Browsing by Subject "Epistemology"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-11 of 11
  • Tahko, Tuomas (2011)
    The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion, but the literature is biased against recognizing the intimate relationship between these forms of knowledge. For instance, it seems to be almost impossible to find a sample of pure a priori or a posteriori knowledge. In this paper it will be suggested that distinguishing between a priori and a posteriori is more problematic than is often suggested, and that a priori and a posteriori resources are in fact used in parallel. We will define this relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge as the bootstrapping relationship. As we will see, this relationship gives us reasons to seek for an altogether novel definition of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Specifically, we will have to analyse the relationship between a priori knowledge and a priori reasoning, and it will be suggested that the latter serves as a more promising starting point for the analysis of aprioricity. We will also analyse a number of examples from the natural sciences and consider the role of a priori reasoning in these examples. The focus of this paper is the analysis of the concepts of a priori and a posteriori knowledge rather than the epistemic domain of a posteriori and a priori justification.
  • Kemppainen, Teemu; Tiensuu, Paul (2011)
    This article, supported with a translation of a key passage, introduces Georges Canguilhem’s Essai sur quelques problèmes concernant le normal et le pathologique to Finnish readers. It consists of an introduction to Canguilhem's background, a presentation of Essai's main argument and technical remarks on translation. Essai continues to be a thought-provoking text in the history and philosophy of science, in the tradition marked by Bachelard and Cavaillès. Influenced by Alain, Goldstein, and more implicitly Nietszche, Canguilhem defines health not as normality but normativity, i.e. the capacity to institute new vital norms.
  • Grabau, Larry J.; Lavonen, Jari; Juuti, Kalle (2021)
    Finland’s educational prowess, though tempered by recent international assessments, has remained intact. This report focused on lessons that could be learned regarding secondary-level science education from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015, sciencefocused assessment. That PISA iteration included not only science literacy but also students’ science dispositions (epistemology, enjoyment, interest, and self-efficacy) and the schools’ science climate measures (disciplinary climate and teaching support). Due to the hierarchical nature of the PISA data, multilevel models were employed in this Finnish study, involving 5582 students from 167 schools. Science dispositions (as outcome measures) were differently associated with teaching support and disciplinary climate (epistemology with neither; enjoyment and interest, with both). Science literacy (as an outcome measure) was associated with all four science dispositions, whether modeled with each science disposition separately or all four simultaneously. Science literacy was also associated with the disciplinary climate in science classes for all tested models. We concluded that, in the Finnish context, science dispositions and the disciplinary climate were predictive of science literacy. Furthermore, we presented evidence from the literature indicating that these conclusions may well extend to other international contexts.
  • Jurgilevich, Alexandra (2021)
    Vulnerability and risk assessments are one of the most common initial steps in climate change adaptation. Accounting for future vulnerability is necessary, because adaptation is planned for future climate risks. However, future-oriented vulnerability assessments are rare, and methodological and conceptual gaps exist. Particularly, investigating the causes of future vulnerability and understanding the socioeconomic processes driving it requires methodological development and stepping away from common quantitative approaches. At the same time, little attention has been paid to the epistemology of future-oriented vulnerability assessments and its implications for practice, as well as to governance modes where the results are intended to be used. In this paper, I synthesize literature on the epistemology of future-oriented vulnerability assessments, and on the governance modes, as well as discuss their roles in the science and practice of vulnerability assessments. Furthermore, I present a case with a novel mixed methods approach to investigate the mechanisms of future vulnerability development in Helsinki, Finland, for year 2050. I then critically appraise this approach in the light of recent literature from the perspectives of science and practice. Finally, I provide recommendations on connecting governance modes, vulnerability assessments, and epistemological positioning.
  • Niiniluoto, Ilkka (Jyväskylän yliopisto, 2021)
  • Kenter, Jasper O.; Raymond, Christopher M.; van Riper, Carena J.; Azzopardi, Elaine; Brear, Michelle R.; Calcagni, Fulvia; Christie, Ian; Christie, Michael; Fordham, Anne; Gould, Rachelle K.; Ives, Christopher D.; Hejnowicz, Adam P.; Gunton, Richard; Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana; Kendal, Dave; Kronenberg, Jakub; Massenberg, Julian R.; O’Connor, Seb; Ravenscroft, Neil; Rawluk, Andrea; Raymond, Ivan J.; Rodríguez-Morales, Jorge; Thankappan, Samarthia (2019)
    This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of ‘lenses’ and ‘tensions’ to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the ‘mess’ of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.
  • Laamanen, Heimo (Helsingin yliopisto, 2021)
    Abstract Faculty: Faculty of Social Sciences Degree programme: Master of Philosophy Study track: Theoretical Philosophy Author: Heimo Laamanen Title: Process Reliabilism, Justification in the Context of Artificial Epistemic Agents Level: Master Month and year: 06.2021 Number of pages: 84 + 7 Keywords: Epistemology, justification, process reliabilism, artificial epistemic agent, philosophy of artificial intelligence Supervisor or supervisors: Markus Lammenranta and Jaakko Hirvelä Where deposited: Helsinki Unversity Library Additional information: Abstract: The main topic of this thesis is justification for belief in the context of AI--based intelligence software agents. This topic deals with issues belonging to the joint domain of the philosophy of artificial intelligence and epistemology. The objective of this thesis is to discuss a form of process reliabilism for the collaboration environment of human beings and intelligent software agents. The motivation of the study presented in this thesis is due to the ongoing progress of artificial intelligence, robotics, and computer science in general. This progress has already enabled to establish environments in which human beings and intelligent software agents collaborate to provide their users with various information--based services. In the future, we will not be aware of whether a service is offered by human beings, intelligent software agents, or jointly by them. Hence, there are two kinds of information agents, and this gives rise to the following key question: Can an intelligent software agent be also an epistemic agent in a similar way as a human being? In other words, can an intelligent software agent have beliefs, justified beliefs, and more importantly, can it know something? If so, then there is a clear motivation to extend epistemology to include the context of artificial epistemic agents. This, in turn, raises several new questions, such as the following: First, do artificial epistemic agents set any new requirements to epistemological concepts and theories concerning justification? And second, what would be the appropriate theory of justification in the context of artificial epistemic agents? At first, the reader is provided with necessary background information by discussing the following topics: introductions to epistemology; artificial intelligence; a collaborative environment of human beings and artificial epistemic agents; the concepts of information, proposition, belief, and truth; and scenarios with which main ideas are clarified and tested. Then, this thesis introduces a form of applied epistemology including its aim and some requirements for the theories of justification set by the development and operation of artificial epistemic agents. Finally, after setting the scene, this thesis explores process reliabilism including main objections and proposes an enhancement to process reliabilism so that it better addresses the context of artificial epistemic agents. The results are as follows: First, this thesis supports the view that an intelligent software agent can actually be an artificial epistemic agent capable of having beliefs, justified beliefs, and knowledge. Second, there is a clear motivation to extend the domain of epistemology to include artificial epistemic agents. This extension is a form of applied epistemology that has not yet been discussed much in either epistemology or artificial intelligence. Third, this thesis gives reasons for the supposition that the context of artificial epistemic agents sets new requirements to epistemological theories. And finally, this thesis gives motivations to support the idea that a form of process reliabilism called pragmatic process reliabilism could be the appropriate unified theory of justification for belief in the collaborative environment of human epistemic agents and artificial epistemic agents.
  • Pietilä, Tuulikki (Gaudeamus, 2011)
  • Fazey, Ioan; Schapke, Niko; Caniglia, Guido; Hodgson, Anthony; Kendrick, Ian; Lyon, Christopher; Page, Glenn; Patterson, James; Riedy, Chris; Strasser, Tim; Verveen, Stephan; Adams, David; Goldstein, Bruce; Klaes, Matthias; Leicester, Graham; Linyard, Alison; McCurdy, Adrienne; Ryan, Paul; Sharpe, Bill; Silvestri, Giorgia; Abdurrahim, Ali Yansyah; Abson, David; Adetunji, Olufemi Samson; Aldunce, Paulina; Alvarez-Pereira, Carlos; Amparo, Jennifer Marie; Amundsen, Helene; Anderson, Lakin; Andersson, Lotta; Asquith, Michael; Augenstein, Karoline; Barrie, Jack; Bent, David; Bentz, Julia; Bergsten, Arvid; Berzonsky, Carol; Bina, Olivia; Blackstock, Kirsty; Boehnert, Joanna; Bradbury, Hilary; Brand, Christine; Bohme, Jessica; Bojer, Marianne Mille; Carmen, Esther; Charli-Joseph, Lakshmi; Choudhury, Sarah; Chunhachoti-ananta, Supot; Cockburn, Jessica; Colvin, John; Connon, Irena L. C.; Cornforth, Rosalind; Cox, Robin S.; Cradock-Henry, Nicholas; Cramer, Laura; Cremaschi, Almendra; Dannevig, Halvor; Day, Catherine T.; Hutchison, Cathel de Lima; de Vrieze, Anke; Desai, Vikas; Dolley, Jonathan; Duckett, Dominic; Durrant, Rachael Amy; Egermann, Markus; Elsner (Adams), Emily; Fremantle, Chris; Fullwood-Thomas, Jessica; Galafassi, Diego; Gobby, Jen; Golland, Ami; Gonzalez-Padron, Shiara Kirana; Gram-Hanssen, Irmelin; Grandin, Jakob; Grenni, Sara; Gunnell, Jade Lauren; Gusmao, Felipe; Hamann, Maike; Harding, Brian; Harper, Gavin; Hesselgren, Mia; Hestad, Dina; Heykoop, Cheryl Anne; Holmen, Johan; Holstead, Kirsty; Hoolohan, Claire; Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana; Horlings, Lummina Geertruida; Howden, Stuart Mark; Howell, Rachel Angharad; Huque, Sarah Insia; Canedo, Mirna Liz Inturias; Iro, Chidinma Yvonne; Ives, Christopher D.; John, Beatrice; Joshi, Rajiv; Juarez-Bourke, Sadhbh; Juma, Dauglas Wafula; Karlsen, Bea Cecilie; Kliem, Lea; Klaey, Andreas; Kuenkel, Petra; Kunze, Iris; Lam, David Patrick Michael; Lang, Daniel J.; Larkin, Alice; Light, Ann; Luederitz, Christopher; Luthe, Tobias; Maguire, Cathy; Mahecha-Groot, Ana-Maria; Malcolm, Jackie; Marshall, Fiona; Maru, Yiheyis; McLachlan, Carly; Mmbando, Peter; Mohapatra, Subhakanta; Moore, Michele-Lee; Moriggi, Angela; Morley-Fletcher, Mark; Moser, Susanne; Mueller, Konstanze Marion; Mukute, Mutizwa; Muhlemeier, Susan; Naess, Lars Otto; Nieto-Romero, Marta; Novo, Paula; O'Brien, Karen; O'Connell, Deborah Anne; O'Donnell, Kathleen; Olsson, Per; Pearson, Kelli Rose; Pereira, Laura; Petridis, Panos; Peukert, Daniela; Phear, Nicky; Pisters, Siri Renee; Polsky, Matt; Pound, Diana; Preiser, Rika; Rahman, Md. Sajidur; Reed, Mark S.; Revell, Philip; Rodriguez, Iokine; Rogers, Briony Cathryn; Rohr, Jascha; Rosenberg, Milda Nordbo; Ross, Helen; Russell, Shona; Ryan, Melanie; Saha, Probal; Schleicher, Katharina; Schneider, Flurina; Scoville-Simonds, Morgan; Searle, Beverley; Sebhatu, Samuel Petros; Sesana, Elena; Silverman, Howard; Singh, Chandni; Sterling, Eleanor; Stewart, Sarah-Jane; Tabara, J. David; Taylor, Douglas; Thornton, Philip; Tribaldos, Theresa Margarete; Tschakert, Petra; Uribe-Calvo, Natalia; Waddell, Steve; Waddock, Sandra; van der Merwe, Liza; van Mierlo, Barbara; van Zwanenberg, Patrick; Velarde, Sandra Judith; Washbourne, Carla-Leanne; Waylen, Kerry; Weiser, Annika; Wight, Ian; Williams, Stephen; Woods, Mel; Wolstenholme, Ruth; Wright, Ness; Wunder, Stefanie; Wyllie, Alastair; Young, Hannah R. (2020)
    Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.