Changes

==Final considerations==

==Final considerations==

We took a long and tortuous path to better understand the complexity encountered by the colleague struggling with the very heavy ethical responsibility of making a diagnosis. However, this task becomes even more complex when we need to be detailed and careful in making a differential diagnosis. Here, we enter a delicate topic that is connected with the epistemological contents and first of all that was reported in the "[[Introduction]]" chapter of:

We took a long and tortuous path to better understand the complexity encountered by the colleague struggling with the very heavy ethical responsibility of making a diagnosis. However, this task becomes even more complex when we need to be detailed and careful in making a differential diagnosis.  

 

Here, we enter a delicate topic, that is connected with the epistemological contents and that first of all was reported in the "[[Introduction]]". We are talking about:

*'''Interdisciplinarity''': <br>''In science policy, it is generally recognized that science-based problem solving requires interdisciplinary research ('''IDR'''), as proposed by the EU project called Horizon 2020<ref>European Union, ''[https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges Horizon 2020]''</ref>. In a recent study, the authors focus on the question why researchers have cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. It is believed that the loss of philosophical interest in the epistemology of interdisciplinary research is caused by a philosophical paradigm of science called "Physics Paradigm of Science", which prevents recognition of important IDR changes in both the philosophy of science and research.<br>The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm, called 'Engineering Paradigm of Science', makes alternative philosophical assumptions about aspects such as the purpose of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for the acceptance of knowledge and the role of technological tools. Consequently, scientific researchers need so-called metacognitive scaffolds to assist them in the analysis and reconstruction of how 'knowledge' is constructed in different disciplines.<br>In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds help interdisciplinary communication analyse and articulate how the discipline builds knowledge<ref name=":0">{{cita libro  

*'''Interdisciplinarity''': <br>''In science policy, it is generally recognized that science-based problem solving requires interdisciplinary research ('''IDR'''), as proposed by the EU project called Horizon 2020<ref>European Union, ''[https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges Horizon 2020]''</ref>. In a recent study, the authors focus on the question why researchers have cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. It is believed that the loss of philosophical interest in the epistemology of interdisciplinary research is caused by a philosophical paradigm of science called "Physics Paradigm of Science", which prevents recognition of important IDR changes in both the philosophy of science and research.<br>The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm, called 'Engineering Paradigm of Science', makes alternative philosophical assumptions about aspects such as the purpose of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for the acceptance of knowledge and the role of technological tools. Consequently, scientific researchers need so-called metacognitive scaffolds to assist them in the analysis and reconstruction of how 'knowledge' is constructed in different disciplines.<br>In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds help interdisciplinary communication analyse and articulate how the discipline builds knowledge<ref name=":0">{{cita libro