The “pseudoscience” component: disciplines or theories that present themselves as scientific but are not at all, such as astrology, creationism, and – not to be taken for granted – homeopathy. The latter, formulated by Samuel Hahnemann in his principles in the first half of the nineteenth century, promises to cure certain diseases with very diluted doses of particles treated according to certain procedures. It surrounds itself with the terms and methods of medicine (and run by doctors and pharmacists) but no, it’s not a science. So what is science? In the definition of epistemologists, in progress, it is “a systematic project aimed at knowing the world around us by explaining and predicting its phenomena.” In other words, and with similar meanings, it is also an “attempt to apply certain methods to the study of the world” … The element of “discovery and justification”: is the contradiction between the conception of a new hypothesis and its confirmation, through predictions, checks and evaluations. In 1928 Fleming discovered penicillin, examining the effect of mold on bacteria culture (it’s not a spoiler: mold has wiped out evil bacteria). It was an accidental discovery, but not only attributable to luck: the scientist’s experience and intuition played a decisive role in observing the phenomenon, proceeding with experiments to verify its validity, and thus justify it … The “feminist” element: Feminist philosophies have introduced new topics into the scientific debate, Masculine prejudices, based on male logic and functions, emerge and deconstruct the concept of scientific knowledge as “universal and objective”. And yes, the discussion and cognitive practices have become very complex, but many of the perks are (or are about to unravel) and the reality is becoming more real…
Other “voices” probe probabilities, experiences, extrapolations, values, in what appears to be an excerpt from an encyclopedic dictionary. In fact, it is an article that, for the vocabulary model, only has the possibility to consult it freely. The sound after the sound depends on the sensitivity and curiosity of the individual. At the end of the reading, make sense of it: an introduction to understanding the most recent topics in the philosophical debate about science. The union, the reversal, between the two disciplines is the path that has been put off for many decades, until these times are so complex and circular, to the present that it needs clarity, based, in fact, on the scientific method. The authors, Maria Cristina Amoretti and Davide Serpico, are philosophers engaged in the practice (and teaching) of this discipline. Someone might say, more than anyone else, in this country with an old academy, that they are “young philosophers”. Who else, if not under the age of 50, can help bring the humanistic and social approach to the real world? There is a way to overcome attempts to do a popular philosophical exercise tik tok or higher Instagram and undemocratic austerity for Italian university chairs. It is immersion in the present, knowing and making known the most innovative methods, and researching not only archival volumes for an unpublished part of other eras. The philosophical view advanced by Amoretti and Serpico is based on what is happening in scientific laboratories and in a society that is transformed with the human digital function; It is comprehensive and comprehensive but does not find it difficult to exclude knowledge – pseudosaperi – harmful; Science is considered “something of this world”, imbued with moral, political, gender and economic values.
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
