Advanced search
1 file | 615.75 KB Add to list

The end of science? On human cognitive limitations and how to overcome them

Author
Organization
Abstract
What, if any, are the limits of human understanding? Epistemic pessimists, sobered by our humble evolutionary origins, have argued that some parts of the universe will forever remain beyond our ken. But what exactly does it mean to say that humans are 'cognitively closed' to some parts of the world, or that some problems will forever remain 'mysteries'? In this paper we develop a richer conceptual toolbox for thinking about different forms and varieties of cognitive limitation, which are often conflated by the so-called 'new mysterians'. We distinguish between representational access (the ability to develop accurate scientific representations of reality) and imaginative understanding (immediate, intuitive comprehension of those representations), as well as between different modalities (hard vs. soft) of cognitive limitation. Next, we look at tried-and-tested strategies for overcoming our innate cognitive limitations, drawing from the literature on distributed cognition and cognitive scaffolding'. This allows us to distinguish between the limits of bare brains vs. scaffolded brains. Most importantly, we argue that this panoply of mind-extension devices is combinatorial and open-ended. In the end, this allows us to turn the table on the mysterians: for every alleged 'mystery', they should demonstrate that no possible combination of mind extension devices will bring us any closer to a solution.
Keywords
Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, New mysterianism, Cognitive closure, Epistemic boundedness, Imaginative understanding, Representational access

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 615.75 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Boudry, Maarten, et al. “The End of Science? On Human Cognitive Limitations and How to Overcome Them.” BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, vol. 35, no. 1, 2020, doi:10.1007/s10539-020-9734-7.
APA
Boudry, M., Vlerick, M., & Edis, T. (2020). The end of science? On human cognitive limitations and how to overcome them. BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-9734-7
Chicago author-date
Boudry, Maarten, Michael Vlerick, and Taner Edis. 2020. “The End of Science? On Human Cognitive Limitations and How to Overcome Them.” BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY 35 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-9734-7.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Boudry, Maarten, Michael Vlerick, and Taner Edis. 2020. “The End of Science? On Human Cognitive Limitations and How to Overcome Them.” BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY 35 (1). doi:10.1007/s10539-020-9734-7.
Vancouver
1.
Boudry M, Vlerick M, Edis T. The end of science? On human cognitive limitations and how to overcome them. BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY. 2020;35(1).
IEEE
[1]
M. Boudry, M. Vlerick, and T. Edis, “The end of science? On human cognitive limitations and how to overcome them,” BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, vol. 35, no. 1, 2020.
@article{8644365,
  abstract     = {What, if any, are the limits of human understanding? Epistemic pessimists, sobered by our humble evolutionary origins, have argued that some parts of the universe will forever remain beyond our ken. But what exactly does it mean to say that humans are 'cognitively closed' to some parts of the world, or that some problems will forever remain 'mysteries'? In this paper we develop a richer conceptual toolbox for thinking about different forms and varieties of cognitive limitation, which are often conflated by the so-called 'new mysterians'. We distinguish between representational access (the ability to develop accurate scientific representations of reality) and imaginative understanding (immediate, intuitive comprehension of those representations), as well as between different modalities (hard vs. soft) of cognitive limitation. Next, we look at tried-and-tested strategies for overcoming our innate cognitive limitations, drawing from the literature on distributed cognition and cognitive scaffolding'. This allows us to distinguish between the limits of bare brains vs. scaffolded brains. Most importantly, we argue that this panoply of mind-extension devices is combinatorial and open-ended. In the end, this allows us to turn the table on the mysterians: for every alleged 'mystery', they should demonstrate that no possible combination of mind extension devices will bring us any closer to a solution.},
  articleno    = {18},
  author       = {Boudry, Maarten and Vlerick, Michael and Edis, Taner},
  issn         = {0169-3867},
  journal      = {BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY},
  keywords     = {Philosophy,History and Philosophy of Science,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,New mysterianism,Cognitive closure,Epistemic boundedness,Imaginative understanding,Representational access},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {16},
  title        = {The end of science? On human cognitive limitations and how to overcome them},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-9734-7},
  volume       = {35},
  year         = {2020},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: