The Pursuit of Knowledge and the Problem of the Unconceived Alternatives

Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology

2020

Self Cite

The idea that science can be automated is so deeply related to the view that the method of mathematics is the axiomatic method, that confuting the claim that mathematical knowledge can be extended by means of the axiomatic method is almost equivalent to confuting the claim that science can be automated. I argue that the axiomatic view is inadequate as a view of the method of mathematics and that the analytic view is to be preferred. But, if the method of mathematics and natural sciences is the analytic method, then the advancement of knowledge cannot be mechanized, since non-deductive reasoning plays a crucial role in the analytic method, and non-deductive reasoning cannot be fully mechanized.

Section: Penultimate Draft -Please Cite the Published Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematical Proofs and Scientific Discovery

Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology

2020

Self Cite

“…But proving that this is the case is not an easy task (see e.g. Sterpetti, Bertolaso 2018). From an ethical standpoint, consider, for instance, issues of responsibility on data management processes (which entail consistency of data organization and transmission with the original scientific question, contextualization of data, etc.)…”

Section: Penultimate Draft -Please Cite the Published Versionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction. Human Perspectives on the Quest for Knowledge

Bertolaso

Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology

2020

Self Cite

We firstly introduce the new Springer series Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology (HPHST), and then we move on to illustrate the topic this volume deals with, namely whether machines will replace scientists in scientific development. We then explain the decision of having this volume to be the first volume of the HPHST series.Finally, we describe the organization of this book and give a brief presentation of each chapter.

On Mizrahi’s Argument Against Stanford’s Instrumentalism

2018

Axiomathes

Self Cite

Mizrahi's argument against Stanford's challenge to scientific realism is analyzed. Mizrahi's argument is worth of attention for at least two reasons: (1) unlike other criticisms that have been made to Stanford's view so far, Mizrahi's argument does not question any specific claim of Stanford's argument, rather it puts into question the very coherence of Stanford's position, because it argues that since Stanford's argument rests on the problem of the unconceived alternatives, Stanford's argument is self-defeating. Thus, if Mizrahi's argument is effective in countering Stanford's view, it may be able to question the validity of other philosophical positions which similarly rest on the problem of the unconceived alternatives; (2) Mizrahi's argument against Stanford's view is in part based on the development of a Stanford-like argument for the field of philosophy. This makes Mizrahi's argument potentially relevant to the metaphilosophical debate. After careful examination, Mizrahi's argument against Stanford's instrumentalism is found wanting. Moreover, a Stanford-like argument is developed, which aims at challenging the metaphilosophical stance implied by Mizrahi's argument against Stanford's instrumentalism.