Difference between revisions of "Introduction"

*<u>'''''Phase 4'''''</u>, or the '''Crisis of the Paradigm'''<br>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>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>'''''Phase 5'''''</u>, or the '''Scientific Revolution'''<br>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>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>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.

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.

'''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. The term<ref>The term is believed to have been coined by the Scottish philosopher [[:wpen:James Frederick Ferrier|James Frederick Ferrier]], in his '' Institutes of Metaphysic '' (p.46), of 1854; see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ''[https://www.iep.utm.edu/ferrier/ James Frederick Ferrier (1808—1864)]''.</ref> 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<ref>[[:wpen:David Hume|David Hume]] (Edimburgo, 7 maggio 1711[1] – Edimburgo, 25 agosto 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.</ref>, remains that of verifiability.<ref>{{cita libro  

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

::<math>A\Rightarrow B = \lnot A \lor B</math> <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