Difference between revisions of "Draft:Introduction - fr"

==Epistemology==

| width="250" align="right" |<small>''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>Really?''</small>

| width="250" | <small>''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>Sure?''</small>

'''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> 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.<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  

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>; that is, ''each example not in contrast with the theory confirms a part of it'':<br>

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  

{{qnq|<!--58-->But it’s not all so obvious...}}

*'''''<math>P-value</math>''''': <br>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"<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>.<br />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<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>. The campaign criticizes the too simplified statistical analyses that can still be found in many publications to date.<br>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<ref name="wasser">{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>. 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<ref name="wasser" />. Future will show whether or not those attempts to statistically better support science beyond the significance tests will be reflected in future publications<ref>{{cita libro  

  }}</ref>. 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''': <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 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.<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">

==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.<ref>{{cita libro