The Impact of Digitalization on the Practice of Scientific Prevision: the Main Effects and Risks

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY VOPROSY FILOSOFII Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.21146/0042-8744-2024-5-160-170
Sofia Pirozhkova
{"title":"The Impact of Digitalization on the Practice of Scientific Prevision: the Main Effects and Risks","authors":"Sofia Pirozhkova","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2024-5-160-170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Digitalization and its impact on the practices of scientific prevision and everyday predictive practices, as well as on the strategies of scientific and everyday cogni­tion, is a problem that is increasingly widely discussed both in scientific circles and on public platforms. The article clarifies what is meant by the process of dig­italization and how it turns out in relation to scientific activity. It’s substantiated that the rapid progress of forecasting as a strategy of scientific foresight over the last century is due to both the growth of the capabilities of applied mathemat­ics and the departure from the modern project of science as unlimited in its pre­dictive capabilities. As a result, obtaining predictions based on laws is supple­mented, and in some areas, replaced by the practice of prevision “beyond the limit of predictability” – by identifying quasi-regularities based on empirical information characterizing the behavior of the object. Despite the fact that pre­dictive activity is formed primarily by quantitative methods, by the 1970s their limitations in the field of social processes are recognized. The limitations are due to the complexity of collecting and, as a consequence, the lack of empirical in­formation, and digitalization leads to a better representation of social processes by fixing their course in the digital environment. All this information can be ac­cumulated and processed thanks to big data technologies, which leads to the emer­gence of a computational social science project. It is shown that this project is in­tegrated into a broader theoretical and cognitive initiative of the new empiricism, which calls for abandoning theories as a less effective way of ordering empirical information and moving from actual facts to the facts of possible experience, re­placing them with more effective – calculations based on big data. The existing arguments against the ideas of new empiricism are analyzed, and it is concluded that in addition to big data, other risks associated with the use of artificial intelli­gence in scientific cognition should be analyzed.","PeriodicalId":46795,"journal":{"name":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2024-5-160-170","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Digitalization and its impact on the practices of scientific prevision and everyday predictive practices, as well as on the strategies of scientific and everyday cogni­tion, is a problem that is increasingly widely discussed both in scientific circles and on public platforms. The article clarifies what is meant by the process of dig­italization and how it turns out in relation to scientific activity. It’s substantiated that the rapid progress of forecasting as a strategy of scientific foresight over the last century is due to both the growth of the capabilities of applied mathemat­ics and the departure from the modern project of science as unlimited in its pre­dictive capabilities. As a result, obtaining predictions based on laws is supple­mented, and in some areas, replaced by the practice of prevision “beyond the limit of predictability” – by identifying quasi-regularities based on empirical information characterizing the behavior of the object. Despite the fact that pre­dictive activity is formed primarily by quantitative methods, by the 1970s their limitations in the field of social processes are recognized. The limitations are due to the complexity of collecting and, as a consequence, the lack of empirical in­formation, and digitalization leads to a better representation of social processes by fixing their course in the digital environment. All this information can be ac­cumulated and processed thanks to big data technologies, which leads to the emer­gence of a computational social science project. It is shown that this project is in­tegrated into a broader theoretical and cognitive initiative of the new empiricism, which calls for abandoning theories as a less effective way of ordering empirical information and moving from actual facts to the facts of possible experience, re­placing them with more effective – calculations based on big data. The existing arguments against the ideas of new empiricism are analyzed, and it is concluded that in addition to big data, other risks associated with the use of artificial intelli­gence in scientific cognition should be analyzed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字化对科学预防实践的影响:主要影响和风险
数字化及其对科学预测实践和日常预测实践的影响,以及对科学认知和日常认知策略的影响,是科学界和公共平台日益广泛讨论的一个问题。文章阐明了数字化进程的含义及其与科学活动的关系。文章证实,预测作为一种科学展望战略,在上个世纪取得了飞速发展,这既是由于应用数学能力的增长,也是由于科学摆脱了预测能力无限的现代计划。因此,以规律为基础的预测得到了补充,在某些领域甚至被 "超越可预测性极限 "的预测实践所取代,即根据描述对象行为特征的经验信息确定准规律性。尽管预测活动主要由定量方法形成,但到 20 世纪 70 年代,人们已经认识到这些方法在社会进程领域的局限性。其局限性在于收集信息的复杂性,以及因此而导致的经验信息的缺乏,而数字化则通过在数字环境中固定社会进程的过程,更好地呈现社会进程。所有这些信息都可以通过大数据技术进行积累和处理,这就导致了计算社会科学项目的出现。新经验主义要求摒弃理论,因为理论是对经验信息进行排序的一种不太有效的方式,并要求从实际事实转向可能的经验事实,取而代之的是更有效的--基于大数据的计算。本文分析了反对新经验主义观点的现有论据,并得出结论:除了大数据之外,还应分析在科学认知中使用人工智能所带来的其他风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
VOPROSY FILOSOFII
VOPROSY FILOSOFII PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: "Вопросы философии" - академическое научное издание, центральный философский журнал в России. В настоящее время является органом Президиума Российской Академии Наук. Журнал "Вопросы философии" исторически тесно связан с Институтом философии РАН. Выходит ежемесячно. Журнал был основан в июле 1947 г. Интернет-версия журнала запущена в мае 2009 года.
期刊最新文献
The Guardian of the History of Philosophy: On Nelly Motroschilova’s Philosophical Beginnings Maimonides, Gersonides and Crescas on Prophets and Prophecy The Neurological Interpretation of the Myth-ritual Complex: Pro et Contra Worlds of Consciousness in the Context of Multiverse Conceptions Specifics of Expert Activity in Modern Applied Science (Review of Survey Results)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1