving in the Anthropocene}, series = {Science}, volume = {359}, journal = {Science}, number = {6374}, publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0036-8075}, doi = {10.1126/science.aam9712}, pages = {466 -- 469}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission.}, language = {en} } @article{NoonanTuckerFlemingetal.2018, author = {Noonan, Michael J. and Tucker, Marlee A. and Fleming, Christen H. and Akre, Thomas S. and Alberts, Susan C. and Ali, Abdullahi H. and Altmann, Jeanne and Antunes, Pamela Castro and Belant, Jerrold L. and Beyer, Dean and Blaum, Niels and Boehning-Gaese, Katrin and Cullen Jr, Laury and de Paula, Rogerio Cunha and Dekker, Jasja and Drescher-Lehman, Jonathan and Farwig, Nina and Fichtel, Claudia and Fischer, Christina and Ford, Adam T. and Goheen, Jacob R. and Janssen, Rene and Jeltsch, Florian and Kauffman, Matthew and Kappeler, Peter M. and Koch, Flavia and LaPoint, Scott and Markham, A. Catherine and Medici, Emilia Patricia and Morato, Ronaldo G. and Nathan, Ran and Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo R. and Olson, Kirk A. and Patterson, Bruce D. and Paviolo, Agustin and Ramalho, Emiliano Estero and Rosner, Sascha and Schabo, Dana G. and Selva, Nuria and Sergiel, Agnieszka and da Silva, Marina Xavier and Spiegel, Orr and Thompson, Peter and Ullmann, Wiebke and Zieba, Filip and Zwijacz-Kozica, Tomasz and Fagan, William F. and Mueller, Thomas and Calabrese, Justin M.}, title = {A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation}, series = {Ecological monographs : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.}, volume = {89}, journal = {Ecological monographs : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0012-9615}, doi = {10.1002/ecm.1344}, pages = {21}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ( N̂ area ) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95\% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the hold-out sets by AKDE 95\% (or 50\%) estimates was 95.3\% (or 50.1\%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing N̂ area. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small N̂ area. While 72\% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4\% had an N̂ area >1,000, where 30\% had an N̂ area <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small N̂ area, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.}, language = {en} } @misc{Spiegel2021, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {Das Wesen des Menschen in der Philosophischen Anthropologie}, series = {Allgemeine Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : AZP}, volume = {46}, journal = {Allgemeine Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : AZP}, number = {1}, publisher = {Frommann-Holzboog}, address = {Stuttgart}, issn = {0340-7969}, doi = {10.12857/AZP.910460120.}, pages = {121 -- 126}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{Spiegel2020, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {Ist der Naturalismus eine Ideologie?}, series = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung}, volume = {68}, journal = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung}, number = {1}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0012-1045}, doi = {10.1515/dzph-2020-0003}, pages = {51 -- 71}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Naturalism is the current orthodoxy in analytic philosophy. Naturalism is the conjunction of the (ontological) claim that all that truly exists are the entities countenanced by the natural sciences and the (epistemological) claim that the only true knowledge is natural-scientific knowledge. Drawing on some recent work in Critical Theory, this article argues that naturalism qualifies as an ideology. This is the case because naturalism meets three key aspects shared by paradigmatic cases of ideology: (i) naturalism has practical consequences and implications of a specific kind, (ii) those endorsing naturalism fall prey to a dual deception: having false meta-level beliefs about naturalism as being without alternative, and (iii) naturalism has a tendency towards self-immunisation. The article ends by suggesting we pull naturalism out of our collective cognitive backgrounds onto the main stage of critical discourse, making it a proper topic for philosophical critique again.}, language = {de} } @misc{Spiegel2020, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {Errata zu: Spiegel, Thomas Jussuf: Ist der Naturalismus eine Ideologie? - (Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung. -68 (2020), 1. - S. 51 -71. - DOI: 10.1515/dzph-2020-0003)}, series = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung}, volume = {68}, journal = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung}, number = {3}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0012-1045}, doi = {10.1515/dzph-2020-8888}, pages = {492 -- 493}, year = {2020}, language = {de} } @article{Spiegel2022, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {Verschw{\"o}rungstheorien und das Erbe der Aufkl{\"a}rung}, series = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung}, volume = {70}, journal = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie : Zweimonatsschrift der internationalen philosophischen Forschung}, number = {2}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0012-1045}, doi = {10.1515/dzph-2022-0015}, pages = {253 -- 273}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Conspiracy theories are currently all the rage in philosophy and broader intellectual culture. One of the most common background assumptions in the discourse on conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists exhibit certain epistemic vices in the sense of cognitive misconduct. This epistemic vice is mostly seen as a form of irrationality; the corresponding "remedy", as suggested by some commentators, is a return to the ideals of the Enlightenment. This article argues that this idea is wrongheaded. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that conspiracy theorists are actually motivated by the rational Enlightenment ideal of self-thinking in the first place. In contrast to the standard discourse, the article posits that conspiracism is based on a certain form of social scepticism, according to which conspiracy theorists radically mistrust a certain form of expert testimony, namely "official" statements. This form of social scepticism in turn facilitates a naive appropriation of the Enlightenment ideal of self-thinking. The article closes by drawing connections to the ethical and epistemological debate on trust and offers the pessimistic assessment that there are no easy solutions based on individual epistemic virtues.}, language = {de} } @article{Spiegel2022, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {Liberal naturalism without reenchantment}, series = {European journal for philosophy of religion}, volume = {14}, journal = {European journal for philosophy of religion}, number = {1}, publisher = {University of Innsbruck}, address = {Innsbruck}, issn = {1689-8311}, doi = {10.24204/EJPR.2022.3350}, pages = {207 -- 229}, year = {2022}, abstract = {There is a close conceptual relation between the notions of religious disenchantment and scientific naturalism. One way of resisting philosophical and cultural implications of the scientific image and the subsequent process of disenchantment can be found in attempts at sketching a reenchanted worldview. The main issue of accounts of reenchantment can be a rejection of scientific results in a way that flies in the face of good reason. Opposed to such reenchantment is scientific naturalism which implies an entirely disenchanted worldview. However, one of the main problems of scientific naturalism are placement problems. A reenchanted worldview does have the conceptual resources to avoid placement problems, yet seems to throw out the baby (a reasonable appeal to science as an authority) with the bathwater (placement problems). A dilemma results: the Scylla of an undesirable scientific naturalism and the Charybdis of a rampant, seemingly prescientific reenchanted worldview. In this article I argue that there is a safe middle passage between these two options, i.e. the recently proposed liberal naturalism which allows for a moderate normative reenchantment. Liberal naturalism lets us have it both ways: avoiding the placement problems while retaining a necessary and reasonable adherence to science, thereby avoiding both an all-too restrictive scientific naturalism.}, language = {en} } @misc{Spiegel2021, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {The Scientific Weltanschauung}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Philosophische Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Philosophische Reihe}, number = {2}, issn = {1866-8380}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-54291}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-542910}, pages = {259 -- 276}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Different forms of methodological and ontological naturalism constitute the current near-orthodoxy in analytic philosophy. Many prominent figures have called naturalism a (scientific) image (Sellars, W. 1962. "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man." In Wilfrid Sellars, Science, Perception, Reality, 1-40. Ridgeview Publishing), a Weltanschauung (Loewer, B. 2001. "From Physics to Physicalism." In Physicalism and its Discontents, edited by C. Gillett, and B. Loewer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Stoljar, D. 2010. Physicalism. Routledge), or even a "philosophical ideology" (Kim, J. 2003. "The American Origins of Philosophical Naturalism." Journal of Philosophical Research 28: 83-98). This suggests that naturalism is indeed something over-and-above an ordinary philosophical thesis (e.g. in contrast to the justified true belief-theory of knowledge). However, these thinkers fail to tease out the host of implications this idea - naturalism being a worldview - presents. This paper draws on (somewhat underappreciated) remarks of Dilthey and Jaspers on the concept of worldviews (Weltanschauung, Weltbild) in order to demonstrate that naturalism as a worldview is a presuppositional background assumption which is left untouched by arguments against naturalism as a thesis. The concluding plea is (in order to make dialectical progress) to re-organize the existing debate on naturalism in a way that treats naturalism not as a first-order philosophical claim, but rather shifts its focus on naturalism's status as a worldview.}, language = {en} } @article{Spiegel2020, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {Is religion natural?}, series = {International journal of philosophy and theology}, volume = {81}, journal = {International journal of philosophy and theology}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {2169-2327}, doi = {10.1080/21692327.2020.1749717}, pages = {351 -- 368}, year = {2020}, abstract = {In this article I argue that the kind of scientific naturalism that tends to underwrite projects of naturalizing religion operates with a tacit conception of nature which, upon closer inspection, turns out to be untenable. I first distinguish an uninteresting modest naturalism from the more ambitious and relevant scientific naturalism. Secondly I survey three different kinds of attempting to naturalize religion: naturalizing the social aspect of religion, naturalizing religious experience, and naturalizing reference to the transcendent. Thirdly I argue that these projects operate with a conception of nature which is insufficiently clear. I suggest three ways of charitably explicating that tacit conception of what is natural before arguing that neither of these three positions works. Lastly I offer an irenic proposal: we would do good in giving up the scientific naturalism that underlies projects of naturalizing religion in order to embrace Lynne Rudder Baker's recently proposed notion of near-naturalism which allows the naturalist to retain a 'science first' attitude while avoiding problematic, overly restrictive notions of what is natural.}, language = {en} } @article{Spiegel2021, author = {Spiegel, Thomas J.}, title = {The Scientific Weltanschauung}, series = {Journal of Transcendental Philosophy}, volume = {2}, journal = {Journal of Transcendental Philosophy}, number = {2}, publisher = {De Gruyter}, address = {Berlin ; Boston}, issn = {2626-8329}, doi = {10.1515/jtph-2021-0016}, pages = {259 -- 276}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Different forms of methodological and ontological naturalism constitute the current near-orthodoxy in analytic philosophy. Many prominent figures have called naturalism a (scientific) image (Sellars, W. 1962. "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man." In Wilfrid Sellars, Science, Perception, Reality, 1-40. Ridgeview Publishing), a Weltanschauung (Loewer, B. 2001. "From Physics to Physicalism." In Physicalism and its Discontents, edited by C. Gillett, and B. Loewer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Stoljar, D. 2010. Physicalism. Routledge), or even a "philosophical ideology" (Kim, J. 2003. "The American Origins of Philosophical Naturalism." Journal of Philosophical Research 28: 83-98). This suggests that naturalism is indeed something over-and-above an ordinary philosophical thesis (e.g. in contrast to the justified true belief-theory of knowledge). However, these thinkers fail to tease out the host of implications this idea - naturalism being a worldview - presents. This paper draws on (somewhat underappreciated) remarks of Dilthey and Jaspers on the concept of worldviews (Weltanschauung, Weltbild) in order to demonstrate that naturalism as a worldview is a presuppositional background assumption which is left untouched by arguments against naturalism as a thesis. The concluding plea is (in order to make dialectical progress) to re-organize the existing debate on naturalism in a way that treats naturalism not as a first-order philosophical claim, but rather shifts its focus on naturalism's status as a worldview.}, language = {en} }