Difference between revisions of "Draft:Introduction - en"

<!--5-->We would like our reader to have an immediate perception of the topics that will be debated in '''[[Masticationpedia]]'''; we will review some of the most current issues concerning the epistemological evolution of science in general, and medical as well as dental medicine in particular...

<!--6-->In this phase we will consider the two fundamental aspects of '''Progress of Science''', according to the '''Kuhn Paradigms''', and '''Epistemology''' which questions the concepts of "Statistical Inference" and 'Interdisciplinarity'.

<!--7-->These two themes, which apparently seem to be in conflict with each other, as the first one needs ''disciplinarity'' to highlight the "Anomalies in the Paradigm" and the second needs "''Interdisciplinarity''", they will integrate through a resolving element that consists of "''metacognitive scaffolds''", i.e. cognitive bridges between specialist disciplines. In this context, therefore, the reader will be better able to appreciate the ''stochastic approach'' towards one of the most controversial topics in masticatory rehabilitations, such as, "'''Malocclusion'''", from which come most of the masticatory rehabilitation procedures such as orthodontics, prosthesis and orthognathic surgery.

<!--8-->So, in addition to anticipating the scientific and philosophical aspect of Masticationpedia, we will finally focus on topics such as "Complex Systems", the "Emergent Behaviour" of Complex Systems and "System’s Coherence": necessary steps to introduce scientific clinical topics which bring with them doubts, questions and at the same time paradigmatic innovations tending to change the status quo of the deterministic and reductionist clinical thinking ''routine'', before a stochastic and interdisciplinary language logic.

<!--10-->Before getting to the heart of the Masticationpedia treatment, a premise is appropriate, that mainly concerns two aspects of the social, scientific and clinical reality of the current and the immediately preceding era.

<!--11-->In the last century, we witnessed exponential growth in technological and methodological "Innovations" specifically in dentistry<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>; <!--12-->these innovations have in some way influenced decision-making strategies, opinions, schools of thought and axioms in order to improve quality of life, as stated in the "''Exposure Science in the 21st Century''"<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>. <!--13-->However, this exponential growth brings with it, implicitly, conceptual gray areas (in practical terms "side effects") which are sometimes underestimated, but which may call into question some Scientific Certainties or make them less absolute and more probabilistic.<ref>{{cita libro  

[[File:The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn.jpg|right|thumb|<!--14-->The phases of paradigm change according to Thomas Kuhn]]

<!--15-->The two sensitive aspects of the current social, scientific and clinical reality (which seem to conflict with each other, but as we will see at the end of this reading will be complementary) are the "Progress of Science" according to Kuhn and the "Epistemology".

==<!--16-->Progress of Science according to Thomas Kuhn==

'''Thomas Kuhn''' <!--17-->in his most famous work states that ''science cyclically passes through some phases indicative of its operation''.<ref>Thomas Samuel Kuhn (Cincinnati, 18 <!--18-->july 1922 – Cambridge, 17 <!--19-->june 1996) <!--20-->was an American philosopher of science.<br><!--21-->See Treccani, ''[http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/thomas-samuel-kuhn/ Kuhn, Thomas Samuel]''. Wikipedia, ''[[:wikipedia:Thomas Kuhn|Thomas Kuhn]]''.

  }}</ref> <!--22-->According to Kuhn, ''science is paradigmatic'', and the demarcation between science and pseudoscience can be traced back to the existence of a '''paradigm'''. The evolution of scientific progress is assimilated to ''a continuous curve which undergoes discontinuity in paradigm changes''.  

<!--23-->For example, in phase 2 of the Kuhn Paradigms, called '''Normal Science''', scientists are seen as problem solvers, who work to improve the agreement between the paradigm and nature.  

<!--24-->This phase, in fact, is based on a set of basic principles dictated by the paradigm, which are not questioned but which, indeed, are entrusted with the task of indicating the coordinates of the works to come. In this phase, the measuring instruments with which the experiments are made are developed, most of the scientific articles are produced and its results constitute significant growth in scientific knowledge. In the normal science phase both successes and failures will be achieved; the failures are called by Kuhn ''anomalies'', or ''events that go against the paradigm''.  

<!--25-->As a good problem solver, the scientist tries to solve these anomalies.

<!--26-->Kuhn, however, divides the evolution of a paradigm into '''five phases'''; this is a fundamental process for Masticationpedia, but to keep tuned with the project, we will limit ourselves to describing the two most significant phases:  

*<u>'''''<!--27-->Phase 4'''''</u>, <!--28-->or the '''Crisis of the Paradigm'''<br><!--29-->As a consequence of the crisis, different paradigms will be created during this period. These new paradigms will, therefore, not arise from the results achieved by the previous theory, but rather from the abandonment of the pre-established schemes of the dominant paradigm. <br><!--30-->Following this path, in Masticationpedia, the '''crisis of the masticatory rehabilitation paradigm''' will be discussed reviewing theories, theorems, axioms, schools of thought and the Research Diagnostic Criteria and then the focus will shift on phase 5.

*<u>'''''<!--31-->Phase 5'''''</u>, <!--32-->or the '''Scientific Revolution'''<br><!--33-->Phase 5 deals with the (scientific) revolution. In the period of extraordinary scientific activities, a discussion will open within the scientific community on which new paradigm to accept. But it will not necessarily be the most "true" or most efficient paradigm to come to the fore, but the one that will be able to capture the interest of a sufficient number of scientists and to gain the trust of the scientific community. <br><!--34-->The paradigms that participate in this clash, according to Kuhn, share nothing, not even the bases and, therefore, are not comparable (they are "immeasurable"). The paradigm is chosen, as said, on socio-psychological or biological basis (young scientists replace older ones). The battle between paradigms will resolve the crisis, the new paradigm will be named and science will be brought back to Phase 1. <br><!--35-->For the same principle of Phase 4, Masticationpedia will propose, in the chapter titled ''Extraordinary science'', a '''new paradigmatic model in the field of rehabilitation of the Masticatory System''' discussing its principles, motivations, clinical scientific experiences and, above all, a ''radical change'' in the field of medical diagnostics. This change is essentially based on '''System Inference''', rather than on Symptom Inference, giving mainly absolute value to the objectivity of the data.

<!--36-->It is almost obvious that Kuhnian scientific philosophy prefers disciplinarity, as an anomaly in the genomic paradigm will be noticed better by a geneticist than by a neurophysiologist. Now this concept would seem to be in contrast with the epistemological evolution of Science, so it is better to stop a minute upon it in detail.

==<!--37-->Epistemology==

| width="250" align="right" |<small>''<!--38-->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?<br><!--39-->Really?''</small>

| width="250" |<small>''<!--40-->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?<br><!--41-->Sure?''</small>

<!--42-->'''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.<ref><!--43-->The term is believed to have been coined by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier in his ''Institutes of Metaphysic'' (p.46), of 1854; <!--44-->see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ''[https://www.iep.utm.edu/ferrier/ James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864)]''. [[:wikipedia:James Frederick Ferrier|Wikipedia]]</ref> <!--45-->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.

<!--46-->Incidentally, the basic problem of epistemology today, as in Hume’s time, remains that of verifiability.<ref>[[:wikipedia:David Hume|David Hume]] (<!--47-->Edimburgh, 7 <!--48-->may 1711 – <!--49-->Edimburgh, 25 <!--50-->august 1776) <!--51-->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.</ref><ref>{{cita libro  

<!--52-->The Hempel paradox tells us that each sighted white swan confirms that crows are black<ref><!--53-->Here we obviously refer to the well-known paradox called "of the crows", or "of the black crows", formulated by the philosopher and mathematician [[:wikipedia:Carl Gustav Hempel|Carl Gustav Hempel]], <!--54-->better explained in Wikipedia's article ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raven_paradox&oldid=942633026 Raven paradox]'':<br><!--55-->See {{cita libro

  |anno = 1960|pag=145-149}}</ref>; <!--56-->that is, ''each example not in contrast with the theory confirms a part of it'':<br>

<!--57-->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.<ref>{{cita libro  

<!--59-->...because the very concept of epistemology meets continuous implementations, like in medicine: