Stay ConnectedLeading scholars in History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science (HPS) introduce contemporary topics for a general audience. Developed by graduate students from the HPS program at the University of Melbourne.
Lead Host: Thomas Spiteri (2025-2026).
More information on the podcast can be found at hpsunimelb.org
Copyright: © 2024 The HPS Podcast - Conversations from History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science
This week, Dr Sophie Ritson is in conversation with Professor Peter Galison, Joseph Pellegrino University Professor in History of Science and Physics at Harvard University, a founding member of the Black Hole Initiative, and coordinator of the History, Philosophy and Culture (HPC) Working Group of the next-generation Event Horizon Telescope (ngEHT).
Galison is a historian and philosopher of science whose work has explored how experiments end, how scientific images are made and interpreted, and how practices of objectivity have developed. His books include How Experiments End, Image and Logic, Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps, and Objectivity (with Lorraine Daston). He also co-directed Secrecy and directed Black Holes: The Edge of All We Know, which follows the effort to produce the first image of a black hole.
Sophie Ritson is a historian and philosopher of science at the University of Melbourne, and one of the leaders of the Collaborations focus group within the ngEHT’s HPC Working Group. The group brings historians, philosophers, ethnographers and sociologists into a physics collaboration while it is still being built, rather than studying it retrospectively. Its work examines questions of governance and social epistemology, including authorship, consensus and disagreement. Ritson’s own research has explored the string theory controversy, “non-discovery” in high-energy physics, and research governance, drawing closely on her engagement with physicists at CERN and the Large Hadron Collider.
In this episode, Galison traces his path into the history and philosophy of science through family, teaching, and laboratory experience, emphasising how experimentalists taught him to distinguish effects from artefacts—a question that shaped his first book. He explains his interest in scientific images as a way of recovering the craft and tacit knowledge obscured by the protocol-driven view inherited from logical empiricism. The conversation then turns to the 2019 M87* image, which he presents as the culmination of his interest in secrecy and invisibility. The discussion concludes with broader questions about distributed knowledge, the state of HPS, and how to design billion-dollar instruments that remain open to the unexpected.
This episode:
This interview was recorded in July 2025.
Relevant Links
Episode production assistant: Paul Carter
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Dr Jahnavi Phalkey, historian of science and technology, filmmaker, and Founding Director of Science Gallery Bengaluru. Phalkey is the author of Atomic State: Big Science in Twentieth Century India, and producer-director of the documentary film Cyclotron (2020) – a film about the world's oldest functional particle accelerator and the people who keep it running today. Her writing spans the history of science, technology, and the state in twentieth-century India.
The conversation traces Phalkey's route into the history of science by way of political sociology, silent cinema, and a chance funded place at Georgia Tech under John Krige, and her eventual return to studying India after finding its absence conspicuous in accounts of twentieth-century science. She discusses how Atomic State pushes back against two dominant framings in the historiography of science in India: the "tools of empire" argument for the imperial period, and the scarcity of histories of Indian science after independence. Drawing on the early efforts to build particle accelerators in Kolkata and Bangalore, and the eventual rise of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the Department of Atomic Energy, she describes how the demands of a single, resource-intensive field reshaped the relationship between Indian science and the Indian state — and how that "big science" model went on to marginalise both university research and smaller-scale inquiry.
The discussion broadens into Phalkey's work reframing India and China as "conceptual sites" rather than deviant "cases" measured against a European norm, and closes with her current thinking on critique in the history and philosophy of science, informed in part by Bruno Latour, and on what it means for historians of science to help the public make meaning of research in an age of climate change, AI, and new gene technologies.
In this episode, Phalkey:
Relevant Links
Mentioned scholarship
Note: This conversation was recorded in May, 2026
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Dr Mazviita Chirimuuta, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh and author of The Brain Abstracted: Simplification in the History and Philosophy of Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2024) – winner of the 2025 Lakatos Award and the 2024 Nayef Al-Rodhan International Prize in Transdisciplinary Philosophy from the Royal Institute of Philosophy.
The conversation centres on the central argument of the book: that the leading ideas which have shaped neuroscience are best understood as attempts to simplify the brain, one of the more complex objects of scientific inquiry. Mazviita describes this in practice as a mismatch between the brain's overwhelming complexity and the representations — models, theories, diagrams — that scientists rely on, which necessarily ignore much of that complexity. She identifies three recurring simplifying strategies running through the book — reduction, mathematisation, and analogy — and discusses how "proxy systems," from anesthetised cats to cerebral organoids, let scientists study minimal, decontextualised versions of the brain built using these strategies.
She also discusses the diverging paths of neuroscience and AI research, the risk of conflating predictive power with genuine understanding, and why she advocates for greater theoretical pluralism in how science approaches the brain.
In this episode, Chirimuuta:
Relevant Links
Note: This conversation was recorded at the end of 2025.
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Dr. Magdalena Skipper, Editor-in-Chief of Nature. Skipper has held the role since 2018, and has a background in the genetic sciences. She is also notably the first female — and only the eighth person — to lead the journal since its founding in 1869.
Skipper reflects on what she has worked to preserve and change since taking on the role, from deepening the connection between Nature's research and journalism teams to broadening the journal's scope beyond the natural sciences into engineering, social sciences, and clinical research. Drawing on her training as a geneticist, she discusses how evidence and rigor take different forms across disciplines, and why she sees no single "final word" in science.
The conversation turns to some of the defining pressures on contemporary research culture: the COVID-19 pandemic's paradoxical effect on public trust in science, the discipline-specific nature of the replication crisis, and the rise of meta-science as a lens for understanding how research itself is produced. Skipper also discusses Nature's move toward transparent peer review, the persistent inequities shaping who gets published, and why she remains fundamentally hopeful about science's capacity for self-correction.
In this episode, Skipper:
Relevant Links
Note: This conversation was recorded in October 2025.
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Steven Shapin, Professor Emeritus of the History of Science at Harvard. Shapin reflects on his path into the history and sociology of science and discusses the central concerns of his work: how knowledge is produced, the social foundations of trust in science, the embodied nature of knowledge, and the performance of expertise.
He revisits Leviathan and the Air-Pump, co-authored with Simon Schaffer, outlining the Boyle–Hobbes controversy and showing how seventeenth-century scientific credibility depended on rhetoric, social standing, and performance, while highlighting the broader relevance of the book’s insights into the social foundations of knowledge. Shapin considers contemporary challenges, including political interventions in science and universities, the effects of digital communication, and the fragmentation of expertise, and reframes the “crisis of truth” as a crisis of social knowledge.
Finally, he connects these themes to his recent work on taste and eating (Eating and Being), examining how communities form shared judgments about food and flavour, paralleling the intersubjective construction of objectivity in science.
In this episode:
Transcript being prepared.
Photo: Steven Shapin, Groningen, Netherlands, March 2020, by Newfrogm, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons
Relevant links
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Professor Cordelia Fine — psychologist, award-winning writer, and professor in the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne. Cordelia is one of today’s leading voices on how science and society shape our understandings of gender.
In the conversation, Cordelia discusses her new book Patriarchy, Inc.: What We Get Wrong About Gender Equality – and Why Men Still Win at Work. The book challenges two influential views of gender inequality: the “different but equal” view, or the claim that natural differences between the sexes explain persistent inequalities in work and care; and the “business case” for diversity, which treats equality as worthwhile only when it improves efficiency or profit.
Fine argues that both perspectives misrepresent the problem. Drawing on psychology, sociology, economics, and cultural evolution, she shows how divisions of labour are created and reinforced, how expectations are instilled from childhood, and how workplace structures designed around constant availability clash with the realities of people’s lives.
She concludes by outlining a new vision of gender equality — one that rejects both biological determinism and narrow economic utility, and instead centres justice, fairness, and human wellbeing.
In this episode, Fine:
Relevant Links
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Professor Miriam Solomon, Professor of Philosophy at Temple University and a leading voice in philosophy of science, medicine, and psychiatry.
Solomon reflects on her intellectual trajectory, from her early studies in the natural sciences at Cambridge and her doctoral work at Harvard, to her later contributions in the philosophy of medicine and psychiatry. She describes how questions about knowledge-making — from consensus conferences to evidence-based medicine — led her to examine psychiatry and, most recently, the constitutive role of stigma in shaping psychiatric categories.
In the conversation, Solomon argues that stigma is not only a social force attached to mental illness from the outside but also a factor that has shaped psychiatry from within. It has influenced the recognition, definition, and revision of diagnostic categories, as she illustrates through cases drawn from the history of psychiatry. She situates these examples within broader debates about the nature of psychiatric disorder, the limitations of the DSM, and possible alternative frameworks.
In this episode, Solomon:
Relevant Links
Transcript coming soon.
Photo Credit: Amira Solomon
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Professor Philip Kitcher, John Dewey Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Columbia University and one of the most influential philosophers of science of the past half-century.
Kitcher traces his intellectual journey from his early years at Cambridge and Princeton, where he studied with Thomas Kuhn, Carl Hempel, and Paul Benacerraf, to his later interventions in public debates over creationism, sociobiology, and the Human Genome Project. These experiences, he explains, shifted his understanding of philosophy’s role—from narrow technical problems to broader ethical and political questions.
He also reflects on his evolving views of scientific explanation, his collaborations with historians and sociologists of science, and the recognition of ethical and political dimensions long neglected in philosophy of science. Kitcher concludes with his vision of a pragmatist philosophy that reconnects ethics with politics and ensures science serves democratic ideals and human flourishing in the face of global crises.
In this episode, Kitcher:
Relevant Links
Transcript coming soon
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
This week, Thomas Spiteri is in conversation with Professor Lydia Patton, philosopher of science and historian of the philosophy of science. Patton traces her unexpected journey from ballet to Kantian philosophy and into the emerging field of HOPOS (history of philosophy of science). She reflects on her years as editor-in-chief of the HOPOS journal, she offers her perspective on the field’s future.
Along the way, she highlights the distinctive character of HOPOS as a historically grounded approach to philosophical problems, reflects on her editorial leadership of HOPOS (2017-2024), emphasises the importance of widening the scope of the discipline, and considers the promise and limits of new and emerging methods of research. She concludes by discussing some of areas of research that continue to capture her attention.
In this episode, Patton:
Relevant Links
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
“I love your field. It is making such an important point about scientists who don't understand the extent to which our own upbringing impacts our starting assumptions. It's those starting assumptions that get you in trouble.”
In today’s episode Samara Greenwood returns to interview the pioneering primatologist and evolutionary anthropologist, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, about her latest book Father Time: A Natural History of Men and Babies. The discussion centres on the shifts Sarah made in her personal assumptions through the process of conceiving and writing this work. The notion that men had the capacity to be expert carers of young babies was foreign to Sarah until she experienced it firsthand when her son-in-law took on the role of primary carer to her first-born grandson in 2012. This ‘lived experience’ of expert male care led Sarah not only to a new mindset, but to a new way of theorising about the evolutionary possibilities for baby-care in men.
Relevant Links:
For more on the topic of supporting men in their care of children, see our series on working fathers.
Working Fathers Podcast Mini-Series:
Thanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds.
This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme.
Music by ComaStudio.
Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
