How has [or will] the prevalence of “big data” – the exploding plethora of information and computing power to classify, categorize and correlate it, combined with Artificial General Intelligence, or strong” AI impact[ed] two of what are arguably the 20th C's most important contributions to the philosophy of science: Quine’s underdetermination of theory by data, and the holism exemplified by “our statements about the external world face the tribunal of the external world not individually but as a corporate body.”

For instance, would the philosophical conundrums revealed/identified by these questions be considered by, or “strike,” AGI as quaint/nonsensical, or would they likely be [re]solved [put to rest, implicitly or explicity] by entities whose computational algorithms [thought processes(?)] we may, or certainly will, never come to understand?

ADDENDUM EDIT: It seems to me obvious how the above question differs from the referenced 2015 post: "How has [or will] the prevalence of “big data” – the exploding plethora of information and computing power to correlate it – impact[ed] (i) the scientific method’s theory/hypothesis formation, (ii) the underdetermination thesis, and (iii) the realist/relativist/ constructivist debate? The question might profitably be bifurcated in terms of the social sciences and the physical sciences."

First: The 2015 query made no reference to AGI. It did not, for instance, implicitly [that is. one way in which the query can be interpreted] ask for a human being's hypothesis about how a machine-that-learns [and makes decisions based upon strategies and criteria that we can hardly describe or understand] might approach, deal with, answer, arguably provocative and perplexing questions in the philosophy of science.

Second: No component of the earlier query made reference to semantic holism, which may be particularly salient [or not] to the processes involved in [one or another type] of AGI.

Third: The present query makes reference neither to the scientific method, nor to issues surrounding theory/hypothesis formation or to the [anti]realism/relativism/constructivism debate.

Fourth: We live in a different world than we did three years ago. Things are moving quickly, particularly in the realm of AI. The technological advances that have been made in that domain over the past three years are substantial; which implies that the scope information from which a relevant answer to this and the earlier question might be derived has expanded. (In this context, consider also that the 2015 post, despite having been answered numerous time, was shut down two weeks after it was posted.)

  • 2
    What impact would some future X have on the philosophical issue Y is not an SE answerable question. I am also not sure why underdetermination is a conundrum, it is pretty well understood, or why big data makes any difference, regardless of what one's position on underdetermination is. – Conifold Dec 1 '18 at 6:40
  • 1
    Holist Underdetermination is the claim (due to Duhem) that theories or hypotheses can only be subjected to empirical testing in groups or collections, never in isolation." – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 1 '18 at 12:14
  • 3
    Thus, the issue is not about "quantity of data" : the hypothesis can never be "ultimately" tested not due to lack of data, vut because they are part of a complex network of theories and hypotheses taht is impossible to disentangle. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 1 '18 at 12:16
  • @Mauro ALLEGRANZA "Impossible to disentangle" for entities with limitations such as ours not only as to data storage/availability capacity (compilation and retention), but capacity to determine the relevance/salience of known data available for use in particular domains of inquiry -- what data sets are salient/relevant to a particular issue. That is, you may be speaking of physical, not logical impossibility. – gonzo Dec 1 '18 at 19:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.