Concepts as Tools in the Experimental Generation of Knowledge in Cognitive Neuropsychology

Feest, Uljana

doi:10.4245/sponge.v4i1.11938

Cited by 38 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What I have tried to highlight is that theoretical frameworks, however preliminary or vague they are, are needed to restrict this plurality. The first step is to assume an identity between an operational concept and a theoretical concept, and the importance of such bootstrapping assumptions was also emphasized in other fields such as experimental psychology (Sullivan, 2008;Feest, 2010). From that point on, the process is one of gradual correction of both terms to resolve inconsistencies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living Instruments and Theoretical Terms: Xenografts as Measurements in Cancer Research

Germain

2014

New Directions in the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I discuss the relationship between theoretical terms and measuring devices using a very peculiar example from biomedical research: cancer transplantation models. I do so through two complementary comparisons. I first show how a historical case study can shed light on a similar case from contemporary biomedical research. But I also compare both to a paradigmatic case of measurement in the physical sciences -thermometrywhich reveals some of the most relevant epistemological issues. The comparison offers arguments for the recent debate on the operational definition of Cancer Stem Cells, and thereby suggests the relevance of a comparative approach in the history and philosophy of science.As I argue in the first part of this paper, so-called xenograft "models" of cancer are often used not as models in the traditional, analogical sense, but as measuring devices. This prompts the question of what it is that they measure, and of the relationship they entertain with it. To investigate these issues, I compare two cases of xenograft as measurements with the prototypical example of a measuring device: the thermometer. I rely on the work by Hasok Chang on the history and epistemology of thermometry (Chang, 2004). Behind the apparent simplicity of thermometers lies a daunting epistemological problem, which he labels "the problem of nomic measurement": in a nutshell, there are a variety of thermometers giving inconsistent (not linearly correlated) readings, and we would need to know already what temperature is in order to know which one gives the right reading. I highlight some relevant similarities between his history of thermometry and the examples I will present from cancer research. In both cases, instruments and theories have a reciprocal stabilizing role: the instruments are at the same time means subordinated to theoretical understanding, and theoretical terms are means of bridging different instrumental and operational contexts. Finally, the comparison sheds some light on a contemporary debate in cancer research.In the first part of this paper, I present the instrumental role that organisms sometimes play in biomedical research (section 1.1), and apply this concept to early xenograft models of cancer

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living Instruments and Theoretical Terms: Xenografts as Measurements in Cancer Research

Germain

2014

New Directions in the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we just saw, such paradigmatic conditions of applications are typically provided by experimental paradigms, which in turn have as a central component a measurement procedure or test. Operational definitions, thus, are specifications of how to empirically measure the (presumed) object of interest, 12 and operationism emphasizes the importance of using operational definitions as tools for the empirical exploration of purported or ill-understood objects of research (or, in the terminology adopted in this paper, of epistemic things), thus highlighting the pragmatic and temporary character of such 'definitions' (Feest 2010). Moreover, by urging scientists to explicate their operational definitions, the maxim of operationism emphasizes the importance of making transparent some of the implicit conceptual presuppositions engrained in an experimental design.…”

Section: Operational Definitions and Norms Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remembering (Short-Term) Memory: Oscillations of an Epistemic Thing

Feest

2011

Erkenn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an interpretation of Hans-Jörg Rheinberger's notions of epistemic things and historical epistemology. I argue that Rheinberger's approach articulates a unique contribution to current debates about integrated HPS, and I propose some modifications and extensions of this contribution. Drawing on examples from memory research, I show that Rheinberger is right to highlight a particular feature of many objects of empirical research (''epistemic things'')-especially in the contexts of exploratory experimentation-namely our lack of knowledge about them. I argue that this analysis needs to be supplemented with an account of what scientists do know, and in particular, how they are able to attribute rudimentary empirical contours to objects of research. These contours are closely connected to paradigmatic research designs, which in turn are tied to basic methodological rules for the exploration of the purported phenomena. I suggest that we engage with such rules in order to develop our own normative (epistemological) categories, and I tie this proposal to the idea of a methodological naturalism in philosophy of science.

show abstract

“…Instead of scientific knowledge firstly being a representation of how the world is independent of humans, they propose to characterize knowledge as epistemic tools (Nersessian 2009, Boon and Knuuttila 2009, Feest 2010, Knuuttila and Boon 2011, Boon 2012a, Green 2013. 3 Here, it is suggested that 'knowledge as representation' (in a correspondence sense) is deeply embedded in the physics paradigm whereas 'knowledge as epistemic tool' is central to the engineering paradigm.…”

Section: What Is Knowledge? Knowledge As Epistemic Tool (Element I-b mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nersessian (2009), for instance, has used detailed history of science studies to argue that novel scientific concepts arise from attempts to solve specific problems, where scientists utilize conceptual ideas (such as analogies), and analytical and material resources. Feest (2010), Chang (2004 and Boon (2012a) add that in many cases the initial conceptual content of a scientific concept is determined by the 'paradigmatic experiment' in which its purported phenomenon manifests and is investigated. An example (not given by these authors) is the concept of 'yield' of micro-organisms (i.e., the amount of substrate consumed for its growth).…”

Section: What Is Knowledge? Knowledge As Epistemic Tool (Element I-b mentioning

confidence: 99%

An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool

Boon

2017

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to deal with the complexity of biological systems and attempts to generate applicable results, current biomedical sciences are adopting concepts and methods from the engineering sciences. Philosophers of science have interpreted this as the emergence of an engineering paradigm, in particular in systems biology and synthetic biology. This article aims at the articulation of the supposed engineering paradigm by contrast with the physics paradigm that supported the rise of biochemistry and molecular biology. This articulation starts from Kuhn's notion of a disciplinary matrix, which indicates what constitutes a paradigm. It is argued that the core of the physics paradigm is its metaphysical and ontological presuppositions, whereas the core of the engineering paradigm is the epistemic aim of producing useful knowledge for solving problems external to the scientific practice. Therefore, the two paradigms involve distinct notions of knowledge. Whereas the physics paradigm entails a representational notion of knowledge, the engineering paradigm involves the notion of 'knowledge as epistemic tool'.

show abstract

Concepts as Tools in the Experimental Generation of Knowledge in Cognitive Neuropsychology

Cited by 38 publications

References 22 publications

Living Instruments and Theoretical Terms: Xenografts as Measurements in Cancer Research

Living Instruments and Theoretical Terms: Xenografts as Measurements in Cancer Research

Remembering (Short-Term) Memory: Oscillations of an Epistemic Thing

An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: Knowledge as epistemic tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About