Mohammad Ali Ashouri Kisomi; Maryam Parvizi
Abstract
The Epistemic Bubble and the Echo Chamber are two phenomena of the Post-Truth area that deny scientific knowledge. The Epistemic Bubble exposes the individual to unbalanced arguments by eliminating knowledge outside the bubble and strengthening trust in the knowledge within it. In contrast, the Echo ...
Read More
The Epistemic Bubble and the Echo Chamber are two phenomena of the Post-Truth area that deny scientific knowledge. The Epistemic Bubble exposes the individual to unbalanced arguments by eliminating knowledge outside the bubble and strengthening trust in the knowledge within it. In contrast, the Echo Chamber does not eliminate the knowledge outside the chamber but makes it unreliable. This unreliability of knowledge outside the room is accompanied by an increase in trust in knowledge inside the Echo Chamber. Both of these phenomena are common in building trust in knowledge within their community and distrust of scientific knowledge. In this paper, using the analytical-descriptive method, a solution to get out of the Epistemic Bubble and the Echo Chamber is presented. In this path, first, the two phenomena of Epistemic Bubbles and Echo Chambers are examined. Then Hoyningen-Huene’s Systematicity theory will be introduced. Systematicity theory shows that in common subjects, scientific knowledge in nine dimensions is more systematic than everyday knowledge. According to this theory, systematicity means that scientific knowledge is not purely random or accidental, is not chaotic, not completely unplanned nor unordered, and is methodological. The results show that the comparative nature of this theory helps to distinguish between knowledge in the Epistemic Bubble or Echo Chamber and Science. This theory will help us find a way to check the reliability of the acquired knowledge and make it possible for the person to get out of the Epistemic bubble and the Echo Chamber.
maryam parvizi; Mohammad Ali Ashouri Kisomi
Abstract
At first glance, it seems that we can find similarities between the possible worlds proposed by Lewis and the theory of parallel worlds in physics. Both of these theories point to the possibility of the existence of worlds other than the one we live in. After Everett's theory, physicists’ attention ...
Read More
At first glance, it seems that we can find similarities between the possible worlds proposed by Lewis and the theory of parallel worlds in physics. Both of these theories point to the possibility of the existence of worlds other than the one we live in. After Everett's theory, physicists’ attention was drawn to the notions of the multiverse and parallel universes. Parallel worlds are one of the theories that scientists and researchers in the field of physics are interested in. David Lewis, relying on physicalism and modal realism, is one of the supporters of the theory of possible worlds. In this paper, the foundations of the two theories are explained using the analytical-descriptive method, and then, using the comparative method, Lewis's possible worlds theory and parallel worlds are scrutinized. Both theories accept the existence of other worlds. Lewis's theory has six main features: 1- the existence and reality of possible worlds; 2- the absence of a causal relationship between possible worlds; 3- the similarity of possible worlds to our world and the difference in the content of possible worlds; 4- the impossibility of reducing possible worlds; 5- indexical reality; and 6- the space-time unity of branches in a world and incoherency in time-space relations among worlds. The results of this research show that if parallel universes are confirmed as a scientific fact, then the second, third, and sixth features of Lewis's theory may conflict with physical reality. If there is a contradiction due to the fundamental nature of these features, Lewis's theory of possible worlds will suffer a lot.
