Epistemology

This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

Epistemology

The black swan symbolizes one of the historical problems of epistemology: if all the swans we have seen so far are white, can we decide that all the swans are white?
Really?
 
Kuhn used optical illusion to demonstrate how a paradigm shift can cause a person to see the same information in a completely different way: which animal is the one here aside?
Sure?

Epistemology (from the Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistème, "certain knowledge" or "science", and λόγος, logos, "speech") is that branch of philosophy which deals with the conditions under which scientific knowledge can be obtained and the methods for achieving such knowledge.[1] The term specifically indicates that part of gnoseology which studies the foundations, validity and limits of scientific knowledge. In English-speaking countries, the concept of epistemology is instead mainly used as a synonym for gnoseology or knowledge theory — the discipline that deals with the study of knowledge.

Incidentally, the basic problem of epistemology today, as in Hume’s time, remains that of verifiability.[2][3]

The Hempel paradox tells us that each sighted white swan confirms that crows are black[4]; that is, each example not in contrast with the theory confirms a part of it:

 

According to the objection of falsifiability, instead, no theory is ever true because, while there are only a finite number of experiments in favour, there is also theoretically an infinite number that could falsify it.[5]

But it’s not all so obvious...

...because the very concept of epistemology meets continuous implementations, like in medicine:

  •  :
    In medicine, for example, to confirm an experiment, a series of data coming from laboratory instruments or from surveys, the "Statistical Inference" is used, and in particular a famous value called "significance test" (P-value). Well, even this concept, now part of the researcher's genesis, is wavering. In a recent study, attention was focused on a "Campaign" conducted on "Nature" against the concept of "significance tests"[6].
    With over 800 signatories supporting important scientists, this "campaign" can be considered an important milestone and a "Silent Revolution" in statistics on logical and epistemological aspects[7][8][9]. The campaign criticizes the too simplified statistical analyses that can still be found in many publications to date.
    This eventually led to a discussion, sponsored by the American Statistical Association, which spawned a special issue of "The American Statistician Association" titled "Statistical Inference in the 21st Century: A World Beyond p <0,05", containing 43 articles by forward-looking statisticians[10]. The special question proposes both new ways to signal the importance of research results beyond the arbitrary threshold of a P-value, and some guides to conduct of research: the researcher should accept uncertainty, be reflective, open and modest in his/ her statements[10]. Future will show whether or not those attempts to statistically better support science beyond the significance tests will be reflected in future publications[11]. In this field too, we are on the same wavelength as the Progress of Science according to Kuhn, in that we are talking about the re-modulation of some descriptive statistical contents within the scope of disciplinarity.
  • Interdisciplinarity:
    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[12]. 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 due to 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.
    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.
    In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds help interdisciplinary communication analyse and articulate how the discipline builds knowledge[13][14]

P-value vs. Interdisciplinarity

Given the above, on a superficial view of the epistemic evolution of the Science, the two aspects of disciplinarity ("Physics Paradigm of Science", highlighting the anomaly) and Interdisciplinary ("Engineering Paradigm of Science", metacognitive scaffold), might seem to be in conflict with each other; in reality, however, as we are just going to see right in this chapter, they are two sides of the same coin because both tend to generate "Paradigmatic Innovation" without any conflict at all.

Now we could conclude that the "Innovations" are already "Progress of Science" in themselves, as stated in the article "Scientific basis of dentistry" by Yegane Guven, in which the effect of biological and digital revolutions is considered on dental education and daily clinical practice, such as personalized regenerative dentistry, nanotechnologies, virtual reality simulations, genomic information and stem cell studies.[15] The innovations mentioned by Guven are obviously to be considered as technological and methodological in nature; however, the Progress of Science does not move forward with this kind of Innovations, which are called "Incremental Innovations" and "Radical Innovations", but it occurs substantially through "Paradigmatic Innovations".

In the strictest sense of the phrase, "Paradigmatic Innovations" are essentially a change of thought and awareness that pervades the whole of humanity, starting from different social strata, from the Copernican scientific revolution to the current trend of Stochastic approach to the biological phenomenon[16].

In this epistemological context (in addition to other initiatives such as the Research Diagnostic Criteria in the field of the Temporomandibular Disorders — RDC/TMDs), of the Evidence Based Medicine (and other), the Masticationpedia project inserts itself in order to highlight the dialectics dynamism about the progress of the masticatory rehabilitation science. Masticationpedia tends, moreover, to highlight the anomalies that inevitably stimulate a change of thought and therefore a "Paradigmatic Innovation".

Before proceeeding, it could be appropriate to observe a very concrete and significant case.

Bibliography

  1. The term is believed to have been coined by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier in his Institutes of Metaphysic (p.46), of 1854; see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864). Wikipedia
  2. David Hume (Edimburgh, 7 may 1711 – Edimburgh, 25 august 1776) was a Scottish philosopher. He is considered the third and perhaps the most radical of the British Empiricists, after the Englishman John Locke and the Anglo-Irish George Berkeley.
  3. Srivastava S, «Verifiability is a core principle of science», in Behav Brain Sci, Cambridge University Press, 2018, Cambridge.
    DOI:10.1017/S0140525X18000869 
  4. Here we obviously refer to the well-known paradox called "of the crows", or "of the black crows", formulated by the philosopher and mathematician Carl Gustav Hempel, better explained in Wikipedia's article Raven paradox:
    See Good IJ, «The Paradox of Confirmation», in Br J Philos Sci, 1960 – in Vol. 11. 
  5. Evans M, «Measuring statistical evidence using relative belief», in Comput Struct Biotechnol J, 2016.
    DOI:10.1016/j.csbj.2015.12.001 
  6. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B, «Scientists rise up against statistical significance», in Nature, 2019.
    DOI:10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 
  7. Rodgers JL, «The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: a quiet methodological revolution», in Am Psychol, 2010.
    DOI:10.1037/a0018326 
  8. Meehl P, «The problem is epistemology, not statistics: replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions», 1997. , in eds Harlow L. L., Mulaik S. A., Steiger J. H., What If There Were No Significance Tests? - editors. (Mahwah: Erlbaum, 393–425. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sprenger J, Hartmann S, «Bayesian Philosophy of Science. Variations on a Theme by the Reverend Thomas Bayes», Oxford University Press, 2019, Oxford. 
  10. 10.0 10.1 Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA, «Moving to a World Beyond p < 0.05», in Am Stat, 2019.
    DOI:10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913 
  11. Dettweiler Ulrich, «The Rationality of Science and the Inevitability of Defining Prior Beliefs in Empirical Research», in Front Psychol, 2019.
    DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01866 
  12. European Union, Horizon 2020
  13. Boon M, Van Baalen S, «Epistemology for interdisciplinary research - shifting philosophical paradigms of science», in Eur J Philos Sci, 2019.
    DOI:10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4 
  14. Boon M, «An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool», in Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2017.
    DOI:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001 
  15. Guven Y, «Scientific basis of dentistry», in J Istanb Univ Fac Den, 2017.
    PMID:29114433 - PMCID:PMC5624148
    DOI:10.17096/jiufd.04646 
  16. Zhao XF, Gojo I, York T, Ning Y, Baer MR, «Diagnosis of biphenotypic acute leukemia: a paradigmatic approach», in Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2010.
    PMID:19918331 - PMCID:PMC2776262